Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Koehler: This Cannot Be (Mandatory Voter ID)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 08:45 AM
Original message
Koehler: This Cannot Be (Mandatory Voter ID)
This cannot be
by Robert C. Koehler
September 28, 2006

New, from the I-hate-government crowd: mandatory voter ID!

The last time fiscal and moral folly merged so shamelessly with political opportunism, we invaded Iraq.

The primary question in my mind, as I ponder the latest assault on rationality to emanate from our GOP-controlled Congress (how much longer, Lord?), is to what extent these radicals believe they're doing the right thing - as they set about methodically circumventing the principles that define who we are as a nation - and to what extent they're just cynically serving their short-term interests. Or has that line simply vanished?

HR 4844, which passed the House along party lines last week, is, unfortunately, more than just sputter and bluster about the peril of illegal aliens invading our voting booths, i.e., another piece of fantasy legislation to "protect" Americans from one more right-wing bugbear, like smoldering flags and gay wedding cakes.

This bill, which would require would-be voters to show expensive proof-of-citizenship identification before they could cast a ballot in the 2008 election, is straight-on vote suppression - addressing not the minuscule problem of non-citizens trying to vote, but the far larger one of low-income American citizens trying to vote, and voting their interests, which means, for the most part, voting Democratic.

-snip

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/2164
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. Koehler claims he's an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist so he
so he should be able to find studies to support his assertion that voter ID's are "straight-on vote suppression".

Absent such studies,I'll believe the Carter/Baker report that says:
QUOTE
Second, to make sure that a person arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, we propose a uniform system of voter identification based on the "REAL ID card" or an equivalent for people without a drivers license. To prevent the ID from being a barrier to voting, we recommend that states use the registration and ID process to enfranchise more voters than ever. States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple standards. In addition, we suggest procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the rights of citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised because of an ID requirement. We also propose that voters who do not have a photo ID during a transitional period receive a provisional ballot that would be counted if their signature is verified.
UNQUOTE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Koehler's right, Carter and Baker are lying, and that's the end of it.
Jim Baker was the treasonous piece of filth who spewed seditious hate at the Florida Supreme Court in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I see we disagree and that's often the case in our Dem party. n/a
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Blah Blah, trotting out the same tired Carter/Baker as in James Baker
Edited on Sat Sep-30-06 01:12 PM by rosebud57
as if the inclusion of the word Carter is proof that what all the editorial boards of all the newspapers are referring to as suppression of low income, elderly and minority voters isn't so.


I guess Jody will volunteer to cruise the tenements with a caravan of buses and will personally be ferrying the IDless to obtain their FREE IDs after she ferrys them to obtain copies of their birth certificates.

Suppressing the Vote

With Election Day around the corner, and concerns about another voting debacle of Florida 2000-proportions running high (especially given problems at primaries this year in Maryland, Ohio, Illinois and several other states) – Republicans in Congress are on the job and doing everything they can to further disenfranchise voters.

Rather than taking the necessary steps to strengthen, expand and improve the democratic process, the GOP has launched a new effort to create modern-day Jim Crow exclusionary practices through new voter ID requirements.

The House recently passed a bill along party lines requiring voters to present a photo ID beginning in 2008. Starting in 2010, voters would need to pay for a government-issued proof of citizenship – a virtual poll tax. This shameful legislation was passed just months after the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act when President Bush declared "the right of ordinary men and women to determine their own political future."

"If the Bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer – and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican," the New York Times wrote in a recent editorial.

Demos, a national public policy organization, reports that the legislation would disproportionately impact people of color, individuals with disabilities, rural voters, people living on reservations, the homeless, and low-income people – all of whom studies show are less likely to carry a photo ID and more often have to change photo ID information.

The rest is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=125185

New York Times - September 21, 2006


Editorial: Keep Away the Vote

One of the cornerstones of the Republican Party’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy.

The bill the House passed yesterday would require people to show photo ID to vote in 2008. Starting in 2010, that photo ID would have to be something like a passport, or an enhanced kind of driver’s license or non-driver’s identification, containing proof of citizenship. This is a level of identification that many Americans simply do not have.

The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting.

Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote. The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about.

The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican.

Court after court has held that voter ID laws of this kind are unconstitutional. This week, yet another judge in Georgia struck down that state’s voter ID law.

