Voter ID Laws Could Block Thousands From Voting

24 States have some type of stop and identify law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Here in Florida, I can risk a fine and be arrested if asked for ID and not being able to present it in certain situations.

I have to present ID to prove age when buying alcohol, tabbaco, lotto tickets, spray paint, etc. Need a license to drive a car, and a passport to travel abroad. Why should voting be any different. If you drove to the voting place, you have an ID with you. no excuse.

God forbid I have to show an ID to vote, how dare they!!!!
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Beauregard, I agree with you 100% that having an ID is easy to get and is a time saver. However, we are talking about citizenship here. You do not have to be a citizen to buy alcohol, tobacco and the others you listed except a passport. For that you need to be a citizen. The passport rules say you can get one even without a birth certificate or drivers license.

Also, if I take a walk from my house to the beach for a quick swim and all I want to carry with me is a towel, why should I have to carry ID?
 

Petra

Cult Mother and Simpering Cunt
24 States have some type of stop and identify law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Here in Florida, I can risk a fine and be arrested if asked for ID and not being able to present it in certain situations.

I have to present ID to prove age when buying alcohol, tabbaco, lotto tickets, spray paint, etc. Need a license to drive a car, and a passport to travel abroad. Why should voting be any different. If you drove to the voting place, you have an ID with you. no excuse.

God forbid I have to show an ID to vote, how dare they!!!!

Florida's law is only in connection with Statute 856.021 which is loitering or prowling. Police can't simply stop you walking from your house to the bus stop and demand ID. You have to be fullfilling the requirements of the statute which is being someplace at a time or manner not usual to law abiding individuals.

And in all of the stop and identify laws, it doesn't mean written identification. It's only identifying infomation. Big difference.

Again, there is NO LAW in the US that states citizens must have federal or state ID on them. Passports are 100% voluntary as are drivers licenses or state ID cards.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Trial Set To Begin As State Concedes It Has No Proof Of In-Person Voter Fraud

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/pennsylvania-voter-id-trial_n_1697980.html

Defendants in a case against one of the nation's strictest voter ID laws in Pennsylvania made a major concession to plaintiffs this week, just days ahead of the start of the trial over the measure.

In a stipulation agreement signed earlier this month, state officials conceded that they had no evidence of prior in-person voter fraud, or even any reason to believe that such crimes would occur with more frequency if a voter ID law wasn't in effect.

"There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” the statement reads.

According to the agreement, the state “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” nor will it "offer argument or evidence that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law.”

The possibility of voter fraud has frequently served as the ideological underpinning for voter ID measures, whose supporters claim that the integrity of elections can't be preserved without requiring would-be voters to verify their identity at polling places. Reports on actual incidents appear to counter this contention, however, as figures suggest voter fraud is a highly infrequent occurrence.

Opponents of voter ID laws argue that such legislation is an effort to establish obstacles for potential voters, particularly college students, minorities and the elderly, who tend to vote Democratic. A recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice found that a variety of factors could seriously hamper the ability of a half-million Americans in 10 states that have passed voter ID laws to obtain the required documents they would need to cast votes in November.

Pennsylvania GOP House Majority Leader Mike Turzai fueled the concerns of anti-voter ID activists earlier this year when he claimed that the recently enacted measure would "allow Gov. [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

Just weeks after those comments, Pennsylvania officials released a study finding that more than 758,000 registered voters in the state -- many of them in its urban center of Philadelphia -- lacked driver's licenses. While the law allows for a variety of other forms of identification to be used at polling places, the figure suggested that a large number of Pennsylvanians still didn't meet the criteria needed to cast ballots in the fall.

A lawsuit filed against the state's voter ID law by the ACLU and NAACP on behalf of lead plantiff Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year-old woman who claims she will be disenfranchised by the legislation because she won't be able to get valid documentation before the election, is set to go to trial on Wednesday. On Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice also announced that it was investigating whether the law discriminates against minorities.

