Redstate

Why common sense escapes a rabid liberal.

Allergies maybe. With all the crying about fraud they did in the last 2 elections, you'd think they'd embrace anti-fraud measures. Of course, if they didi that, they'd have nothing left to fall back on next time they get spanked

just a mirror. If they can identify the person in the mirror or make a fog on it, they are better off mentally and physically than most Dim voters.

You don't need to show ID. You don't have to be registered. You don't even need a piece of mail with your name on it (though that works). You only need someone to vouch for you. How's that for common sense?

I think  that this is a better law then the one last year.  I agreed with the sentiment that it can put a burden on the poor.

The argument here will be that it's inconveint or hard to get an ID if you're poor.

I think we want to make sure that is dealt with as well.

the same thing.  The Dems are always screaming about this kind of thing.  See my diary here: http://kholtsberry.redstate.com/story/2005/12/8/16042/9518

The socialist AARP also oppose this voter-fraud measure.

That is that people don't understand about "voter fraud prevention".

And we all know who which Party is guilty of past voter fraud.

I've only been out of Georgia for 7 months , so I've been following this one pretty close as well on the AJC blogs. I commend the leadership there for at least making the IDs free, but still it seems a little one sided: they only require ID for those who vote at the polls. For the thousands who register absentee, it's not an issue. Seems to me like there would be more fraud in the absentee ballots, since you don't even have to show up in person:

In Georgia, where the legislature recently passed a restrictive new voter ID bill, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has spent the last several months covering allegations of voter fraud. Writing in those pages, Republican State Rep. Willie Talton claimed that, "in the modern world that we live in today, there are too many people who steal identities and commit voter fraud." He went on to cite several convictions in the 1990s in a "massive" voter fraud case, where two elections were thrown out and several individuals imprisoned. But Talton fails to mention that the vote-buying case in question involved absentee voting--a form of voting made easier by the new Georgia law and one that cannot be regulated by a photo ID requirement.

There should be an across-the-board secure way to look at the absentee votes as well. To me, they (absentee ballots) seem to go unchecked and unnoticed--constituting a higher chance of fraud.

I'm not sure how buying a $8 (not sure of the exact cost) photo ID is a burden on anyone. A photo ID is a pretty essential part of life. How do you cash checks (government or otherwise) without an ID? How are you supposed to buy alcohol or cigarettes?

Even a bum living on the street with no government assistance can come up with $8 if he cares enough.

I'm not sure about Georgia but I presume it's like Florida --- the state charges a fee for the issuance of a driver's license. So the state issued ID will be free while the driver's license will have a fee.

Seems to me there is a legitimate grounds for a legal action that drivers are now the ones being penalized :-)

I don't think it's a major problem yet, but it certainly could become one. I would like to see absentee voting more restricted, but it doesn't seem like that is going to happen. It has become easier and easier to get and cast absentee in most places.

When 99% of their members are in it for the discounts and coupons and don't necessary agree with any of their positions.

This would be to argue that because we don't insure voting integrity in one area, we shouldn't insure it anywhere.

Were the bill to address that, the Dem refrain would be that GOP is ... oh, c'mon, guess: "disenfranchising" all who are currently registered absentee.  Absentees are still a HUGE source of fraudulent votes for Democrats, and they would object just as strenuously.

Is you can make sure they filled it out right before handing over the cigarettes.

Awesome! How do you like our 50 degree January weather today? Darn global warming!

It is true what he says about Minnesota. My wife is not an American citizen. She came to the polling place with me last November so she could see what elections are like here in the US.

We live in an overwhelmingly Democratic district in the Twin Cities. So I'm sure that the lady at the front desk assumed that we would vote that way. She kept insisting that my wife could vote! I had to argue with her that permanent residents are not allowed to vote in US elections. And this is the person running the freakin' polling place!

If we pass comprehensive voter fraud protections, Democrats will have to struggle to be elected dogcatcher in vast swaths of America. Wisonsin will go red in presidential elections for the next generation if they are able to elect Mark Green governor so he can sign their voter fraud measure.

I would wager that quite a few of those AARP members (50+ remember) are in it for the "gimmies" from the government.

nfm

These people often use their SS card for most things.  The AARP's position here seems obvious.

Hopefully the answer to the Democrats Motto-Vote Early and Vote Often.

a) Conservatives legitmately believe that 1) this act will not deter the poor and the elderly who legitimately have the right to vote, that 2) there is a significant problem with voter fraud, that 3) this law will sove such issue, and 4) the voter fraud issue is larger than the amount of people who will be deterred (i.e. 2 outweighs 1)

and

b) Liberals legitmiately believe that 1) this act will deter the poor and the elderly who legitmiately have the right to vote, that 2) there is no significant problem with voter fraud, that 3) this law will do little to solve any voter fraud, and 4) that the amount of people who will be deterred is larger than any voter fraud issue (i.e. that 1 outweighs 2)?

Is there any chance that what's going on here is a legitamite debate about the proper process of Democracy?  Or is the only possible explanation is that one side doesn't like democracy and thinks they have to cheat to win?  I'd like to think that given the late focus on loving America and all that jazz, that we'd have a higher opinion of its citizens.

I think this post applies to the Democrats (who on policy grounds I think are correct, but are equally wrong on motive allegations) here and at DailyKos who have been screaming "disenfranchisement" as the only motive here.  While I am concerned with disenfranchisement as a policy matter, I don't think its the reasoning behind (most of, though sadly its clear from one lawmaker's statement not all of) the backers of this (unfortunate, in my view) piece of legislation.

... and they can use their SS card to vote in Georgia, too.  They can use any one of the following:

(1) a valid Georgia driver's license;

(2) a valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification;

(3) a valid United States passport;

(4) a valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;

(5) a valid Georgia license to carry a pistol or revolver;

(6) a valid pilot's license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authorized agency of the United States;

(7) a valid United States military identification card;

(8) a certified copy of the elector's birth certificate;

(9) a valid social security card;

(10) certified naturalization documentation;

Seems to me that any responsible adult would have a hard time opening their wallet without at least one of the above falling out. The AARP's position here seems obvious.

1. Certainly, a larger percentage of that demographic have given up driving than those between 18 and 50, but virtually all driving seniors continue to drive for many, many years after they become AARP eligible, and even those who are forced by health concerns to stop driving don't simply throw away their licenses. Voting seniors without driver's licenses are a tiny minority.
   
2. There's a statement printed right on the SS card that the card is not to be used as identification.

The AARP's position is obviously political, not practical.

The new law restricts it to only a few forms of identification, all state issued, all with a photograph.

that people dont use it as such.  You're conflating the "merits" of their position and the reasoning why they would take the position.  A defense lawyer may end up with an argument that's flawed - that's the merits.  The REASON the defense lawyer takes such a pro-defendant view of the law is because he represents a DEFENDANT.

I'd rather not get into a debate about the merits of this bill, because as mentioned before, nobody here is willing to grant the other side even the presumption of wanting an honest debate.

no ID's are required.  I went to vote in 2004, gave the official my name, he went down the registered voter list, found my name and checked me off.  I had presented my license, he looked up at me and said, "no ID's required".  I glanced at the registration sheet and saw my son's name next to mine.  He was a deployed Marine and was registered in CA where he got an absentee ballot but had never cancelled his AZ voter registration.  Anyway, I said to the official, "Hey, I see my son's name.  Since he's out of the country, I'll come back in a couple of hours and vote for him.  OK?"  "No problem." said the official.

I didn't, but I thought about calling the AZ Repugnant, having a reporter come with me and getting a ballot (not casting it) to show just how easy fraud is to commit.

government, but from private companies, and most of those discounts can be beat by shopping around.  My parents believe they are getting large discounts from companies because they belong to AARP.  Even when I have shown them that their discounts are small and not competitive, they have chosen to stay with the companies anyway out of loyalty.

I don't presume to speak for everyone, but it's true that I believe the opposition to laws requiring sufficient ID for voting is based on a desire to benefit from votes that are illegally cast.

Do you deny that lax voting procedures lead to vote fraud? Do you deny that candidates (or partisans acting on behalf of candidates) encourage others to vote illegally?

a) Conservatives legitmately believe that 1) this act will not deter the poor and the elderly who legitimately have the right to vote, that 2) there is a significant problem with voter fraud, that 3) this law will sove such issue, and 4) the voter fraud issue is larger than the amount of people who will be deterred (i.e. 2 outweighs 1)

I don't dispute the fact that requiring voters to present valid photo identification imposes a minimal hardship for those who do not already possess the necessary ID. For that matter, requiring voters to register prior to voting imposes a similar hardship. Requiring them to actually show up at a polling place and to stand in line, or to properly request and fill out an absentee ballot? Same thing.

But all these small hardships are absolutely necessary to ensure the integrity of elections.

There has always been ample motive for partisans for a particular candidate to attempt to cheat on elections. Lax voting regulations simply match motive with opportunity.

And thus I'll refrain from telling you what I think of your argument.

However, if you can't argue your position without violating the guest etiquette, it doesn't speak very well for your argument.

OTOH, perhaps you're implying I was disrespectful to you and you are restraining yourself from replying in kind ... I'd have to take issue with that.

I think this is what proposition 200 was supposed to address, when does it go into effect?

I just answered my own question, as of december last year, ID's are required in Arizona.

See prop 200's site.

why requiring photo identification to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or to cash a check or use a credit card could be a hindrance to folks trying to do one of those things and have the ACLU file suit to stop that practice.

With respect to the idea that lack of photo id might result in the "disenfranchisement" of potential voters, my comment is "good".  If someone is too lazy or too stupid to get a photo id, they've got no business voting in the first place.  My guess is that without a photo id they will have to walk to the polling place anyway.  So, if someone is willing to provide rides to vote, let them provide rides to get an id.

Personally, I think the voter registration rolls should be completely purged every ten years and all voters required to re-register.  Everything about our current registration system, starting the "motor voter" laws and ending with no ID requirement, is an open invitation to voter fraud.

With the largest county (King = Seattle) now in the process of converting to 100% mail voting, Washington State is moving fairly quickly to match Oregon's all-mail ballot.  This is more of a change in degree than kind, as three-quarters of all votes were "absentee" even before most counties abandoned polling stations.

Although Seattle has a (notoriously inept and probably dishonest) Elections Supervisor, in most Washington counties the Auditor is also the chief elections official.  When I asked our Whatcom County Auditor how she assured that prospective registrants were citizens and entitled to vote, she explained that it was an "honor system" and that there was a written warning right on the registration form that said it was a crime to register if you weren't eligible. That sure sounds watertight, n'est pas?

Whether it's a federal motor-voter requirement or not, Washington State law mandates that every drivers license applicant be offered voter registration forms.

We do have a new statewide database network intended to check voter registration lists for duplicates, felons and matches to SSA or Health Department death indicies.  It's only a month old, so it isn't clear yet whether it's efective.

But the margin for error can sometimes be incredibly small.  Perhaps you'll remember that Democrat Christine Gregoire won the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election by less that 150 votes out approximately three million cast.  About five thousandths of one percent, in other words.  

If the 19 felon-voter referrals in my county of 170 thousand population were extrapolated to the whole state -- and that would be a very conservative estimate -- it would total about 670.  This would have been more than four times the margin of victory in the gubernatorial contest.

Interestingly, today's AP report provides the first feedback from Washington's new statewide voter registration database network. And it was only yesterday evening that I first mentioned it.

Out of 3.5 million total registered voters there were 36,000 apparent duplicates and 12,000 that appeared to be listed as deceased by the state Department of Health. Together that's about 1.4% of the total.

(By comparison, I previously reported that a 0.005% margin decided the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election.)

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, widely regarded as a RINO in party circles, has not yet said exactly how many of these suspected duplicates and deceadents voted, although he's quoted as saying "most of the questioned registrations are inactive, meaning that they haven't voted in at least three years."

Unless you guys are using the inky finger trick, open registration like that is a stupid idea.  Why not get a few buses worth of die hard supports and make a circuit of registering to vote at new polling placse all day?  

Here's the new required ID:

(1) A Georgia driver's license which was properly issued by the appropriate state agency;

(2) A valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification, provided that such identification card contains a photograph of the elector;

(3) A valid United States passport;

(4) A valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state

If the amended law passes judicial muster, then the fuzzy-voting forces will have shot themselves in the foot.  The smorgasbord of easily-faked ID's will be gone, replaced by a more austere regimen of government-issued picture ID's.  But hey... you asked for a free ID, you got it.