The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6316683.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6316683.html)

Just so everyone doesn't think Oklahoma as the draconian state, Voter ID is becoming popular elsewhere. Texas even already has a requirement to produce voter registration cards, which will be superceded if passed.

Dems still try to insist a "3-4 percent" reduction in eligable voters without providing any evidence of such. Two states which enacted Voter ID prior to last Novembers' Presidential Election each had growth in turnout, so don't know where, or by what means the 3-4 percent is arrived upon. Even then, voters unable to produce proper ID will be allowed to cast 'Provisional Ballots', just as in Oklahoma, which can be counted later once the identification is verified.

All the people want is fair elections. All Dems seem to want is votes, no matter from where they come.

Not much different than the republicans wanting to revoke a person's voting status if they are homeless (i.e. no address).  Now is it?

The funny thing is that the case the U.S. Supreme Court found voter ID's permissible came out of Indiana, which went for Obama.

Indiana at least allows you to get a free photo id, which is probably why it ended up being upheld by the SC.

I still think it's stupid for the reasons I outlined in the other thread, but such is life.

As far as increased turnout, of course there will be increased turnout in a hotly contested election where emotion is running high on all sides where young people are registering in droves. That doesn't support a conclusion that it's not preventing part of the population from voting.

In fact, the CNN story Guido linked in the other thread had a couple of grafs specifically about a person who had been robbed a few days before the election and was thus unable to vote because she couldn't get a replacement ID in time.

and I still see it as a non-issue.  I need to show an ID to get into the Federal Courthouse, need to show an ID to pickup a package from the postal service, I need to show an ID to get into an airport, at a bank, to get a fishing license, cash a check, to buy a damn beer . . .

But to vote, oh, we'll take your word for it.

Provide a mechanism for people to get a free ID and I I'm happy if it passes.

I'd say voting is a more fundamental right than any of the things you mentioned.

OK, how about a finger print or photograph then? 

Everyone carries that with them.  It would be simple with the new print/facial identification software to search for duplicates or folks who are not eligible due to felony.  You have to give a fingerprint now when you get a Driver's license, and it doesn't seem to be discriminatory?

Would Democrats be in favor of that?

Expose real reason now. . .

The ID requirement is to protect the fundamental rights of all American citizens.  I don't care what the ID is, as long as it is superior to the system we have now.  We encounter fraud on both sides during every election and it is completely and totally preventable. 

If they want to take a print or photograph at registration and match it at the polling place, that's ok too, so long as they can come up with reliable matching on short order.

You shouldn't have to have something with you to vote. That thing can easily be lost or stolen.

Indiana has that and it passed the court test. :D

I agree, voting is a much more fundamental right.  It is much more important than any of those other things I mentioned.  But as it stands, my right to vote can be taken away by anyone who knows my name and polling place.

I'm really not interested in stopping anyone from voting. I have no secret agenda.  I just think as it now stands voting fraud would be the easiest and most untraceable crime:  voting logs are public record.  Go get the logs to see who lives where, how they are registered, and how often they vote (everyone running for any office gets this information, well, except Paul Tay).  If a person hasn't voted in the last 4 local elections assume they won't vote this time and send someone to the poll in their place.  Repeat with a variety of friends.  In a local election or primary this could easily turn the tide - and who would ever know?  

Poll workers have NO WAY of knowing.  The election official certifying the results have no way of knowing.  The only way they could possibly tell is by surveying voters and asking if they went to the poll today to check against the logs.  Which of course doesn't happen.

A happy medium has to exist between securing the polls to a minimal extent and concerns about privacy (I don't want the government taking more biometrics on citizens) and voter exclusion.  A photo ID or PIN on a voter registration card seems to be the easiest solution (just like your IRS tax return, just asks you to make one up and it prints for the poll workers to verify and on your registration card to help you remember . . . something).  I don't think it's a big problem, but why wait until it is to do something about such an elementary problem?  The days of poll workers recognizing voters is gone.

+1 to you Nathanm.

I don't think many of your fellows will agree.  We will have to see how this pans out.  Printed ID cards will probably be less important during the next election cycle.  California is already using facial identification cameras at the DMV.  They know who you are when you walk up to the counter, and it has stopped a huge amount of fraud.

Many view this as an invasion of privacy, but your identity is really not a privacy issue.  They are not using the system to see what you had for breakfast or to get the balance of your bank account, they are simply identifying you.

That's what the signature is for. It's much harder to get a sample of someone's signature and make a believable forgery (even to the untrained eye) than it is to find someone's name/address/precinct info.

A PIN would be fine, too, as long as you can change it in the days leading up to the election if you've forgotten (with some sort of verification of identity, of course)

I'm not OK with having to have more than yourself and something you know to verify your identity. Documents can be lost without time to replace prior to the election. If you have to have some sort of document, you might as well make it

All that said, it seems the lot of you would blow a gasket if Oklahoma was like Oregon and had only mail in voting. That has practically no security. (aside from the signature)

And does the voting roll available to candidates and the public really contain information on the person's voting habits? In Arkansas, it's a simple list of name, address, and party affiliation (if any) nothing more. Perhaps securing information about specific voter's voting habits would be as effective and less of a burden on the voter.

While discussing this, it's important to acknowledge NO ONE WOULD BE TURNED AWAY from voting. Some, who fail to produce proper ID, would cast Provisional Ballots which would need to be verified prior to being counted.

We still need similar controls on mailed ballots.

Signatures are not very useful as we've seen in Tulsa's last fiasco when no one would verify signatures on an Initiative Petition, claiming a professional handwriting analyst was required to do so.

While we're writing it up, procedures need to be established for what happens next when a disparity occurs, like when a properly ID'd person shows up to vote but finds their signature line on the roll already signed.

And, when and how does a cross-check occur between printed rolls and absentee ballots?

So they can cast a "feel good" ballot that won't actually be counted, unless the voter jumps through a bunch of hoops. I guess that's one way to keep people from complaining.

Most elections are not decided by a few votes.  For those that could, the provisional votes can be verified and counted. If it takes a week or so, that's the price of fairness.

Oklahoma state law requires that the provisional ballots be completely counted by the Friday immediately following the election at 12:01PM. Not much time if you have to secure a birth certificate to replace a lost ID card and take all that to the election board office downtown to prove your identity, given that it's unlikely they will give voters until even Friday to do it, since they have to be completely finished by noon.

Unless the law as passed is going to change that, it's a bad law. If they are going to proceed down the road of stupidity, they could at least allow the use of a passport. But no, it doesn't have an address on it, so it's no good.

+1  That's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard in this thread. . . Therefore it will never fly.

Red Arrow You will now be countered by a set of ludicrous scenarios, until your logical point is forgotten.

Thank you for playing.

So do you believe that production of positive voter identification prior to casting a ballet is stupid?

Another law that needs to be changed.  I can't remember anything that took effect the Monday following an election. 

I believe it's a solution in search of a problem. If there were serious doubts as to voter fraud in an election, the signature on the registration form could be compared to the signature in the precinct sign-in book.

So your answer is that valid identification is a stupid idea.  Signatures should suffice.

We've never really been close enough in an election for it to be a question. . . Or have we.

In 2008, due to high voter turnout, it was found that thousands of extra people voted in Ohio.  The signatures matched the registrations, the only problem was that the PEOPLE WERE DEAD, some for a very long time.

How would you feel if it was discovered that thousands of dead Republicans are voting in Oklahoma?

I noticed that my grandmother's name is still on the roll at my polling place.  She died in 2002.  I told the election worker to cross her name off because she is dead, and he wrote something down on a slip of paper, but said he couldn't cross her off.

She was a Republican, and all anyone has to do is walk in there and claim that they are her.  What is to stop them?

Do you have a reference for that? Or are you talking about the dead people who are still registered?

Better management of the voting rolls and verification of signatures in close elections.

Dead people are pushed off the roles.  If that isn't part of the process then it needs to be.

She died in 2002, and was still on in 2004. 

I am willing to bet that quite a few Dead folks are still on the rolls, and I bet some of them still vote.

There is no reason for us to use an archaic system like the signature roll for voter identification.  I don't understand why anyone would be against real voter identification that can't be faked.  What is so threatening about that?

As I'm sure you're quite aware, fake IDs aren't hard to come by.

Currently in Oklahoma, having dead people removed from the voter rolls is a responsibility that falls upon the family. (or the executor of the estate) You're supposed to send in a death certificate so the person can be removed.

Moving that to the top of my priority list when a loved one passes.  Check

I knew there was something we forgot to do between the funeral and the wake. 

How much do you want to bet that everyone from last year's Tulsa World obituary database is still on the Tulsa rolls?

This would make a great INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.

If you don't like it, have the law changed to require the election board to monitor death certificate issuance or something to remove dead folks from the rolls.

It should be very simple to tie death certificate DB to a voter registration DB.

If they were smarter, they'd subscribe to the Social Security deceased file.  Don't the voter regs have SSN number on them?  I know where I work we provide a service similar to this; the SS sends us a file every month with deceased on them.

Does the SSA also publish a list of the SSNs they erroneously listed as deceased in previous files? My mom died twice according to SSA. (The second time they were in fact correct)

Hey, I'm not saying they don't make mistakes; because they typically get these based on when the hospitals report the person deceased.

Who's to say your mom wasn't one of few mistakes?  Not trying to make light of your specific situation, but do they know what the error rate is?

And the SSA doesn't publish these; you have to subscribe to them and it's usually a list with a last name and first initial.  You also have to prove why you need them, for obvious reasons.

I would think and hope that the voter board would keep the name on the roll, but just mark it as deceased.  That way, if someone came in with proper credentials, that could be rebutted.  When you have a system now that allows thousands upon thousands of deceased voters on the rolls without a way to check them, no wonder people are screaming voter fraud.

Great idea! 

I think we'll change the law to have the election board just ask for positive identification.  Perhaps a photo ID, fingerprint, or other hard to duplicate form of id.

Neither fingerprints nor photo IDs are hard to duplicate. That said, I'd be OK with fingerprinting, despite signatures being more sound for an after the fact audit in case of allegations of irregularity. (almost all print scanners are easily fooled by gelatin molds which can be created using only a latent print and concealed on one of your own fingers)

I'm not OK with people having to have something other than themselves present at the precinct to vote, certainly not something that requires a person to pay a fee, no matter how small, to obtain.

Edited to add: You do realize that they do require ID either at registration or the first time a newly registered voter votes, right?