Last week, a judge in Missouri held its voter ID law to be unconstitutional. Supporters of the House bill are no doubt hoping that they may get lucky, and that the current conservative Supreme Court might uphold their plan.

America has a proud tradition of opening up the franchise to new groups, notably women and blacks, who were once denied it. It is disgraceful that, for partisan political reasons, some people are trying to reverse the tide, and standing in the way of people who have every right to vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/opinion/21thu1.html?_...

Voter ID ploy stands on lame fraud claims

Published on: 09/24/06
Republican leaders have discovered a grave threat to American democracy that most of us apparently had not noticed: Everywhere, in big states and small, red enclaves and blue, bustling metropolises and rural hamlets, impostors are flocking to the polls to vote under false pretenses. Apparently, the nation has been overrun by fake voters.

snip

Yet, the lack of a problem has made Republicans no less insistent on a solution. It makes you wonder whether they are up to something other than ferreting out voter fraud. Even if there is a legitimate need for a single, government-sponsored identification card in an age of terrorism, it would take years — and a well-organized, government-funded effort — to place those IDs in the hands of every elderly and rural American in out-of-the-way towns and every American of color in down-at-the-heels urban neighborhoods.

Of course, Republicans know that. They also know that most minority voters tend to cast their ballots for Democrats; so do many low-income elderly voters. Since those voters are less likely to have driver's licenses, it's a safe bet that requiring a photo ID at the polls will shave off a few Democratic voters. As we've seen in the past two presidential elections, just a few votes can make a winner out of a loser.

The GOP has given up making its policies broadly appealing. Instead, it works hard at keeping a certain slice of voters from the polls.

Their focus on blocking the ballot box seems especially harsh — and hypocritical — at the very time that President Bush has claimed that spreading democratic ideals is the centerpiece of American foreign policy. How can we export democracy to Iraq if we are so uncomfortable with it here at home?

•Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor. Her column runs Sundays and Wednesdays.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/stories/2006/09/23/0924edtuck.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I see we disagree. You can change my mind if you provide links to an
authoritative study that concludes the Carter/Baker report is wrong about Voter IDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I don't need to. You, in your hysteria are certain that the states should
spend 11 billion to prevent a handful of Mexicans from voting. Hint if it sounds like Britney Spears and Kevin Federline it ain't a Mexican, or a Frenchman. On the other hand if it sounds like Sean Connery it might be Scottish. And that don't cost a dime.

Now, you can be forgiven if you've never heard of a single case in which an illegal immigrant successfully used a fake ID at the polls. Neither Burton nor Perdue presented evidence of any such cases.

"If you are an illegal immigrant, the last thing you want to do is show up at a polling place, ..." said Thomas Patterson, an expert on elections at Harvard's Shorenstein Center. "We have enough trouble getting people to vote when they're eligible. The idea that people are going to stick their necks out and get penalty stretches the imagination."

Patterson notes that the voting and registration rules that apply in much of this country are already more stringent than those in most Western European democracies. In much of Western Europe, for example, the postal service simply notifies voter registration officials when a citizen moves, and his voting precinct is automatically changed.


And you are a fan of James Baker because...

Baker served as chief legal advisor for George W. Bush during the 2000 election campaign and oversaw the Florida recount. He was instrumental in getting the Supreme Court to intervene in the Florida vote recount. Over 200,000 votes were not counted, thus giving election to George W Bush even though he lost the popular vote. He is currently (as of 2004) a senior partner at the law firm of Baker Botts and senior counsel to the Carlyle Group.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. You lose. Have a nice evening. n/a
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. HR 4844 is a GOP bill - do you support the GOP?
Just wondering why someone posting on a democratic message board
would so strongly support a GOP piece of legislation that
Democrats across the board object to?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. you might want to review post #10 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. does this bill enact the Carter/Baker recommendation?
I don't think so. Koehler is criticizing a specific bill; he may believe, but didn't assert, that "voter ID's are 'straight-on vote suppression.'"

If I'm not mistaken, Carter/Baker expressly calls for the card to be free to people who don't otherwise have qualifying ID. Again if I'm not mistaken, the bill calls for the card to be free for people who demonstrate that they can't pay for it. That's a lot worse. And the requirements for getting the card seem pretty onerous, too.

