Texas set to require Voter ID

[Wrinkle]

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 Texas even already has a requirement to produce voter registration cards, which will be superceded if passed.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.

[Hoss]

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 Texas even already has a requirement to produce voter registration cards, which will be superceded if passed.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?

[guido911]

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 Texas even already has a requirement to produce voter registration cards, which will be superceded if passed.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.

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[Gaspar]

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. 

[nathanm]

OK, how about a finger print or photograph then? 

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.

[sauerkraut]

Indiana has that and it passed the court test.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Gaspar]

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.

+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.

[nathanm]

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.

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.

[Wrinkle]

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?

[nathanm]

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

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.

[Red Arrow]

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.