Not that we have any hope of seeing such reasonable legislation in Illinois any time soon:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
I think, given the number of things for which ID is now required by law, the state shouldn't be charging for them anyway. And obtaining them (and other services) should be a lot more convenient and efficient, but those are concepts with which the Illinois Secretary of State's office is unfamiliar.
UPDATE: Thoughts from our County Clerk:
This is a difficult issue. I have a lot of sympathy for the views of those who find these laws to be burdensome. And I’d hate to have people lose their right to vote because they happened to leave home without an ID.
However, on balance, with the overwhelming concern from the public about election fraud, I see voter ID laws as being a good idea. We need to do more to give the public confidence that every vote is being counted and that only those people who are eligible to vote are able to vote. Of course, any voter ID law should be accompanied by appropriate provisional voting provisions that ensure that people who inadvertently forget their identification are still allowed to vote and given a chance after the election to give their ID.
Seems reasonable to me.
I just finished reading Grisham's latest, The Appeal. The amount of damage political appointees to the bench can do to this country is just appalling. Why not just re-introduce the Poll Tax and call that constitutional? Who are these bozos?
Oh, right: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Of course if I was convinced that there were legions of voters rushing to the polling places on election day to engage in fraud, I might think there was a legitimate reason for this kind of legislation. But since no one has really presented evidence that this is a serious enough problem to start taking away a citizen's right to vote (gee, is that a "God given" right as well?), I don't see the point.
Unless, of course, the point is to take away the rights of people who don't generally vote for the GOP candidates.
Mollie went and got a state ID card. She said she only had to quit smoking for two days to afford it and it wasn't such a bad deal anyway since the state no longer allows her to smoke in the Studebaker when she's working.
"Who are these bozos?"
Justice Stevens is now a bozo, too? Name-calling is sooo persuasive.
"Of course if I was convinced that there were legions of voters rushing to the polling places on election day to engage in fraud, I might think there was a legitimate reason for this kind of legislation. But since no one has really presented evidence that this is a serious enough problem to start taking away a citizen's right to vote (gee, is that a "God given" right as well?), I don't see the point."
Mmm. More hyperbole.
Nobody's right to vote is being taken away by asking them to show the same ID they need to show to purchase cough medication.
And if you're looking for evidence as to why IDs are needed, you may want to look at Milwaukee or King County, WA in 2004.
And I'm not surprised you don't see the point. You perceive this as being part of a Republican plot to hurt Democrats, rather than a small way to ensure process integrity.
It may not be intended to hurt Democrats, but it does. Let's be honest, it was one party in Chicago that invented vote fraud... you guess which one? :)
But let's be honest... you can't get darn near anything in this country without an ID. There aren't elderly people running around without IDs. Anyone who has a: 1) job, (2) car, (3) buys booze, (4) gets almost any government entitlement - has an ID. If you want to talk about making IDs free for indigent people, fine. But if there are people out there who literally cannot prove who they are, then no, they shouldn't vote. Getting a copy of your birth certificate isn't hard. Getting a copy of your SSN card isn't hard. Going to the DMV and getting a picture isn't hard.
Poll tax? Get a grip.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"Let's be honest, it was one party in Chicago that invented vote fraud... you guess which one? :)"
Untrue. Vote fraud is almost as old as voting itself.
"But let's be honest... you can't get darn near anything in this country without an ID. There aren't elderly people running around without IDs. Anyone who has a: 1) job, (2) car, (3) buys booze, (4) gets almost any government entitlement - has an ID. If you want to talk about making IDs free for indigent people, fine. But if there are people out there who literally cannot prove who they are, then no, they shouldn't vote. Getting a copy of your birth certificate isn't hard. Getting a copy of your SSN card isn't hard. Going to the DMV and getting a picture isn't hard"
It is certainly no harder than registering to vote. Or, for that matter, voting.
Although the Illinois Secretary of State's office seems committed to making it as inconvenient as possible. But that's another issue.
I cannot see the need for a photo ID here in Champaign county for those who have voted previously. The signature match viewed an election judge is a much better ID in my view.
It is certainly no harder than registering to vote. Or, for that matter, voting.
Actually it is much harder than registering to vote. For one thing, there is only one place in the area to get the ID card, and it is not conveniently located. From where I live, on the bus, it would take at least 30 minutes to get there, one way.
Once I get there, I have to pay five dollars for the ID. How 'bout dem apples? But, of course, this isn't a poll tax. It is just requiring voters to pay five dollars to vote. Which isn't a poll tax because poll taxes are when you have to pay to vote. And in this case I am just paying for something so I can vote. See the difference? (Neither do I).
God forbid that when I get to the DMV, wait in line for twenty minutes I then discover that I forgot to bring my electric bill or whatever random pieces of identification they require this year. If not? Too bad! Back home on the bus, I can try it all over again tomorrow.
And if you're looking for evidence as to why IDs are needed, you may want to look at Milwaukee or King County, WA in 2004.
Yeah, I suppose I could look at two isolated incidents and ignore the hundreds of thousands of elections that have taken place since 2004 without incident, so I can then start to destroy the American citizens right to vote. Look! There was fraud in King County! Ah! Change everything! Constitution be damned!
You perceive this as being part of a Republican plot to hurt Democrats, rather than a small way to ensure process integrity.
This will directly and negatively impact poor citizens. Like Katrina, in which conservatives like yourself seemed baffled that the poor folks in the 9th Ward weren't able to just drive themselves out of town, you are missing the point here. It really shouldn't be a political issue. It should be plain as day that we have never expected Americans to produce government-issued IDs in order to vote. So why start now? Is the voting process so unbelievably broken that we MUST take this step to ensure the integrity of the process? Or is this just another attempt by a Republican legislature to disenfranchise those without economic power?
Without a convincing argument that supports the former, I have no choice but to conclude the latter.
Will the next step be to outlaw political secretaries of state, like the politicos in Ohio and Florida who did so much legwork for Bush in '00 and '04? Somehow I doubt it.
Doesn't this legislation have a provision to make the ID's free, to specifically address the "poll tax" issue?
RSWB, the ID card is free - but the supporting documents required to obtain the card are not.
List of supporting documents
Get real, Boon. There is NOBODY who cannot afford $5. to get a state ID card so they can vote. NOBODY.
"Actually it is much harder than registering to vote. For one thing, there is only one place in the area to get the ID card, and it is not conveniently located. From where I live, on the bus, it would take at least 30 minutes to get there, one way."
How about those Democrats who are running that office (and the mass transit district) so competently?
"Once I get there, I have to pay five dollars for the ID. How 'bout dem apples? But, of course, this isn't a poll tax. It is just requiring voters to pay five dollars to vote. Which isn't a poll tax because poll taxes are when you have to pay to vote. And in this case I am just paying for something so I can vote. See the difference? (Neither do I)."
Of course, the Supreme Court approved Indiana's program, not Illinois. Such a program wouldn't work in Illinois, IMHO, without allowing for free IDs for at least some people.
"Yeah, I suppose I could look at two isolated incidents and ignore the hundreds of thousands of elections that have taken place since 2004 without incident, so I can then start to destroy the American citizens right to vote. Look! There was fraud in King County! Ah! Change everything! Constitution be damned!"
Mmm. The hyperbole is strong with this one. "Destroy the American citizens right to vote." Yep.
Given that you seem capable of making arguments without resorting to such ludicrous and extreme exaggerations, I wonder why you continue to do so. They're so ridiculous that they're undermining your valid points.
"This will directly and negatively impact poor citizens."
There is no reason that it should, especially if the mostly Democratic-run governments in most American cities live up to their obligations to service their poor communities. If there's one thing that Democratic city organziations do well, it's ensure their voters can vote.
"Is the voting process so unbelievably broken that we MUST take this step to ensure the integrity of the process?"
Yes. And it has been for some time, although this addresses just one small portion of what needs to be fixed.
"Without a convincing argument that supports the former, I have no choice but to conclude the latter."
That's because you seem to reflexively believe that everything you oppose is both morally evil and supported by Republicans precisely because it's morally evil. You seem incapable of understanding that there are people who are genuinely concerned about voter fraud because it undermines the process, rather than for partisan reasons.
I, for one, was always surprised that whenever I voted a photo ID was not requested. Oil man has more faith in an election judge comparing signatures? Come on, most election judges are so old they are lucky to be able to see a signature, let alone be a handwriting expert. A photo ID is a much better form of identification then a signature match.
Does the current system descriminate against the illiterate? What happens to those who can't write their name?
I do not think it is too big of a burden to ask someone to get a photo ID in this day and age. There are four years between elections and if someone wants to be able to vote badly enough, they can take one day to get an ID. Even the poorest in our society take time out to sign up for public aid and/or social security benefits. Maybe an ID could be issued at the same time.
D. Boon, you think IP has cherry picked two election examples out of thousands, but I would submit that your example of the burden to obtain an ID is the extreme exception and not the rule.
Given that you seem capable of making arguments without resorting to such ludicrous and extreme exaggerations, I wonder why you continue to do so. They're so ridiculous that they're undermining your valid points.
Because we are talking about legislation that infringes upon a citizen's right to vote. Yes, it is going to destroy the right to vote for some of our citizens by making the hoops too high to jump through. I don't think it is hyperbole, though I continue to admire the way you use that word to dodge defending your ideas with evidence, facts or statistics.
For example, why do you think the election systems in America are so broken that we need to resort to this extreme measure? Why not, for example, make Mark Shelden's job apolitical? Why start with the citizen's right to vote instead of starting with the politicization of the election process. Or as I said earlier (followed by lots of cricket chirping):
I don't care for signatures as verification because, in my personal experience, my signature has changed significantly over the past ten years. Every time I go vote I try to remember how it looked when I registered here, and try to sign the same way.
And, having served as a pollwatcher, I'm not unique in that regard.
(But really, I only support this as a part of my nefarious conspiracy to destroy Americans' right to vote. I actually hate elections, and cannot wait for the day when we have a totalitarian dictatorship so we can stop wasting our time talking about elections and politics.)
"Why not, for example, make Mark Shelden's job apolitical?"
I think it's good that our election authorities are elected directly by the people. I think it's a valuable check on their authority, and I think the American people value fair administration of elections far more than they value any particular person in a County Clerk's office or Secretary of State's office.
I trust the voters to decide when their election authorities haven't been following the law, both here and in Cook County. Why don't you?
"...since no one has really presented evidence that this is a serious enough problem to start taking away a citizen's right to vote (gee, is that a "God given" right as well?), I don't see the point."
The reason you're hearing crickets chirping is that I don't accept your premise that anyone's legitimate right to vote is being taken away by asking for ID at the polling place.
Well, Boon, if someone is allowed to vote illegally, doesn't that water down my legal vote? Voting is so important, that I don't have a problem with the ID, and would gladly make it free to anyone who can't afford it. The irony in this case is that the woman who brought this suit was actually registered to vote in two different states, I believe.
You got two examples and dismissed them immediately. In our electoral college system, with the winning taking all, and considering the closeness of recent elections, I consider these two "isolated incidents" to be quite sufficient enough reasons to review voting procedures.
I actually agree with part of what Boon is saying. Jesse White is too incompetent to handle his office's responsibility under a voter ID requirement. As Boon pointed out, Jesse can't run the DMV as it is. Add expanded service at no cost and his brain would explode. Here's the solution: replace Jesse White with someone who can actually handle the job.
I think when you register to vote they should ask if you were previously registered elsewhere, and where that was. Then they should have to notify the old State, County or whatever so one is not registered in multiple places. They should also do this with driver's licenses. They used to take your old license when you got a new one, but they do not do that in several states and did not take my husband's when he got one here recently. So he has two licenses and is registered to vote in two states. I guess he could vote absentee or early in one and on election day in the other??
"Get real, Boon. There is NOBODY who cannot afford $5. to get a state ID card so they can vote. NOBODY."
Prairie biker you have missed the point about requiring someone to pay for something before they can vote, IT IS ILLEGAL (At least for federal offices) And prairie biker when you are in simplified terms super poor, 5 bucks make all of the difference if its your last 5 bucks.
24th amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(Source) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
What this means to me is that even if the ID was a penny if you refuse or fail to pay and then are not able to vote your right to vote has been abridged. Affordability of the instrument needed to vote is not the issue. Now what is a tax. I like the first sentence on the Wikipedia article for the definition:
“A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state” -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax
The 5 bucks or so you pay for an ID is a charge levied by a government entity for a specific good/service. I think that qualifies as a tax. Not only do you have to pay directly for the ID you pay indirectly for the documents to receive the ID, birth certificate, utility bills, cancelled checks ect.
"Of course, the Supreme Court approved Indiana's program, not Illinois. Such a program wouldn't work in Illinois, IMHO, without allowing for free IDs for at least some people."
IP, my reading of the constitution does not allow for any person to be charged for any instrument that is required to vote. (For federal offices)
I don't think it is fair to give an ID as an instrument to vote for free to some and not all. Now if the law provided everyone to get a free picture ID when they registered to vote, or even a Voter ID card with picture that would be different as long as such a card were free to everybody. When it comes to voting I don't think the constitution allows the direct charging of a use fee. I also believe that it would be unconstitutional to charge some for instruments required to vote, rich people for instance, and not others, poor people for instance. The right to vote as well as access to that right is key to our democracy and it is legitimate to have rules to prevent voter fraud but not legitimate to charge users of the voter system to ensure fair access to all. (Again this only applies to federal elections, local laws vary)
Go Whitesox!!!
"IP, my reading of the constitution does not allow for any person to be charged for any instrument that is required to vote. (For federal offices)I don't think it is fair to give an ID as an instrument to vote for free to some and not all."
I'm OK with making them free for all, actually. And, again, in discussing this case the charge for the ID is irrelevant as there is no charge for an ID in Indiana, where this law is in effect.
In Illinois, for most people the greatest cost in getting a State ID is the half day you have to waste at the Secretary of State's office, not the fee paid for it. I'd love to see no charge for IDs and someone competent in charge of running the office so you can get one in a half hour or less.
I hope D.Boon, who loves to rail about the incompetence of Republicans in administering government (and rightly so in most cases), voted for Dan Rutherford for Secretary of State in 2006. And I hope you did, too, Mr. Williams.
"I don't think it is fair to give an ID as an instrument to vote for free to some and not all. "
Wayne, I think the point is that not everyone needs a free ID. A free ID could be made available for anyone who can't afford another acceptable form of picture ID. For example, since I have a driver's licencse, I wouldn't require a free ID. I suppose if I really wanted it, I wouldn't be denied it, but I doubt I would take the time or make the effort since I already have something else.
I think Mr. Williams' point is that, if the ID is a requirement for voting, that you can't charge some people for it and not charge others.
All this discussion about the fee for the State ID is really inapplicable anyway, as in Indiana - whose law the Supreme Court just approved - there is no fee for the State ID.
In Illinois, where we do have a fee, there's no chance whatsoever that such common-sense legislation could ever even get a Committee hearing in Springfield.
Why not just tattoo their forearms? That's an easy method for keeping track of subjects.
Warum nicht gerechte Tätowierung ihre Unterarme? Die ist eine einfache Methode für das Verfolgen Themen.
Godwin's Law.
"In Illinois, (insert any citizen's needs), there's no chance whatsoever that such common-sense legislation could ever even get a Committee hearing in Springfield."
You have pretty much stated how the government of the State of Illlinois operates, IP.
The obvious solution is that when someone registers to vote the County Clerk provides them with a photo ID, free. And then, over the course of time, provides every registered voter with a photo ID.
There. Done.
Easy Solution(s) do not happen in the State of Illinois. Obviously not a 'native' son.
I agree that there seem to be two issues on the table: first, there is only one place to get the ID, which is strategically located to make it really difficult for anyone without a car to get there. This is, imo, an unacceptable hoop jump for a citizen in this county to have to complete in order to vote.
Second, there is the constitutional issue of money. You can't make someone pay for the right to vote. If "everyone" can afford five dollars, then why not ten? If everyone can afford ten dollars, why not twenty? This is exactly why we do not allow any poll taxes. The slope is way too slippery.
Yet, the most glaringly obvious problem with the entire base of support for this decision is the lack of a serious problem to begin with. RSW dismisses me because I dismiss two isolated cases from the 2004 election. I'm sorry, but before we require citizens in this country to travel to a DMV (and believe me, our DMV is downright close compared to some of the folks in Chicago or the suburbs), and pay money for an ID before they can vote we had better damn well have an incredibly serious crisis on our hands. A case in Milwaukee and a case in Washington State do not consitute a constitutional crisis. They consistute small, isolated problems in small, isolated areas.
So where is the data to support this drastic change in our law? Where are the millions of disenfranchised voters who were not able to vote in the last election because someone got there before them and stole their name with a phony signature? Where are these legions of nefarious characters silently plotting to rig an election by forging signatures and posing as another voter?
Or, better yet, how many times has someone in Champaign County showed up at the polling place only to find that someone else had already been there and used their registration? One time? Ten times? Twenty?
This. Is. Not. A. Problem. So why are we so eager to endorse this radical change?
Hmmm.
"I agree that there seem to be two issues on the table: first, there is only one place to get the ID, which is strategically located to make it really difficult for anyone without a car to get there. This is, imo, an unacceptable hoop jump for a citizen in this county to have to complete in order to vote.
Second, there is the constitutional issue of money. You can't make someone pay for the right to vote. If "everyone" can afford five dollars, then why not ten? If everyone can afford ten dollars, why not twenty? This is exactly why we do not allow any poll taxes. The slope is way too slippery."
Why are you bringing up Illinois problems when the law was passed in Indiana and these problems don't necessarily apply?
If you're talking about implementing this requirement in Illinois, then I could support both free IDs and a new Secretary of State who values efficient and fair service. You did support Dan Rutherford in 2006, right? ;-)
"A case in Milwaukee and a case in Washington State do not consitute a constitutional crisis. They consistute small, isolated problems in small, isolated areas."
Given the closeness of the Wisconsin vote in 2004, and the closeness of the overall election, the fact that there were more votes cast than registered voters in Milwaukee is a huge constitutional problem. For every American. In every state.
You don't think so, and I assume this will be another case where we'll have to agree to disagree.
"This. Is. Not. A. Problem. So why are we so eager to endorse this radical change?"
Because it's not really a radical change, especially not in Indiana where it was approved. In Illinois, it would be considerably more burdensome because of the crappiness of our Secretary of State's office and because they charge money for an ID. In Indiana, neither of those appear to be the case.
In Indiana, neither of those appear to be the case.
Really? Why not?
You did support Dan Rutherford in 2006, right? ;-)
The only scenario worse than Jesse White as S.O.S. would be another Republican in that office. Am I the only one who remembers why George Ryan is incarcerated?
Right, because George Ryan is "every Republican"
"Really? Why not?"
Did you read the law?
In Indiana, they don't charge for State IDs. And they apparently have a competently run agency to provide them.
"The only scenario worse than Jesse White as S.O.S. would be another Republican in that office."
Why am I not surprised?
Given that, your gripes about the difficulties of Illinois residents in obtaining state IDs ring very, very hollow. In fact, given that, your objections to this law appear to be merely partisan rather than constitutional.
"Right, because George Ryan is "every Republican""
To D.Boon, every Republican is either George Ryan or George Bush or both.
Jim Crow lives. Racism is alive and well in America. What do you expect from a conservative Supreme Court? This is a right-wing agenda item.
Voter ID requirements serve one purpose, to disenfranchise poorer, darker-skinned voters who tend to vote democratic. D. Boon is right on with his request for evidence. There simply is slim to none. There is far more evidence of malfeasance in high places by the likes of Karl Rove and Ken Blackwell, malfeasance documented at length by Mark Crispin Miller and the Conyers Report. When right-wing politicians talk about election fraud, they're projecting.
I think, in a democracy, the only right more fundamental than the right to vote, is the right to live, to just keep breathing. This seriously undermines our democracy. I simply can't understand the support for this measure.
I lived in Germany for two years. Upon moving into a place, one was required to register with the local authorities at the Einwohnermeldeamt. Indiana is resembling Germany from where I sit now.
WHEN the law comes to Illinois, and it MAY, then why should the Secretary of State provide the ID? It's a VOTER requirement, so the VOTING AUTHORITY, the County Clerk, should provide the VOTER ID. What is so hard to figure out about that?
"Jim Crow lives. Racism is alive and well in America. What do you expect from a conservative Supreme Court? This is a right-wing agenda item."
Justice Stevens says "Hello."
"Indiana is resembling Germany from where I sit now."
No, see, someone already invoked Godwin's Law in this thread. Good try, though.
The documents to get a state ID in indiana cost money. In champaign to register to vote you need a free library card and a piece of mail that was sent to you to prove your name and address. Not the case in Indiana, does any smell poll tax.
Go Whitesox!!!
Library cards and mail qualifications.
Hyperbole is all the rage at the moment so here I go: I smell literacy tests and stamp/poll taxes!
The only valid voter registration in Illinois should be a cook county death certificate!
[/hyperbole]
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
If you want to know why so many Democrats believe, based on firm evidence over decades, that Republicans are determined to disenfranchise lawful voters in order to maintain their power--in other words, why Republicans are intent on destroying America--read this.
Jimmy Carter says hello too.
In Indiana, they don't charge for State IDs. And they apparently have a competently run agency to provide them.
Sorry, I didn't realize the only burden we are allowed to consider with whether Indiana charges for IDs, and has a "competently run agency to provide them". There is obviously an economic cost associated with getting the government-issued photo IDs. As I mentioned this morning, there is the bus ride to the facility, you have to have a birth certificate - which costs money, and if you don't have your ID at the polling place you have to cast a provisional ballot and then travel to the county seat to see the clerk and sign a waiver saying you were too poor to get the ID. It is ridiculous. And I won't bother to ask you for some sort of evidence that the IN DMV is more "competent" than our own. It is hardly the competency factor that is relevant here, even if that is in any way true (my experience has been that DMV suckage is nationwide).
Given that, your gripes about the difficulties of Illinois residents in obtaining state IDs ring very, very hollow. In fact, given that, your objections to this law appear to be merely partisan rather than constitutional.
Well, it fascinates me how much blame you all are now trying to lay at the feet of Democrats in this state. Was there a strategy meeting over the weekend declaring that now is the time for the IL GOP to start criticizing everything in Illinois because hardly a Republican is left in this state? First we have all of Chicago's violence laid at the feet of Mayor Daley, now you expect us to believe that the DMV is somehow worse off under Democrats than it would be under Republicans?
You might not remember this, but I came up when Republicans were the rule, not the exception in this state. And the DMV sucked. Big time. It still does, but at least we aren't sliding truckers their licenses behind the counter any more.
But again, I applaud your bait and switch techniques. They are finely tuned and you are quite expert at making arguments without making any arguments at all. Any time you are asked to produce evidence to support your claims (like, why is this really a problem at all?) you conveniently find something in the other guy's post that you take exception to. You cut, paste, cry hyperbole, and then continue about your day. Apparently never giving a second thought to the notion that you have no evidence and a less-than-convincing argument on your side. Why would you need one, anyway? Just critique the way the other guy writes and you never need to prove a thing.
To D.Boon, every Republican is either George Ryan or George Bush or both.
This comment makes as much sense as your defense of this decision.
"Sorry, I didn't realize the only burden we are allowed to consider with whether Indiana charges for IDs, and has a "competently run agency to provide them"."
Considering those were your two main gripes, posted here repeatedly, as if Indiana's law applied here in Champaign County. Talk about bait-and switch.
"Well, it fascinates me how much blame you all are now trying to lay at the feet of Democrats in this state."
It's amazing how much you like to rant about Republican incompetence yet you refuse to even acknowledge Democratic incompetence, even when it's a primary reason you're opposed to an otherwise sensible policy.
"Apparently never giving a second thought to the notion that you have no evidence and a less-than-convincing argument on your side."
You choose to ignore all evidence and arguments that don't fit your "Republicans are evil" template. Then you claim that the other side has no evidence or arguments. And then resort to very persuasive name-calling.
As I said, you're untroubled by voter fraud, and so you see no need for any measures to prevent it. I disagree. <shrugs>
Seems fine to me.
Well, IP, you seem to have passed over into this zone where you make broad, generalized statements/insults that are removed from reality. It is difficult to discuss anything with you at this point, to say the least.
Let me just conclude that right now an 78-year-old woman living in Homer, Illinois could probably walk to her polling place on election day and vote with few problems. If a law like Indiana's Voter ID Law were to be implemented in Champaign County, that would mean this woman would no longer be allowed to vote unless she had the proper ID. Social Security card doesn't work. Election judge recognition won't work. Electric bills, AARP membership card, library card, none of these are sufficient.
If she loses her license (and that happens quite often with older folks) she will need to somehow procure a ride all the way into and across Champaign, and then wait in line at the DMV to get her proper ID. Then she'll have to get back to Homer. Then, and only then, will she be eligible to vote.
So we go from a woman who can walk down the street to vote on election day to a woman who has to navigate the system in order to become eligible to vote. That might not bother you. Heck, she's probably even a Republican, but it bothers me. In fact, it makes me pretty damned mad.
Fighting voter fraud is one thing (though, again, I continue to wait on those statistics that will illuminate the extent of the problem in Indiana or nationwide *chirp* *chirp*), but placing restrictions on the right to vote in order to fight voter fraud is something else. Like the war on terror, this country has managed to handle bigger problems in the past without going to the lengths that the conservatives in this country seem to think we must go.
We've never needed to torture our own citizens to win a war, and we've never needed to issue government IDs to ensure fair elections. I continue to have no idea why we need to now.
I'd like to ask if people are really elitist enough to think that $20 or $5 or $3 of documents won't cause some people to not vote.
As someone who has to hand out bus cards out of pocket so kids can get to school, I assure you that ANY amount will deter someone from voting.
There should be no test of merit to get to vote in America. It should be one-person, one-vote, no exceptions.
But I didn't expect anything less from this Supreme Court, which would probably support Grandfather Clauses since they didn't specifically mention race.
Doesn't appear to be any issue of merit, just one of reliable verification of identity, utilizing a means that almost everyone already has due to reliance on them by a host of other services and programs. In this case it seems to generally only apply to first time voters, so I think the old ladies in Homer who always walked to their polling place before are safe from the overwhelming burden of catching a ride one day, as they would probably do for various other issues if they lacked a drivers license. The poor seem pretty generally safe as well since such documentation and/or IDs are part of the regular pain in the butt through temp services, social programs, check cashing, etc. Part of why I opposed jacking up fees on such things as some sort of regressive tax for services.
When you get down to it, the only poor minorities this will significantly create a burden for are the ones who live almost entirely outside of our bureaucratic system, including driving. And illegal aliens aren't supposed to vote anyways.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Let me just conclude that right now an 78-year-old woman living in Homer, Illinois could probably walk to her polling place on election day and vote with few problems. If a law like Indiana's Voter ID Law were to be implemented in Champaign County, that would mean this woman would no longer be allowed to vote unless she had the proper ID. Social Security card doesn't work. Election judge recognition won't work. Electric bills, AARP membership card, library card, none of these are sufficient.
If she loses her license (and that happens quite often with older folks) she will need to somehow procure a ride all the way into and across Champaign, and then wait in line at the DMV to get her proper ID. Then she'll have to get back to Homer. Then, and only then, will she be eligible to vote."
You seem to think that the process to procure a state ID cannot be improved or made more convenient, or even done at the same time as voters are registered.
"Fighting voter fraud is one thing (though, again, I continue to wait on those statistics that will illuminate the extent of the problem in Indiana or nationwide *chirp* *chirp*), but placing restrictions on the right to vote in order to fight voter fraud is something else."
You keep ignoring the examples I've already given you.
There are no restrictions being placed on anyone's right to vote. If one is legally entitled to vote in Indiana now, that won't change because of this ruling.
"I'd like to ask if people are really elitist enough to think that $20 or $5 or $3 of documents won't cause some people to not vote."
No, I think it will. I have no idea why the government charges someone for a copy of their own birth certificate anyway. The ID should be free, and the supporting documentation to get one should be free.
"There should be no test of merit to get to vote in America. It should be one-person, one-vote, no exceptions."
There are no merit tests, but there are test for age and citizenship and residency (and in some cases for a felony criminal record). Asking someone to prove who they are to vote isn't anything different than what's already being done at polling places.
D. Boon, I'm not sure why someone who lost her driver's license would need to procure a ride to get a replacement driver's license. Wouldn't she just drive herself? Wouldn't being able to drive legally, today, be a high enough priority which would then take care of having a photo ID to be able to vote in an election which is six months away? My point is that most people in our society today have some form of acceptable photo identification. For those who don't or for those who would like an additional photo ID a process could be created to provide FREE government issued IDs, which would be acceptable to use as identification when voting. You seem to imply that to vote, all one needs to do is show up, which is not the case. At some point, before the election, a person is required to register to vote. You seem to argue that if this became law in Illinois that time would stand still and no new process to provide free photo IDs would be created. I am confident that just as various voting groups and government agencies made it more convenient for people to register, they would also devise a way to make it convenient to obtain the necessary photo ID, at no cost to the voter.
As an aside, I find it ironic that the Sec. of State is taking so much heat in this thread considering that the motor/voter law which allows persons to register to vote at the DMV has received great praise in the past for increasing voter registration through convenience.
D. Boon, I forgot to add that if your 78 year old Homer resident, who doesn't drive, but needs to replace her driver's license, prefers, she can get a new license at Sec. of State facilities in Tilton or Hoopston if she doesn't want to hassle with the facility in Champaign.
The more I think about your example, the more intrigued I am to your thought process. A 78 year old woman loses her driver's license and must procure a ride, (I assume because she doesn't drive), to replace it, but it would be an undue burden on her to produce her driver's license, (which she doesn't use to drive), to verify her identity to vote. Fasinating!
Maybe it is not clear, but the ID that must be presented in the Indiana case is a government-issued picture ID. Those can only be obtained at the DMV. I am not sure if the County Clerk is legally empowered to issue picture IDs one way or the other. But even if he is, that is still a long step for a person without the ID. Navigating the clerk's office can be just as frustrating as navigating the DMV.
But beyond that point, many people register to vote at places like the library, or even on campus or the post office. It is very easy to register to vote right now, and adding the encumberance of a photo ID will make it more difficult for a person without a license to register. It will now be a two-step process: register at the library (for example) and then get the picture ID.
You seem to think that the process to procure a state ID cannot be improved or made more convenient, or even done at the same time as voters are registered.
You'd like the process for a government-issed ID to be "made more convenient" while we are also fighting terrorists at home and abroad? What about all those illegal immigrants? Are you proposing new tax revenues to support the building of hundreds of new DMVs across the state, or do you just think volunteers from the clerk's office should be able to issue State IDs? You still haven't explained how the Indiana DMVs are so much more convenient than our own.
If one is legally entitled to vote in Indiana now, that won't change because of this ruling.
If you are legally entitled to vote, and you are registered, but you cannot produce a government-issued ID your vote will be a provisional ballot, which will then require more legwork to complete the paperwork to approve your inability to pay for the ID. So essentially your vote will not count without the ID, unless you jump through even more hoops.
Which means for many people who voted in 2004, they will not be allowed to vote in 2008 because they don't have the proper ID. If you read the decision in some other way, please explain. To me that seems plain as day.
The more I think about your example, the more intrigued I am to your thought process. A 78 year old woman loses her driver's license and must procure a ride, (I assume because she doesn't drive), to replace it, but it would be an undue burden on her to produce her driver's license, (which she doesn't use to drive), to verify her identity to vote. Fasinating!
To be clear, a lot of eldery citizens don't have licenses anymore, and others still have their license but never use it. My grandmother, for example, held on to her license until the day she died, but hadn't driven an automobile in decades at that point. On the other hand, my wife's grandmother lost her wallet five years ago and current has only a social security card and a medicare card as ID. I reckon we will have to take her out to the DMV to get an ID card if these laws are adopted in Illinois. Big hassle, of course. But then we can all rest assured that those legions of nefarious imposter voters will be stalled in their attempts to throw November's elections.
"Who are these bozos?"
Justice Stevens is now a bozo, too? Name-calling is sooo persuasive.
Justice Stevens does not live in Urbana. He cannot be a bozo.
illinipunditposter
DBoon-All your wife's Grandmother has to do is take those two forms of ID down to the DMV and they will issue her a State ID. If your wife’s grandmother can't drive then maybe your wife or another family member can help her out. The Supreme Court has decided that the grandmother’s inconvenience is not as important as a more secure voting system. The laws detractors also could not prove it would interfere with anyone’s right to vote.
If your wife’s grandmother can't drive then maybe your wife or another family member can help her out.
Sure. I guess it is a good thing she has us around, huh? What about the other old folks who don't have anyone to run this errand with them. SOL, I suppose.
The Supreme Court has decided that the grandmother’s inconvenience is not as important as a more secure voting system. The laws detractors also could not prove it would interfere with anyone’s right to vote.
I am still waiting for some sort of evidence that illustrates the dire need for a more secure voting system. So far we've had a throw away answer (look at Washington State and Milwaukee!) and nothing more. No statistics showing that hundreds of elections have been thrown because of a lack of security over the last ten years. Hell, Indiana couldn't produce a single case to illustrate the point that this system is needed.
Personally, I think I have already proven several times that it will interfere with a lot of people's right to vote. Unfortunately, those people are poor and probably not Republicans, so the point is mute.
"So far we've had a throw away answer (look at Washington State and Milwaukee!) and nothing more."
Your stating that Washington State and Milwaukee aren't important examples doesn't make it so. Just because you're untroubled by the fact that there were more votes cast in Milwaukee than registered voters doesn't mean that the courts are untroubled by it.
Ignoring examples doesn't mean examples don't exist.
"Hell, Indiana couldn't produce a single case to illustrate the point that this system is needed."
And yet the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by one of the most liberal justices, felt the ID requirement was both necessary and an insufficient burden to compromise constitutional rights.
"Personally, I think I have already proven several times that it will interfere with a lot of people's right to vote."
Perhaps you should have argued in front of the Court.
Requiring photo ID will effectively bar my 96-year-old great aunt from voting. She wisely sold her car and gave up driving years ago so she hasn't had a driver's license in over a decade. She now lives in a nursing home and is sharp as a tack. We visit and call her, but I'm not taking a day off of work to drive up, help her get her paperwork from the bank safety deposit box, and then take her and her wheelchair to the DMV to get her ID. She hasn't been able to get in my car because of a bad hip for a couple of years anyway, so I *couldn't* get her where she needs to go even if I went up there.
She will no longer be voting.
That's why this decision sucks. Because the laws concerning state IDs wasn't addressed *first*. Instead, let's make it *harder* for people to vote (when generally, voter turnout *stinks* anyway) rather than easier.
By the way, she votes Republican so I guess it all works out for me and my views in the long run, huh? Wonder how many other senior citizens won't be able to vote either? Around here, they mostly vote Republican anyway, so I guess I shouldn't really care if it's NIMBY, huh?
Who knows---maybe the county she lives in will do something for all the nursing homes in that area, but I'm not going to hold my breath. It's not like budgets are flush with cash right now. Sorry, auntie, no one cares about your vote. You're now irrelevant. That's progress, huh?
I'd have less of a problem if state IDs were either free or subsidized for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Also, if there were more places to actually *get* an ID other than the DMV, it might help accessiblity. But as it stands, this means even *fewer* people electing our officials.
Yuck.
"Requiring photo ID will effectively bar my 96-year-old great aunt from voting. She wisely sold her car and gave up driving years ago so she hasn't had a driver's license in over a decade. She now lives in a nursing home and is sharp as a tack. We visit and call her, but I'm not taking a day off of work to drive up, help her get her paperwork from the bank safety deposit box, and then take her and her wheelchair to the DMV to get her ID. She hasn't been able to get in my car because of a bad hip for a couple of years anyway, so I *couldn't* get her where she needs to go even if I went up there.
She will no longer be voting."
Does she live in Indiana?
gamera... sounds like an ideal candidate for the absentee voting allowed under the system.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Just because you're untroubled by the fact that there were more votes cast in Milwaukee than registered voters doesn't mean that the courts are untroubled by it.
I'm not untroubled about it. Never said I was. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. I just don't see it as such a huge problem that the rest of the country should now be allowed to disenfranchise millions of voters with voter ID laws. You disagree.
Are you really a conservative? I mean, advocating a government ID in order to vote. Is that a conservative position? Proposing more "convenient" (read: expensive=more taxes) DMVs so all citizens can sign up for the government IDs. Is that a conservative position? It doesn't seem like it to me. Seems like a large expansion of state control over the election process, and a clear hinderance to the individual's right to vote. Why am I the one who sounds like a conservative?
We have had election fraud in this country since at least 1800. Yet we have never needed this kind of expansive control of the election process. You want us to believe that some nefarious activities in Wisconsin are finally so aggregious that now we must have mandated IDs? I'm not buying it.
And yet the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by one of the most liberal justices, felt the ID requirement was both necessary and an insufficient burden to compromise constitutional rights.
Actually, if you read the decision, they have left the issue open to further lawsuits once people are ineligible to vote because of this and other laws. It is not a closed case by any stretch, really. And I am not arguing against the decision so much as I am arguing against your original point in the original post: that this is a "reasonable" law.
"I'm not untroubled about it. Never said I was. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth."
You've said about four times that it's not a sufficient example of voter fraud.
"I just don't see it as such a huge problem that the rest of the country should now be allowed to disenfranchise millions of voters with voter ID laws. "
Mmm. More hyperbole. Care to justify that "millions of voters" figure?
"Actually, if you read the decision, they have left the issue open to further lawsuits once people are ineligible to vote because of this and other laws. It is not a closed case by any stretch, really."
Court cases almost never are, really.
"And I am not arguing against the decision so much as I am arguing against your original point in the original post: that this is a "reasonable" law."
You and I have completely different ideas of what is reasonable.
Well, if it's hard to not be cynical about Boon fighting voter fraud, certainly you could see how we would be cynical about you supporting an initiative that was clearly pushed by some members of the right because as usual they are not interested in all Americans being able to vote whether they be poor, have a black name, or a felon.
My principal is easy: everyone should get to vote once. No challenges into provisional ballots. Just document it, check it later and move on.
Also, I wanted to point out that Bambenek used "to be honest" twice in consecutive sentences. That's awesome!
"I am still waiting for some sort of evidence that illustrates the dire need for a more secure voting system. So far we've had a throw away answer (look at Washington State and Milwaukee!) and nothing more."
D. Boon - So, once your examples of your Grandmother and your wife's Grandmother are thrown away, you're still 1 million examples short of proving millions of voters will be disenfranchised.
IP supplied evidence of voter fraud, not huge, but voter fraud none the less. Do we really need to wait until the system is completely corrupt before improvments are made to ensure its integrity? Let's say you were the president of a bank which had been in business since the 1800's and had never been robbed. Would you argue to the bank shareholders that a modern alarm system would only be necessary after a robbery occurs? I don't think it is unreasonable to be proactive in ensuring the integrity of the system which selects our elected officials.
Well, Justice Souter estimated that around 43,000 citizens of Indiana will be lacking in the proper ID. Indiana is the 15th most populated state, at somewhere between 6 and 7 million people. Now calculate that percentage for all other states and you probably have close to a million.
Now multiply that number by every election we will ever have in the future. That is the impact of this decision.
Maybe it needs to be said. This is a major re-interpretation of the Constitution. This decision will have profound impact on the future of the elections in this country, and that impact will be mostly negative. For every incident in Milwaukee we will subtract hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls. That is my point. The incidents of voter fraud are terrible, and should be addressed. But this is a step too far. This decision will make it much harder for many of our citizens to vote. And that, to me, is an unacceptable solution to a relatively minor problem.
Personally, I think clerks should not be elected to their office. Maybe they should be hired, like city managers or something. But the evidence from Ohio and Florida in '04 and '00 points to major fraud being committed by politically connected secretaries of state. Start there before we start limiting the ability to vote for our most vulnerable citizens.
I see the figure you're citing in Souter's dissent on page 12, but that appears to be based on a survey of residents generally, and from his own notes may be an extrapolation that dismisses other factors that would significantly reduce that figure as it wasn't relevant to the precedents he was citing. Particularly the method of the survey doesen't appear to have adjusted for those ineligible to vote, those who would actually face a burden, but would be covered under alternate provisions, particularly applicable to the disabled, elderly, etc. The burden that he in the minority opinion seemed to find as being more than trivial seems to rest on scenarios that fit these alternate provisions. While it certainly appears to bolster his legal argument, it doesn't seem to bolster a real showing of some significant burden on certain voting groups as he seems to conclude.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
This also probably needs to be said: the lawyers who challenged the Indiana law seem to have done a pretty poor job of presenting their case. They couldn't find anyone in the state of Indiana who had been denied the right to vote because of this law? I find that stupifying. I could run over the Champaign County Nursing home (or better yet, Carle Arbors) and find ten old folks who have no license and no way of getting an ID. And that would only take me ten minutes.
The dissenting judges have to work with what they are given. Souter focuses on the provisional ballots because it is a freakin' ridiculous set of hoops to jump through to make that ballot count. That is where you make your argument, because those are the provisions written out in the law. You have to attack the law, you can't attack the DMV.
But the most interesting part to me is that the decision leaves to door open for further challenges. I don't think this decision will live a long life, considering the amount of damage it is going to do to the average citizen's right to vote.
"But the most interesting part to me is that the decision leaves to door open for further challenges."
That's the kicker. Without the law being in effect yet, it's difficult to show actual injury. I think this is one that will be refined over time as the hypotheticals become reality, or they remain hypotheticals. The legal technicalities make it difficult to apply right or wrong to such matters. I think the Poll Tax argument would have been a fairly effective argument if Indiana required a fee for the IDs... documentation being too indirect. I think that may have swayed Stevens and Kennedy. So don't expect this to happen in Illinois anytime soon. Our regressive policies/taxes on such matters are here to stay. Illinois Democrats have proven that even with a super-majority they can't agree on the color of money... let alone bring real change. I'm not expecting the nearly defunct Illinois GOP to save us at this point, but I'm really hoping the downstate Democrats grow a pair and actually unseat the Chicago machine from power. They're running us into the ground at a nice steady pace on a road of good intentions paved with the blood of people they continually fail to keep their promises to.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
And now we see the evidence from Indiana. Nuns barred from voting; hundreds more turned away. It needs to be said: Republicans aren't interested in democracy; they're interested in disenfranchising lawful voters in order to create a government that defies the will of the people.
well, if people were "turned away" then it's a failure not of the ID law but rather of the provisional voting law. No one should be turned away. If they didn't have ID, they would have 48 hours to get such ID to the election authority. I'd be interested in links to stories with problems about the ID.
Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow members of Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.
The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.