I know folks who don't oppose voter ID in principle, but think this is an awful bill, because it doesn't provide adequate (in the Carter/Baker language) "procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the rights of citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised." I also know folks who do oppose voter ID in principle because they think the current signature requirement in many states suffices. Regardless, there is enough for us to disagree about without attacking Koehler for a position he didn't state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. See #1 for the recommendation from the Carter/Baker report. I object
to HR 4844 because it places different requirements for voting than it does for registering to vote.

HR 4844 requires free Voter ID cards for any citizen that says they cannot afford to pay for the card. I'm afraid that opens the door for abuse by state and local governments that might place harsh standards on indigent people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. would a democrat support HR 4844?
I am just wondering.

I can't help but wonder - HR 4844 only benefits the GOP who love
to suppress the vote.

This bill would oppress legitimate voters who don't have the luxury of
free time and lots of money to track down proof of citizenship.


Just like the vote for HR 4844, it had party line support by the GOP,
and party line opposition by the DEMS.

This is one of the few things the DEMS really stood behind.

HR 4844 is so Karl Rove-like.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. voting outcome:
Edited on Sat Sep-30-06 10:05 PM by mod mom
It passed with votes along party lines, the Republicans voting for and the Democrats voting against. Below are those members who voted opposite of the majority of their party.

Sanders an independent voted against the bill.

Democrats voting in favor of the bill:
Bean
Marshall
Peterson (MN)
Taylor (MS)

Republicans voting against the bill:
Bass
Bradley (NH)
Young (AK)

Didn't vote:
Case (R)
Cubin (R)
Evans (D)
Keller (R)
Kennedy (RI) (D)
Moore (KS) (D)
Ney (R)
Strickland (D)

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001848.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. So you are a fan of Baker?
Is Baker your hero?

Cause he ain't mine.

And I have guns too, but I don't feel the need to post it in my signature line.

Seems a bit silly -

Here I will pretend that I have it in my signature:

Proud owner of a Smith and Wesson 357 Caliber Revolver, and semi proud owner of a indescrept brand of a semi-automatic 22 pistol. And I know how to use them - both. And I also have mace.

Now doesn't that look silly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. OK, but do you take my point about Koehler?
I have a personal stake in making this board safe for intelligent disagreement, but it works best when everyone tries to get each other's positions right. So far, you are down as interpreting his opposition to 4844 as opposition to all voter ID bills -- but you oppose 4844 yourself. Bluntly, I don't want to be taking your arguments more seriously than you are.

I'd also encourage you to think hard about some of the other arguments against voter ID, beyond the nominal cost of the card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I've asked several who post on DU and oppose photo Voter IDs what
they would do to insure only lawful U.S. citizens are allowed to register to vote and then vote.

None of them have given a reasoned reply.

Carter said that the commission was faced with two options, either require a standard document or not require any proof at all.

That's why I keep asking my simple question, if you oppose voter IDs then what do you propose as an alternative.

This forum is titled “Election Reform” and IMO that means more than just opposing a specific election policy or procedure, it means recommending a specific policy or procedure to replace the offending one.

I oppose HR 4844 because it uses different standards for registering to vote and later voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. well, I wish you had answered my question
I'm willing to catch your back when people misrepresent your words, but not if you reserve the right to misrepresent other people's. It's just not worth it.

One reasoned reply to your question (not that you have to agree with it) is that we don't need stronger insurance that only lawful U.S. citizens are allowed to vote. Personally, if I were an illegal alien, I can't imagine registering to vote. It probably happens to some extent, but I don't see how it justifies a federally mandated ID system.

The Carter/Baker rationale is that in a close election, even a few votes could make the difference -- but that's weak. In the United States, we don't go around hyperregulating every damn thing because it's hypothetically possible that some good might come of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 09:00 AM
Original message
RE: your point about Koehler, I carefully reread Koehler's article and
still conclude that he opposes voter IDs in general not just HR 4844.

Koehler says:
QUOTE
The mechanism of democracy is breaking down before our very eyes. The problems already in place - most egregiously, our national electronic voting debacle, which is mind-boggling in its costs, malfunctions and fraud potential - need our urgent attention. So it's enormously frustrating to have to expend energy desperately heading off greater damage, but I see little choice.

The anti-democratic forces we're up against are part cynical calculation and part deep-seated fear of the unknown. The Voter ID bill demonstrates the seamlessness with which these elements are conjoined. The bill is part of a package of fear-based legislation - including the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border - aimed at sealing the country off from the rest of the world, as though what we have to give the world is in short supply.
UNQUOTE

Koehler can rant and he's not obligated to recommend specific policies and procedures for federal elections that would insure only U.S. citizens are allowed to register to vote and then vote -- but congress has that responsibility.

IMO HR 4844 has flaws and should not become law but I also want congress to pass a bipartisan bill implementing the Carter/Baker report recommendation in spirit as well as practice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
25. OK, at least I know what you're thinking now
As a matter of logic, I don't think you can extrapolate from Koehler's opinion about "(t)he Voter ID bill" to his opinion about voter IDs in general. At the same time, I suspect you are right: I doubt that he sees any advantage to voter IDs.

Apparently you think that it's important to do more to prevent non-citizens from voting, but I don't know why. Do you know of a lot of non-citizens who vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. No re non-citizens who vote but I support standard procedures for
registering to vote and then identifying a voter before actually voting in federal elections.

By that I mean no state could implement more nor less stringent requirements.

IMO photo voter IDs will be mandatory and perhaps even a national ID in a few decades. As much as I find that abhorrent, I believe technology and social forces drive us toward that transition state to the 22nd century.

If I'm right, then we Dems need to make certain that such IDs are do not exclude any group from exercising every inalienable right recognized by the founders plus every right that might have evolved with society since 1776.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. well...
First of all, while I haven't read the floor debate on 4844, I suspect Koehler is pretty much on target about how this issue has played. Certainly John Fund's book seemed weirdly obsessed with the alien menace. So you may be reacting to a tone you regard as over the top, but in this case it might be closer than you think.

If national ID is coming inexorably, then I would say, let's get that right, and make sure everyone has it on reasonable terms, before we even talk about requiring it for voting. Make sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Make sense? You bet and I wish we Dems could frame the debate and
lead but that would mean controlling both houses. When we again control congress, I hope we take advantage of the opportunity rather than letting a Repug congress and Repug president pass a law with objectionable policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Dupe deleted. n/a
Edited on Sun Oct-01-06 09:16 AM by jody
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Then my answer is we should not require proof of citizenship...
Especially since it is apparent as soon as someone speaks whether they were born in the United States. After all being born here automatically qualifies someone as a citizen. No unfunded mandate, no 11 billion dollars to implement.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. I oppose it for what it does, not because it is different from HAVA
I am unimpressed with your position.

You see - I oppose HR 4844 because its goal is to disenfranchise
lots of eligable voters.

There doesn't need to be new legislation regarding what papers
you must show to vote.

I find no value in opposing one law because it differs from another.

I oppose HR 4844 because it is a POS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galloglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-02-06 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #20
34. Your answer
This forum is titled “Election Reform” and IMO that means more than just opposing a specific election policy or procedure, it means recommending a specific policy or procedure to replace the offending one.

YOUR definition of this of ERD is irrelevant. This is a forum.

"More than",is unimportant when you start to take away Constitutional Rights, like voting and habeas corpus, from citizens. The burden should be on you, and others, to prove I am NOT citizen!

I oppose HR 4844 because it uses different standards for registering to vote and later voting.


These are hurdles to keep me from voting. Poll tax, IDs, whatever. It doesn't matter. I have a Constituional Right to vote. Anyone who tries to take it away risks the same consequence implied in your standard sig. line about the Second Amendment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the rights of
citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised

The reality is that it would be impossible to get low income and homeless people equipped with their free IDs. Just as it is impossible for the Census Bureau to count everyone.

For example. Potential voter A who does not drive, supports himself by selling bootleg DVDs on a certain street corner. This week he is staying with his aunt in her 1 bedroom subsidized apartment after he got into an argument with his most recent girlfriend and she put him out 2 weeks ago. His belongings which do not include a birth certificate that his mother may or may not have had in her possession over the course of living in 10 different apartments when he was growing up, including the times they were evicted and the bailiffs carried everything out to the sidewalk are contained in 2 large garbage bags.

Potential voter B is 75 years old and only leaves her 3rd floor apartment to get groceries at the corner market. She is scared because of violent crime in her low income neighborhood. Her limited income and literacy skills make it highly unlikely she will be able to obtain a birth certificate from the small town in Alabama where she grew up. She currently lives in Chicago. This will be the first election she has not voted but she decides that the cost benefit ratio is not worth the extra effort, especially since politicians do not care about people in her circumstances.

Potential voter C has just moved again. The apartment he was living in was inexpensive enough, but the chimney collapsed taking part of the ceiling with it. Had it happened at night voter C realizes he might have been seriously hurt as the heavy plaster fell on his bed. He knows he used to have a birth certificate but cannot remember which apartment he lived in when he last saw it.

What procedures exactly would it take to identify these people and once they are identified, what would it take to get the necessary documentation to prove they are citizens. A phalanx of social workers? And when these people move yet agawin we start all over?

Making IDS free doesn't do a damn thing to get the disenfranchised franchised. We can't even communicate to Ohio former felons that they are allowed to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. I basically agree with that
Carter/Baker proposed more than just making the IDs free, but they didn't convince me. I thought Spencer Overton won that debate on the merits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Low income people lead disorganized chaotic lives. We don't limit
the franchise to people who have their shit together, move infrequently and drive automobiles and hold passports for overseas travel.

This noncitizens voting hysteria is a fiction. Anyone who fears a shadowy figure plotting to race to the polling location, who not only has memorized an address and a name, but a birthdate and a social and who will be required to forge a signature while a poll worker is watching is smoking crack. I had lots of time and practice in high school forging my mother's signature and never got it truly right.

Low income people already vote at the lowest levels of any group. They already believe rightly that it makes virtually no difference in their lives. Free or not a substantial number will not put forth the extra effort while the passport owning affluent will have to put forth NONE. And that is not equal protection.

And most importantly, I don't care where a roving free ID bus travels it will not serve the purpose of communicating to everyone who lacks ID that they can get it by tracking down the bus. Will people who have no birth certificate be able to get a free ID on the bus without one?

Another unfunded mandate whose true purpose is to discourage voting by the less affluent who coincidentally tend to vote Democratic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. I understand your concern but for federal elections we either have
a single standard procedure for all states and territories are we shouldn't require any proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and later to vote.

That's the dilemma the Carter/Baker commission faced and they chose to recommend a photo voter ID.

IMO those people born before some year, e.g. 1940, should be grand fathered in by relaxing the requirement for a birth certificate. Anyone born after that year must present proof they are a U.S. citizen.

The Carter/Baker commission and HR 4844 could only address federal elections and Congress has the authority under the constitution to establish the manner of holding federal elections. I'm not convinced that SCOTUS will rule unconstitutional a law that requires proof of citizenship, e.g. birth certificate, is a poll tax as so many have asserted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Carter/Baker - Rove designed it well
How nice of Rove to make sure that Carter's name was tied to one of
the most nefarious of the jack boots, the leader of the brown shirts,
Baker.

Sounds like Baker is your hero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Baker was leader of the Brown Shirt Gang in FL in 2000
I have NO respect for Baker what so ever, he is Bush's
heavy lifter who helps in voter supression.

When I hear that Carter would allow himself to be on a commission with
this criminal Baker, I was sickened.

Carter made a huge mistake allowing his name to be connected with that
piece of hog manure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. Who'da thought that Bob Koehler's-hero on this forum-article would be a
topic for dissent.

In Ohio the 'pukes used VOTER fraud as a basis for the GOP Voter Suppression Bill (HB 3) despite ONLY 4 DOCUMENTED CASES OF VOTER FRAUD IN OHIO DURING THE 2004 ELECTION. During a Common Cause Lobby Day on Election Reform I had the "pleasure" of meeting with a Republican State Senator, Jeffry Armbruster (R-Lorain) who had the audacity to say that the real fraud was on the part of the Democratics who dragged drunks out of bars on election day to vote (Yeah as if drunks are willing to stand in line for 3 to 5 hours to vote).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-01-06 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. I guess its like trying to understand a Lieberman
Like how can Lieberman be what he is and call himself a Democrat - but he does.

He's an independent democrat.

I really really hated it when Carter allowed his name to be tied to
one of the dirties Repugs there is, James Baker, the Election Fixer.

Only an idiot would not see through Baker's game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-30-06 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. No American should have to show photo ID to vote nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC