-

- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
23 Oct 2016, 6:54 am
bbauska wrote:danivon wrote:Now, you want ID to be mandatory even for the housebound who want an absentee ballot. How do you do it? Do you have paid election officials go around to check their ID?
Sounds fine to me, only for those who need special treatment. I voted absentee for 20 years. I needed to show ID to the voting officer to send with the request for ballot. I suppose that is too hard, and I should have a right to gripe about the disparate treatment.
I am so downtrodden.
Help, help, I 'm being repressed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY
As I understand it, military absentee ballots are usually dealt with differently from civilian, primarily because being in the military gives them more control over you. But you got paid for it and volunteered, so it is not quite the same.
Anyway, now you built am exception in, how do you check for entitlement to it? A doctor's note?
-

- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
23 Oct 2016, 9:47 am
It is not different. There is a voting officer who has absentee request forms. That is the same as an election official.
I am fine with a written request to the voting official requesting home visit, and need being determined by that official.
-

- JimHackerMP
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm
23 Oct 2016, 12:05 pm
BTW I was wrong about Maryland requiring a photo ID only. Check this out, on the NVRA (national voter registration act).
http://www.elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/nvra.htmlPersonally I think both sides put too much emphasis on this debate. I can agree it's silly to require photo ID at the polls, but equally silly to accuse anybody of trying to reinstate Jim Crow by doing so.
-

- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
24 Oct 2016, 4:37 am
JimHackerMP wrote:BTW I was wrong about Maryland requiring a photo ID only. Check this out, on the NVRA (national voter registration act).
http://www.elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/nvra.htmlPersonally I think both sides put too much emphasis on this debate. I can agree it's silly to require photo ID at the polls, but equally silly to accuse anybody of trying to reinstate Jim Crow by doing so.
Except that when North Carolina's law was struck down, it was because the changes were unfair and there was evidence that had been the intent. Not necessarily "Jim Crow", but certainly to favour one party over the other based on propensity to vote in particular ways.
I agree that the debate is largely overblown, given the very small amount of fraud (and that a lot of that documented fraud would not necessarily have been prevented by ID requirements). But I am very wary of people saying we should make it harder to vote for everyone, on the basis that most can deal with an extra hurdle. Those that cannot will either lose their voice (and they would tend to be those already on the margins of society), or have to have expensive systems put in place - eg: having to pay election agents to visit them to check ID and/or entitlement to absentee ballots.
The reason we build in exceptions is that not every scenario fits into a simple black and white view of the world. They tend to be added precisely because simpler rules lead to problems.
-

- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
29 Oct 2016, 12:34 pm
Oh my, here is some voter fraud.
http://iowapublicradio.org/post/des-moi ... d#stream/0A Des Moines woman has been charged with Election Misconduct, a Class D felony, after allegedly voting twice for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Terri Rote says she was afraid her first ballot for Trump would be changed to a vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
"I wasn't planning on doing it twice, it was spur of the moment," says Rote. "The polls are rigged."