Ray Jay wrote:mixed race parents? I don't get that.

People born over 40 years ago in states or areas with strong anti 'miscegenation' culture may not have had parents who bounced happily up to the state offices to get state registration of the evidence of their crime/shame. I doubt it's an issue for people being born now, but things have changed a lot within the liftetimes of the older generation.

I also believe in some areas people would get non-State birth certification, from church mainly. Would States have the power or inclination to collect that data and allow people to get 'recognised' certification.

The purpose of the utility bills is to prove residency. I would think that all states have some requirements to prove residency if you want to vote. Sure you can vote for President, but in which state, and in which local district. Which Congressperson and State Senator and potential Dog Catcher should appear on your particular ballot? I imagine this discriminates against citizens without any fixed residence, such as the homeless. Frankly, I suspect that not being able to vote is not top on their list of issues.

Well, not all of the homeless are hobos. I doubt living in a hostel means you have a utility bill. I get that you want to know which ward someone lives in and is entitled to vote in. I'm not sure how many proofs of residence are fair considering it's about individuals not households (as school registration and property taxes would be).

No doubt there are alternative procedures if you happen to live somewhere but don't pay the utility bills.

If there are alternatives, it would be interesting to know what they are.

You need to prove residency to send your kids to school because we fund our schools through local property taxes. There have been cases where people have district hopped, which can be severely punished.

A common problem all over the world. And not too hard to hack either.

neal

That being the case there's nothing inherently wrong with using ID in voting, but it has to be part and parcel of a greater whole of many factors related to enfranchisement in voting. In a tight vote all the sudden the validity of each vote becomes very integral the question of enfranchisement.

I agree entirely with your post. I think one of the problems in the US is the standards for identification and other electoral laws change from state to state. (Varying State laws over voting and registration disenfranchised many Blacks for years...) A standardized federal citizens's ID would eliminate some of the perceptions that ID laws are being used to eliminate Democratic voters.

Mississippi has the highest percentage of blacks in the nation at 38%, virtually all of whom vote Democrat, yet the Republicans have a virtual stranglehold on the state and all but one of it's federal positions.

Neal Anderth wrote:Mississippi has the highest percentage of blacks in the nation at 38%, virtually all of whom vote Democrat, yet the Republicans have a virtual stranglehold on the state and all but one of it's federal positions.

So I am curious what you are trying to imply? That black Mississippians do not vote or that they are some how disenfranchised?

There is also a third possibility. They are not monolithic group as voters. An example would be my hometown. Democrats out register Republicans by a significant amount. It regularly goes Democratic for national offices (President, & Congress) yet locally, we traditionally have Republican majorities in local office. In other words our Democrats tend to vote D for national office but R for local office.

Well, either that or a lot of them only turn out for national elections, which seems more likely.

Neal's figures are interesting though. I think we can take it as a given that the overwhelming majority of the blacks in Mississippi will be Dem voters, so why is it one of the reddest states in the Union ? The explanation must be either that a staggering proportion of the majority whites are Republicans (staggering because whites don't tend to vote as an ethnic bloc in the same way that minority groups are known to do) or that a helluva lot of the blacks in the state don't bother to vote at all. The truth is probably a combination of those factors. I don't know if Neal is trying to imply some kind of mass voter suppression tactics but it seems unlikely.

Probably one of the better place to look, and likely a host of factors involved.

Again I don't think any of us find some kind of ID as being extraordinary, but that doesn't mean that voter suppression isn't happening or exacerbated by the change.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/04/appeals-court-oks-ariz-voter-id-voids-proof-of-citizenship/1#.T47qm9WQnKc

If this goes to the Supreme Court; and I am sure it will; does it become the law of the land that would not be challenged anymore because of stare decsis? I am sure that there are some who are willing to say that you can challenge some cases, and not others.

To me, that is a double standard on both sides.

Gosh, a double standard, Brad! How do you keep finding them?

Just got back into Redscape after a long absence. Have not had the time to read thru all of this posts under this topic but the central idea seems to be whether or not picture IDs need to be shown in order to vote. Voting is arguably the most important right/responsibility/duty of a citizen in our country. It should be easy to do but not to the point it has gotten to in many areas. There is too much of a chance for fraud. I need a photo ID to buy beer, buy cigarettes, drive a car, get a passport, and any number of other things. Why would one not be required to protect our most basic institutions? Why haven't the Democrats ranted about our military absentee ballot problems? Maybe because most in the military are not progressives and would most likely not vote for one. If you do not drive, the state will still issue a non-driver photo ID. The long list of problems that opponents always note about issues involved in getting a photo ID are blown out of all proportion. Requiring a photo ID will lessen, but not eliminate, the chance for fraud. For the people that can get a photo ID but don't, too bad. If you are too lazy to get up and get one I don't want you deciding who is going to be running the country. I have no idea just how widespread the real issue is, but ANY fraud is unacceptable and I can't see why any thinking person could object to strengthening the integrity of the system. And forget the Supreme Court. It all depends on when the case gets there. If our current president packs it with more unqualified sycophants then who knows what will happen to this issue or any others whe/if they get there.

Its easy, Owen. I just open my eyes...

Just heard Nikki Haley over the weekend. They put out the word that ANYONE having trouble getting to a state office to get their free picture ID would have transportation provided to them free of charge. In the entire state, how many people do you think actually needed help? Think the number was 23. WOW. The LSDs want to steal as many elections that they can and picture iDs will, at least, help prevent election fraud.

Looks like the vote suppressing crowd in the South took a lump on this one.

A victory for voting rights out of Florida this week: a federal court in Tallahassee blocked key provisions of the state’s new voter suppression law which discourages voter registration drives. The new law is so extreme that groups such as The League of Women Voters stopped registering voters entirely, and two teachers were threatened with fines for registering students in their classrooms under the guise of cracking down on ‘voter fraud.’

The ACLU, along with a coalition of civil rights groups, represents The League of Women Voters, Rock the Vote and other impacted groups in a constitutional challenge to the law, arguing that restricting the rights of individuals and organizations to engage in the political process without a compelling state interest was a violation of the First Amendment. The judge agreed: “soliciting an application [to register to vote] is core First Amendment speech.”

Florida leaders didn’t see it that way. Here in the Sunshine State, manipulating elections has taken priority over free speech.

The judge also wrote, “The short deadline, coupled with substantial penalties for noncompliance, make voter registration drives a risky business. If the goal is to discourage voter registration drives and thus make it harder for new voters to register, the 48-hour deadline may succeed.”

Clearly, as we have argued from the very beginning, the new law aims to make it harder for people to register to vote. And limiting opportunities for voters to register has a real impact on both the people who do voter registration as well as the voters and communities they engage.

Neal Anderth wrote:Looks like the vote suppressing crowd in the South took a lump on this one.

A victory for voting rights out of Florida this week: a federal court in Tallahassee blocked key provisions of the state’s new voter suppression law which discourages voter registration drives. The new law is so extreme that groups such as The League of Women Voters stopped registering voters entirely, and two teachers were threatened with fines for registering students in their classrooms under the guise of cracking down on ‘voter fraud.’

The ACLU, along with a coalition of civil rights groups, represents The League of Women Voters, Rock the Vote and other impacted groups in a constitutional challenge to the law, arguing that restricting the rights of individuals and organizations to engage in the political process without a compelling state interest was a violation of the First Amendment. The judge agreed: “soliciting an application [to register to vote] is core First Amendment speech.”

Florida leaders didn’t see it that way. Here in the Sunshine State, manipulating elections has taken priority over free speech.

The judge also wrote, “The short deadline, coupled with substantial penalties for noncompliance, make voter registration drives a risky business. If the goal is to discourage voter registration drives and thus make it harder for new voters to register, the 48-hour deadline may succeed.”

Clearly, as we have argued from the very beginning, the new law aims to make it harder for people to register to vote. And limiting opportunities for voters to register has a real impact on both the people who do voter registration as well as the voters and communities they engage.

First, great source (not). The ACLU is so "fair."

Second, how dare Florida try to remove dead and illegal voters from their rolls? According to the ACLU, that's "voter suppression."

Third, an ID is required to drive, to drink, to buy alcohol in a bottle, to get utilities for your home, to buy weapons, to buy cold and allergy medicine, and probably a score more of activities. Yet, somehow, it is onerous and unreasonable in order to vote?

There are even "provisional" ballots if you forget your ID at home. There is zero reason not to require valid ID when voting.

Dr. Fate:

Third, an ID is required to drive, to drink, to buy alcohol in a bottle, to get utilities for your home, to buy weapons, to buy cold and allergy medicine, and probably a score more of activities. Yet, somehow, it is onerous and unreasonable in order to vote?

I'm currently collecting birth certificates so that my son's 8 year old's baseball team can plan in the local travel league (basically within one county in Mass.). No birth certificate, no play in League!

Ray Jay wrote:Dr. Fate:

Third, an ID is required to drive, to drink, to buy alcohol in a bottle, to get utilities for your home, to buy weapons, to buy cold and allergy medicine, and probably a score more of activities. Yet, somehow, it is onerous and unreasonable in order to vote?

I'm currently collecting birth certificates so that my son's 8 year old's baseball team can plan in the local travel league (basically within one county in Mass.). No birth certificate, no play in League!

But, I guarantee you I could vote in all 5 sections of the town I live in. All I would need is a name and an address because no one asks for ID in MA!

Voting--not important.

Little League--national security issue.