Take that, you corrupt, disingenuous asswipes. :thefinger:
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
There are tons of ways to prove citizenship. If the old lady can't get to vote in October it has to be because she couldn't pull together the stuff in time to register. As I said before, the state ID is convenient but not mandatory. 750,000 PA people without driver's licenses? Yea, I can see that. Just like in NYC. Having a car is expensive and a pain in the ass to keep. Transit makes more sense. Philly and Pitt are the same way. Why get a license?
 

Mayhem

Banned
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back By State Supreme Court To Lower Court For Reconsideration

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html

In a potentially significant victory for Democrats, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a lower court's decision to uphold the states's restrictive new voter ID law on Tuesday, and asked the judge to consider enjoining it instead.

The law, passed by a Republican legislature and governor, requires voters to have specific, state-issued photo ID -- a move that opponents say could disenfranchise tens of thousands of people, most of them minorities, students and the elderly.

"We are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials," the court wrote of arguments that voters would not be disenfranchised by the law.

The court ruled 4-2, with two dissenting justices saying it should have blocked the law outright. One justice accused the court of "punting" and said she would have "no part in it."

The state Supreme Court sent the case back to the Commonwealth Court judge, but with instructions that seemed almost designed to force him to enjoin the law. Given the fact that there are less than two months until the election, the justices wrote, "the most judicious remedy, in such a circumstance, is the entry of a preliminary injunction, which may moot further controversy as the constitutional impediments dissipate."

The judge was instructed "to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment" of ID cards comports with the law as written -- which the court itself made clear was not the case. "The Department of State has realized, and the Commonwealth parties have candidly conceded, that the Law is not being implemented according to its terms," the justices wrote.

The justices, for instance, noted in their decision that while the law called for voters to be granted state-issued ID simply upon an affirmation, "as implementation of the Law has proceeded, PennDOT -- apparently for good reason -- has refused to allow such liberal access."

If those procedures are not being followed, or if the judge was "not still convinced ... that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election" then he would be "obliged to enter a preliminary injunction," the higher court wrote.

The court agreed that the short timeframe of the law's implementation just months before Election Day presented a potential constitutional issue, but noted that even the appelants agreed that such a law could be implemented.

The two Democratic justices who were most outspoken during last week's oral arguments both dissented from the majority opinion, saying the high court should have issued an injunction itself.

Justice Seamus P. McCaffery wrote in his dissent:

I was elected by the people of our Commonwealth, by Republicans, Democrats, Independents and others, as was every single Justice on this esteemed Court. I cannot now be a party to the potential disenfranchisement of even one otherwise qualified elector, including potentially many elderly and possibly disabled veterans who fought for the rights of every American to exercise their fundamental American right to vote. While I have no argument with the requirement that all Pennsylvania voters, at some reasonable point in the future, will have to present photo identification before they may cast their ballots, it is clear to me that the reason for the urgency of implementing Act 18 prior to the November 2012 election is purely political. That has been made abundantly clear by the House Majority Leader. I cannot in good conscience participate in a decision that so clearly has the effect of allowing politics to trump the solemn oath that I swore to uphold our Constitution. That Constitution has made the right to vote a right verging on the sacred, and that right should never be trampled by partisan politics.

McCaffery was referring to a declaration in June by Pennsylvania's GOP House majority leader, Mike Turzai, that the voter ID law "is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

Justice Debra McCloskey Todd wrote in her dissent, "By remanding to the Commonwealth Court, at this late date, and at this most critical civic moment, in my view, this Court abdicates its duty to emphatically decide a legal controversy vitally important to the citizens of this Commonwealth. The eyes of the nation are upon us, and this Court has chosen to punt rather than to act. I will have no part of it."

The decision gave Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson until Oct. 2 to file his new opinion.

"Today’s decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a big step in the right direction for the Commonwealth's voters," said Penda D. Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, one of the groups that sued to overturn the law. "The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court, stating in strong terms that the state’s restrictive voter ID must be stopped in time for the fall elections unless the lower court finds that ‘there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the ID requirement.'"

Opponents of the law saw the battle turning in their favor, though not yet won, with the burden of proof now being on the state rather than the plaintiffs. "It's only a victory in the sense that it vacates the adverse result below," said David Gersch, the attorney for the plaintiffs. "But the court has gotten us at least part way there, and we're very appreciative of that … We don't believe that the Commonwealth can make the showing that the Supreme Court says has to be made."
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
No, no, no! All you have to do is prove that you live in a congressional district to vote. That's it. If I have proof that I live there through utility bills and other mail then I live there. The present qualifications are good enough. You don't need my face on a card and especially one issued from the state. I have to register to a district. If I can then I qualify then I can do it anywhere I live regardless of what state I live in. What am I going to do, take the risk of going to pay a fine or go to jail just to vote twice? Oh please someone come out and support this ID shit.
 
This is something that should be a non issue.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-...ice-you-pay-for-something-that-doesnt-happen/

“Voter fraud is an enormous issue with more than exactly 10 documented cases of it in the entire country alone,” Stewart deadpanned, “just since the beginning of the millennium. That’s .000000284% of all votes. So you can see why Pennsylvania would want to enact a voter ID law that one study claims could potentially disenfranchise around 9% of the entire Pennsylvanian electorate. But that’s the price you pay to prevent something that doesn’t happen.”

“Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the last five presidential elections,” Stewart pointed out, “leaning toward Obama in this election. It’s not like voter ID law is blatantly designed to skew that result. Right, State House Republican majority leader that designed it?”

He then played tape of that Pennsylvania legislator, Mike Turzai, saying, “Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania. Done.”

Stewart then went after Ohio Republicans’ attempt to restrict early voting hours on Democratic counties but extending early voting hours in Republican ones. “Are you kidding me?” he exclaimed. “All Americans who want equal access to the vote take two-steps forward. Not so fast people who live on Martin Luther King Boulevard South.”

Stewart then played a clip of an Ohio Republican legislator defending the rules by saying, “We try to make it easy but we can’t, you know. I say we’re not 7-11. We can’t stay open 24/7 and let anybody vote by any rule that they want to.”

“Surely we can’t expect our constitutionally guaranteed voting rights to meet the same high standards as a combination gas station convenience store,” Stewart mocked.

“Two states, two completely different means of suppressing Democratic turnout,” he concluded. “Here is the one thing they have in common: the mechanism of the vote are in the hands of partisan elected officials.”
 

Mayhem

Banned
Voter ID Laws Take Aim At College-Student Voters

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/voter-id-laws-gop-college-student_n_1791568.html

In Tennessee, a new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls explicitly excludes student IDs.

In Wisconsin, college students are newly disallowed from using university-provided housing lists or corroboration from other students to verify their residence.

Florida's reduction in early voting days is expected to reduce the number of young and first-time voters there.

And Pennsylvania's voter identification bill, still on the books for now, disallows many student IDs and non-Pennsylvania driver's licenses, which means out-of-state students may be turned away at the polls.

In 2008, youth voter turnout was higher that it had been since Vietnam, and overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. This time around, the GOP isn't counting solely on disillusionment to keep the student vote down.

In the last two years, Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed dozens of bills that erect new barriers to voting, all targeting Democratic-leaning groups, many specifically aimed at students. The GOP's stated rationale is to fight voter fraud. But voter fraud -- and especially in-person fraud which many of these measures address -- is essentially nonexistent.

None of the new laws blocks student voting outright -- although in New Hampshire, Republican lawmakers almost passed a bill that would have banned out-of-state students from casting a ballot. (The leader of the State House, Bill O'Brien, was caught on tape explaining how the move was necessary to stop students from "basically doing what I did when I was a kid: voting as a liberal.")

And in some states, education officials are trying to limit the damage. In Pennsylvania, for instance, many universities are either reissuing IDs or printing expiration stickers to make current cards valid, according to a survey by the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group.

But every additional barrier makes a difference to students, said Maxwell Love, a 21-year-old senior at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. "It's the little things that make voting harder that are going to affect apathetic students ... This is like literally slamming the door on youth engagement."

Voting advocates agree. "This is absolutely perfectly rigged to prevent students from voting," said David Halperin, an attorney and former director of national youth organization Campus Progress.

The Republican motivation is obvious, Halperin said. "In general, they would prefer that students don't vote ... They certainly don't want students to vote in swing states who don't live in swing states."

Potentially even more damaging to student voter turnout is the confusion caused by new and changing rules, some of which are being challenged in court. "The confusion surrounding it ... is the most infuriating thing," said Love. "The confusion is, like, literally pissing people off to the point where they're not going to take the time to figure it out."

Eric Marshall, manager of legal mobilization at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said Republican voter suppression efforts have "heightened the level of confusion" for all voters, but students are most likely to get thrown off because they're new to the system.

Proving residency or meeting strict criteria for photo ID can be difficult for college students, particularly out-of-state students, or those who don't drive. Out-of-state students frequently don't get in-state ID when they go to college -- but still want to vote there. Changing addresses is one factor.

"In college life, you move around from dorm to dorm, but you reside in that city where the college is located for the majority of the year," said Anne Taylor, a graduate student at Marquette University in Milwaukee, and former president of the College Democrats there. "I think you should have a say in who is going to represent your needs."

Deion Jordan, a 17-year-old high school senior and Philadelphia youth commissioner, won't be old enough to vote in November but plans to help others get to the polls on behalf of the Obama campaign. "I'm scared that people are going to show up without any form of identification, and are going to be turned away," he said.

Younger voters are particularly susceptible to the new voter ID law, he said. "It'll hinder them. They're not politically literate. They don't know about this law."

David Kaiser-Jones, a junior at the University of Pennsylvania, shares that concern. "A lot of students might show up on Election Day, and for the first time in their life, be disenfranchised," he said.

Pennsylvania is a swing state; it's also the state with the most out-of-state students in the country.

Out-of-state students are particularly vulnerable, Kaiser-Jones said, because they otherwise have no need to get in-state ID.
"You can do anything else in Pennsylvania with a driver's license from another state," he said, "except vote."

In Wisconsin, a lot of students may find they don't have the documents they need to prove their residency in November.

Ann Jacobs, a Milwaukee lawyer, coordinated the hotlines for Wisconsin Election Protection during her state's gubernatorial recall election in June, and dealt with many students who faced problems voting because they recently had moved out of their dorms, but hadn't met the state's new 28-day residency requirement anywhere else yet.

Part of the problem is that students don't do much on paper anymore. "Their documents aren't documents," she said. "Their documents are smartphone screens." Some of the traditional ways of establishing residency, therefore, like showing utility bills or bank statements, aren't so easy.

That hasn't been a problem in Wisconsin the past, Jacobs said, because election officials used to have dorm lists they could check. "That was taken away," she said.

Or the officials could ask proven residents to corroborate the residency of others. "They also got rid of corroborators," she said. "It's pretty nefarious how you can really finagle people out of voting."

"Every level of these voter ID laws is fraught with hypocrisy," said Marshall.

In Tennessee, for instance, a university-provided ID is not considered acceptable proof of identity for students, but it is for faculty. Tennessee Sen. Bill Ketron, who sponsored his state's voter ID bill, said student IDs are frequently forged so students can lie about their age, although student IDs generally don't display birth dates.

Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Tennessee, said banning student IDs as voter verification "makes it really obvious that the goal is to suppress the students' access to the ballots."

The rollback of early voting periods also will inevitably reduce the youth vote; about 24 percent of 18- to 29-year-old voters from states that allowed it voted early and in person in 2008.

Groups that fought voter suppression efforts are now trying to minimize their effects.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University has a student voting guide that includes information for each state.

And the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is supplementing its election protection hotline with a smartphone app that provides voter registration, registration status verification, polling place information, voting rules and contact information for election protection staffers.
 
Top