Voter ID?

JerryBobCo

Where do you stand on voter ID laws?

I'm for them. I understand how it can pose hardships on some voters, but I also think that there can be provisions to voter ID laws to make it easy, at little or not cost, to low income people.

I don't see any reason why one should not be expected to prove that they are who they say they are, live where they claim to live, in order to vote.

Make_My_Day

I don't see anything wrong with making a person prove who they are for voting. Florida been doing this for quite while.

conchokid

I find it amusing that among the many places where you need a photo ID is to get into the building where Eric Holder works, the Dept. of Justice in Washington. The very same Attorney General Holder who is suing several states for having voter ID laws. He maintains that it is unfair to the poor and to minorities because it is too difficult to get an ID card.
Other situations where you must have a photo ID are to check out a library book, cash a check or even apply for food stamps.
It's nothing more than a blatant attempt to try to get more Democrats to the polls.

Make_My_Day

conchokid wrote: »

He maintains that it is unfair to the poor and to minorities because it is too difficult to get an ID card.

We all know this is a LIE! They want to make sure dead people, felons and illegal aliens get to vote, plain and simple.

JerryBobCo

conchokid wrote: »

I find it amusing that among the many places where you need a photo ID is to get into the building is where Eric Holder works, the Dept. of Justice in Washington. The very same Attorney General Holder who is suing several states for having voter ID laws. He maintains that it is unfair to the poor and to minorities because it is too difficult to get an ID card.
Other situations where you must have a photo ID are to check out a library book, cash a check or even apply for food stamps.
It's nothing more than a blatant attempt to try to get more Democrats to the polls.

I wonder how Holder would feel about allowing someone to legally purchase a firearm without showing a photo id. Maybe he can only read odd numbered amendments.

tennmike

I'm definitely for it. It will at least help make the elections a bit more honest. Anyway, if I have to show photo I.D. for a pack of smokes or a bottle of Jack Daniels, at 59 years old, no less, then they can at least show a photo I.D. to do something much more important.

NN

Have to have an ID for everything else, so everyone should have an ID already.

sakodude

I suspect the only one who oppose voter id's are those with nefarious intent. Those who wish to exersize their civic duty voting for those who would represent them in government should have no qualms about proving who they are and where they live.

Sako

mkk41

I've got no problem with it. I always carry my PA photo drivers license and PA photo license to carry firearm along with my Montg.Co.PA issued voters registration card. And at my small town polling place , they know me.

orchidman

Overwhelmingly in favour of voter ID.

Would even go so far as to say that to qualify for a 'photo voter ID' you should have to prove you pay taxes on money you earn .......

lightkeeper

sakodude wrote: »

I suspect the only one who oppose voter id's are those with nefarious intent. Those who wish to exersize their civic duty voting for those who would represent them in government should have no qualms about proving who they are and where they live.
Totally agree!
I've posted on some local forums; "Don't see what all the hubbub is about having to show an ID to vote. Lots of voters here in Cook County have always had Death Certificates."

bullsi1911

I have to have ID to:
Get married (First amendment, free exercise of religion)
File a court case (First Amendment, petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
Buy a Gun from an FFL Holder (Second amendment)
Carry a gun (Second amendment)
Travel (Drive, fly, take a train or bus)
Stay at a hotel
Enter a federal building
Buy cigarettes
Buy Alcohol
and all sorts of other activities....

yes somehow, only asking for ID at the voting booth is an issue, and one that 'unfairly targets minorities'. I don't get it.

JerryBobCo

bullsi1911 wrote: »

I have to have ID to:
Get married (First amendment, free exercise of religion)
File a court case (First Amendment, petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
Buy a Gun from an FFL Holder (Second amendment)
Carry a gun (Second amendment)
Travel (Drive, fly, take a train or bus)
Stay at a hotel
Enter a federal building
Buy cigarettes
Buy Alcohol
and all sorts of other activities....

yes somehow, only asking for ID at the voting booth is an issue, and one that 'unfairly targets minorities'. I don't get it.

Obviously, the solution is to pass a law that doesn't require minorities/poor/disenfranchised to show photo ID for any of these things. The only thing is that they will need a way to prove that they fit into one of these categories. A photo ID for that should work.

Problem solved.

samzhere

Voter ID makes total sense. Which is of course why the Democrats oppose it.

You can't perform most any job or task without a photo ID these days, jobs or actions that are far less important that voting.

I do say this about voter ID laws: Inherent in a photo ID law should be fast and govermnent-paid free ID issue. You go to the local drivers license or courthouse annex and apply, after giving some reasonable paperwork proof of whom you are, they take a photo (just like a non-drivers license -- my girlfriend has one) and they mail it to you asap.

And I say that okay, people who could pay might say "I can't afford the 15 bucks" and sneak past, but ALL that should be done is a simple question "Can you pay the fee?" and if no, the card is free.

I know this would waste some money but it would forever shut up the critics. And frankly, most people who can pay (say 10-15 bucks, max) would still pay out of embarrassment. Some Democrats who could afford it would still cheat but that's to be expected.

Bottom line, ANY potential criticism of the difficulties of getting a photo ID have to be dealt with.

Naturally, plenty of people still wouldn't be able to qualify, since they're ILLEGAL ALIENS. And of course, some perfectly legal citizens are wanted felons and other people with warrants out, but they're not likely the type to seek a voter ID in the first place.

bobbyrlf3

Definitely for. It's not a 'hardship' at all. And even if it were, it would be a worthwhile hardship.

Airedale

I don't see anything unreasonable to the providing of identification.
Our servicemen, who may be younger than 21, are required to prove their age to buy beer or cigarettes, or vote.
But..it's OK for them to go to the middle east to have their lives ended or to return home alive but missing limbs.
What am I missing here?

Airedale

I don't see anything unreasonable to the providing of identification.
Our servicemen, who may be younger than 21, are required to prove their age to buy beer or cigarettes, or vote.
But..it's OK for them to go to the middle east to have their lives ended or to return home alive but missing limbs.
What am I missing here?

Sorry for the double post.

coolgunguy

Another 'for'....Here in Wisconsin, we just recently passed a voter I.D. law and even more recently had both a temporary and a permanent injunction filed in Dane county, which is where the capitol is. All the usual reasons: it's racist, it's anti poor folks, its' anti old folks, it's a move to 'disenfranchise' thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.....blah, blah, blah.:yawn:

CHIRO1989

Here is an interesting video taken in MN illustrating the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=GqMVxeZhflI&feature=player_embedded

beartracker

Definitely for voter ID !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gunrunner428

To drive, you have to renew your license every few years. To vote, it's a ONE-TIME DEAL to get a voter registration card. Then that little driver's license (or the even EASIER to get non-driving state-issued ID) should be everything needed to vouch for your accurate information.

I'm for the Voter ID - especially considering most of the other needs to present ID are for personal use, voting is something that affects too many others to treat it so cavalierly.

Of course, ACORN would view this differently...

Barryd

Anyone that doesn't have a photo ID does not vote. Period.

Varmintmist

for 100%

There is no hardship involved. If it is to difficult to go get a ID, then it will be way out of the way to go vote anyway.

edit, IMO, do away with absentee for anyone NOT in the military. Military vote could be done a month early and their votes caculated FIRST. No more early voting either.

DoctorWho

IDs are NOT the main issue here, it is ancillary to what is considered "Civil Rights" etc... and how much Government intrusion is legal in our lives, free ID cards are issued many times, library cards are issued on application, so are voter registration cards, I have never been asked to pay for one.

It has been years since I was asked for ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, A National ID would be great, IMHO.

CaliFFL

Varmintmist wrote: »

for 100%

edit, IMO, do away with absentee for anyone NOT in the military.

I'm all for voter ID.

However, absentee voting is an absolute necessity for millions of people. I frequently travel for work. If it wasn't for absentee voting I would've missed the last two elections.

Let's not forget hunting season! November 6th is awful close to the rut! :jester: