Having a form of identification to vote.

[mistermack]

Of course things are different but a UK election generally costs a couple of million pounds/dollars which US ones are measured in billions. Hmm how about taking a 10% tax from that should cover a lot of voting booths.

A 10% tax from what? The cost of an election is borne by the taxpayers via the government (whose source of income is taxes). So, are you proposing that the government tax its own expenditure of tax money for elections to pay for further election expenditures?! I don't understand. If the government can raise funds by taxing its own expenditure of tax money, why do we have a deficit? Hell, at the rate we're spending money, we should have retired the national debt by now!
].

I would have thought that it's perfectly obvious that Mr Jonno was referring to campaign spending.
Is that really so difficult to work out?

Here is my problem with the lack of ID requirement: Just as you worry that requiring an ID will disenfranchise a poor left-leaning voter, I worry that the lack of an ID allows an unscrupulous individual who has "loaded" the voter registration rolls with false names or dead people to travel to different polling stations voting over and over again as the identities they falsely registered to vote. This means if they are voting against my interest, their 2,3,4, hell 20 votes have disenfranchised me!

I haven't seen anyone opposed to Voter ID requirements address this issue yet. Why is it unspeakable to risk disenfranchising a legitimate "disadvantaged" voter by requiring them to prove who they are, but perfectly ok to risk disenfranchising other legitimate votes via the fraud made possible by the lack of ID requirements?

Nobody's addressed? No, you missed it.
The numbers involved in voter fraud are miniscule. If you claim otherwise, give your figures, because other people have previously. If you think all this fraud is going on, back it up with numbers, disproving the numbers already posted. Otherwise it's just you blowing hot air.

[MrJonno]

More to the point what is more important voter fraud or the danger or stopping genuine voters being counted.

The legal system works on a 100 guilty men going free is worse than one innocent person going to jail

[Tyrannical]

More to the point what is more important voter fraud or the danger or stopping genuine voters being counted.

The legal system works on a 100 guilty men going free is worse than one innocent person going to jail

What's most important is stopping the stupid/lazy from voting. There is no excuse for not having an ID.

[MrJonno]

Problem with stopping the stupid/lazy from voting is how you define stupid and lazy. I suspect my definition might be quite different to yours. As much as I would like to ban all Daily Mail (British tabloid) readers and Fox new watchers voting I'm sure they would say the same about me

[mistermack]

What's really revealing is that it's all right wingers who want compulsory ID for voting.

What that shows is two things. Firstly, they know perfectly well which party it will favour, and that's why they want it.
Secondly, it shows their paranoia.

They always assume that fraud would be AGAINST the party they support. Never FOR it.
Whereas in fact, right wingers are more likely to cheat.

If voting fraud was as easy as they suggest, they would all be at it.

[MrJonno]

Pretty obvious where 10% tax on campaign spending would go to improve voter turn out ie poorer areas of the country. I think that's a fair trade for photo ID. White racists rednecks contributing money to get fellow bigots elected while knowing 10% of that will be go to busing in blacks to vote (with ID of course)

[Coito ergo sum]

How long can it be, before everyone will be voting online anyway?

Hopefully, a long time, in my opinion. IMHO, voting should remain on paper, with thousands of local precincts all counting their own votes, subject to verification.

I do virtually all my banking online now, and as far as I'm concerned, that means far more to me than my single vote.

If that's secure enough to be done online, then so is voting.

Except that when you're talking about the kind of power that an election provides elected officials - a centralized computer, maintained by the State, to decide an election as to whether those in power remain in power...well... if you can't see how that is not going to end well, I would be surprised...

If it was done online, most people could access it. Even if they haven't got their own pc, they can ask a friend or neighbour, or use one in a public library. It might even save money and make counting more reliable.

And election-rigging easier...

[Coito ergo sum]

The US Supreme Court took a crack at this in a case called Crawford vs. Marion County in 2005.

Referring to those complaining about a voter ID law in Indiana:

After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive
70-page opinion explaining her decision to
grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 458
F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners
had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual
Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of
SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly
burdened by its requirements.” Id., at 783.

Next, noting the absence of
any plaintiffs who claimed that the law would deter them
from voting, the Court of Appeals inferred that “the motivation
for the suit is simply that the law may require the
Democratic Party and the other organizational plaintiffs
to work harder to get every last one of their supporters to
the polls.” Id., at 952.

The Court explained that election rules are fine as long as they are

“evenhanded restrictions that protect
the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself”

The Court explained that for the measure to be valid, it has to serve legitimate state interests:

The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter
fraud. The State has a valid interest in participating in a
nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures
that have been criticized as antiquated and inefficient.
9 The State also argues that it has a particular interest in preventing voter fraud in response to a problem
that is in part the product of its own maladministration—
namely, that Indiana’s voter registration rolls include a
large number of names of persons who are either deceased
or no longer live in Indiana. Finally, the State relies on its
interest in safeguarding voter confidence.

The Court reviewed federal law on elections, which requires States to maintain computerized voter records and to maintain security of the voter rolls. The federal law specifically states that Photo ID is an acceptable form of identification that people can use to identify themselves for registration purposes. And, the Court discussed the Carter-Baker Report, which specifically found that fraud did occur (although it was not characterized as "Extensive") and that it could effect a close election. And, the Court said:

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance
of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible
voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration
and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification
for carefully identifying all voters participating in the
election process. While the most effective method of preventing
election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety
of doing so is perfectly clear.

And,

Finally, the State contends that it has an interest in
protecting public confidence “in the integrity and legitimacy
of representative government.” Brief for State Respondents,
No. 07-25, p. 53. While that interest is closely
related to the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud,
public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process
has independent significance, because it encourages citizen
participation in the democratic process. As the
Carter-Baker Report observed, the “electoral system cannot
inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter
or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.” Supra,
at 10.

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... inion.html Stevens was on the "Liberal" side of the Court.

Suggesting, IMHO, that since one thinks that Republicans are favored by a voting system that protects the integrity of the voting roles and accurately identifies who is an eligible voter, doesn't seem to be a particularly strong argument.

[tantamount]

Isn't it a bit suspicious that it's only Republicans, especially in swing states, that are motivated for voter ID?

Isn't it a bit suspicious that Republicans are against criminalizing ads or hand-outs with false and misleading election information (ie, intentionally directing someone to the wrong polling place or on the wrong date)? And why would that be? Because this is a favorite, oft-used Republican dirty trick.

What's breathtaking is the breadth of cynicism involved in this whole operation. So many Republican governors, engaging in the same crass-- practically evil-- endeavor. Denying someone's right to vote. And they KNOW that's what they're doing. Preventing the illusory "voter fraud" is the farthest thing from their goal.

It's funny this comes from the people who inveigh against "liberals who want to control you" when those liberals try to give them healthcare or prevent global warming. But, in fact, in denying the vote to vast swaths of the American electorate, it's the neo-cons who "want to control you."

[Coito ergo sum]

Isn't it a bit suspicious that it's only Republicans, especially in swing states, that are motivated for voter ID?

Probably the same reason Democrats focus their attention on disqualifying military votes.

Isn't it a bit suspicious that Republicans are against criminalizing ads or hand-outs with false and misleading election information (ie, intentionally directing someone to the wrong polling place or on the wrong date)? And why would that be? Because this is a favorite, oft-used Republican dirty trick.

You'll have to be specific here. I doubt either party is in favor of criminalizing false political ads, because that would subject all political messages to scrutiny by the government. The government is run by politicians. So, a Democrat Sheriff is not as likely to notice false advertising by a Democrat.

The main reason to oppose laws criminalizing false statements in political ads is to prevent a chilling of free speech which would come from that scrutiny and those prosecutions. When does a difference of opinion become a lie? Leave it up to a government bureau or the police to decide? Not on your life.

What's breathtaking is the breadth of cynicism involved in this whole operation. So many Republican governors, engaging in the same crass-- practically evil-- endeavor. Denying someone's right to vote. And they KNOW that's what they're doing. Preventing the illusory "voter fraud" is the farthest thing from their goal.

Nobody's right to vote is denied. Nobody is being prevented from voting. See the Crawford case I quoted from above.

It's funny this comes from the people who inveigh against "liberals who want to control you" when those liberals try to give them healthcare or prevent global warming. But, in fact, in denying the vote to vast swaths of the American electorate, it's the neo-cons who "want to control you."

Liberals tried to "give" people healthcare? When? Where? Who? Give? What country are you referring to? You mean the Affordable Care Act which is a mandate that individuals purchase their own health insurance whether they like it or not, under penalty of a fine from the Internal Revenue Service? "Give?" LOL -- put it on a sign, and you'd be prosecuted under one of those false political advertising laws....

Denying the vote to vast swaths of the electorate? That's just plain false. Again, note the Crawford opinion -- no evidence was presented of a single person -- NOT ONE -- that would be prevented from voting. Come on, dude...

[Coito ergo sum]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Dear Big Fucking Lizard-thingy,

Yesterday, a Pennsylvania state judge refused the ACLU's request to block that state's onerous new voter ID law from taking effect. This decision heightens the risk that elderly and minority voters will see their voting rights thrown into jeopardy in November's critical elections.

Legislators who pushed this controversial law through claimed it was to prevent voter fraud. But, in the courtroom, the state admitted it had no evidence of in-person voter fraud taking place and did not expect in-person fraud to take place if the law wasn't enacted. Yet, despite these facts, the judge refused to enjoin the law from being enacted.

The ACLU won't stop fighting to protect the right to vote. We will file an appeal to the state's Supreme Court. And, we must also immediately step up on-the-ground efforts to educate and inform voters about their rights.

Please donate now to help the ACLU protect voting rights and defend freedom in Pennsylvania and at-risk areas across the country. (Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information already filled in.)

The ACLU is pursuing vital litigation challenging discriminatory and unnecessary voter suppression laws across the country. Now, with Election Day around the corner, we are in a race against time — with an enormous amount of work still to be done. Even in states where we have stopped block-the-vote laws, an atmosphere of distrust and confusion remains.

We will be in touch in the weeks ahead as the ACLU seeks your participation in vigorous and urgently-needed efforts to defend the right to vote. But, right now, the most powerful step you can take is rushing an immediate donation to help the ACLU gear up for three months of intense activity.

Donate now to help the ACLU defend the right to vote and other fundamental freedoms in Pennsylvania and across the nation.

Thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director, ACLU

[Svartalf]

Yep, should I ever get the $$ to go settle in the US, the first to orgs I'll subscribe to will be the NRA (yes, I hear they are out dated, but they should still be a good gateway), and the ACLU.

[tantamount]

Isn't it a bit suspicious that it's only Republicans, especially in swing states, that are motivated for voter ID?

Probably the same reason Democrats focus their attention on disqualifying military votes.

I wasn't aware Democrat governors in democrat swing states were, en masse, seeking to pass laws that disqualify military absentee ballots.

Isn't it a bit suspicious that Republicans are against criminalizing ads or hand-outs with false and misleading election information (ie, intentionally directing someone to the wrong polling place or on the wrong date)? And why would that be? Because this is a favorite, oft-used Republican dirty trick.

You'll have to be specific here. I doubt either party is in favor of criminalizing false political ads, because that would subject all political messages to scrutiny by the government. The government is run by politicians. So, a Democrat Sheriff is not as likely to notice false advertising by a Democrat.

The main reason to oppose laws criminalizing false statements in political ads is to prevent a chilling of free speech which would come from that scrutiny and those prosecutions. When does a difference of opinion become a lie? Leave it up to a government bureau or the police to decide? Not on your life.

I was very specific. You tried to generalize it and say the generalization would not be practicable/enforceable. I'll repeat: notifying a voter as to a WRONG polling place or WRONG date. That's it. Polling place. Date. Nothing to do with "political messages", "political ads". That's why these republican dirty tricks are so insidious. They'll drop off what appears to be apolitical, informational notices at democrat voters homes. No political content (or perhaps even a democrat-tinged message), with a reminder of where and when to vote... except the polling place is wrong and/or the date is one or two days AFTER the correct date. Isn't it funny? Can't you see Karl Rove gasping with laughter?

Republicans don't think this should be criminalized. And it could just be the (now) customary republican reaction to any democrat proposal ("I wont touch it if a Democrat has touched it"). So it's either a case of cynicism or republican's neurotic aversion to democrat-cooties.

What's breathtaking is the breadth of cynicism involved in this whole operation. So many Republican governors, engaging in the same crass-- practically evil-- endeavor. Denying someone's right to vote. And they KNOW that's what they're doing. Preventing the illusory "voter fraud" is the farthest thing from their goal.

Nobody's right to vote is denied. Nobody is being prevented from voting. See the Crawford case I quoted from above.

When a certain percentage of the student/elderly/minority population is not allowed to vote because they do not have their ID, what word are you going to use instead of "deny."

They are legal voters. They would have voted in this election, but for a law that prevents "voter fraud"-- a condition that is so rare it is virtually nonexistent-- but instead prevents "voters voting."

I'll use the word "deny." You can use the word like "tricked" or "was stupid" [just guessing here].

I salute the republicans. They're good. The same way the use every trick in the book to deny abortion services, they're using their same wiles on denying the vote to democrats.

It's funny this comes from the people who inveigh against "liberals who want to control you" when those liberals try to give them healthcare or prevent global warming. But, in fact, in denying the vote to vast swaths of the American electorate, it's the neo-cons who "want to control you."

Liberals tried to "give" people healthcare? When? Where? Who? Give? What country are you referring to? You mean the Affordable Care Act which is a mandate that individuals purchase their own health insurance whether they like it or not, under penalty of a fine from the Internal Revenue Service? "Give?" LOL -- put it on a sign, and you'd be prosecuted under one of those false political advertising laws....

Denying the vote to vast swaths of the electorate? That's just plain false. Again, note the Crawford opinion -- no evidence was presented of a single person -- NOT ONE -- that would be prevented from voting. Come on, dude...

you seem to wince at the idea of 30 million people who were not covered being now covered. Is "give" the wrong word? Sorry. Although, I'm sure they're grateful. Same for the people with preexisting conditions. And for people who have maxed out and are denied coverage. "Give" is the right word, when republicans want to "take" this away. I guess you already have health care, so it's not a big deal for you. Lucky guy.

Hm, you're upset about the mandate. The, uh, republican mandate from 1993. sorry, it wasn't what democrats wanted, either. we wanted single payer. but, republicans being what they are, and our health insurance companies being what they are, we can't get it. blame your republican representatives for their intransigence.

Health care really isn't the issue here, however. The thread regards Voter ID laws.

"no evidence was presented of a single person -- NOT ONE"
What are you talking about? As soon as one legal voter walks up to his polling station, who voted before, but is now denied due to forgotten or unacceptable (eg, student) ID, then you have your ONE person. That's the whole point of the law, to stop people without ID from voting. Everyone is going to remember to bring the ID? Everyone is going to have the correct ID? No. People are going to forget. People are going to go to work rather than stand in line again. It's statistics. And statistically, the democrats are going to get hit harder than republicans. (One anecdote I found very interesting: in one state, they will accept your gun permit license, but won't accept your college student ID-- that's kind of a giveaway.)

Finally, even if it didn't statistically hit democrats harder (students, elderly, minorities), it still is going to affect a lot of people. To "solve" a "problem" that doesn't exist. The study cited in the media was something like 10 proven cases of fraud in 2000-2012 (can't remember if this was just Presidential elections). So to remedy an average of 0.8 votes per year, we disenfranchise hundreds of thousands?

It's Republicans who always go on about "needless and harmful red-tape and regulation." Just how would one characterize these Voter ID laws?

[Warren Dew]

Dear Big Fucking Lizard-thingy,

Yesterday, a Pennsylvania state judge refused the ACLU's request to block that state's onerous new voter ID law from taking effect. This decision heightens the risk that elderly and minority voters will see their voting rights thrown into jeopardy in November's critical elections.

Legislators who pushed this controversial law through claimed it was to prevent voter fraud. But, in the courtroom, the state admitted it had no evidence of in-person voter fraud taking place and did not expect in-person fraud to take place if the law wasn't enacted. Yet, despite these facts, the judge refused to enjoin the law from being enacted.

The ACLU won't stop fighting to protect the right to vote. We will file an appeal to the state's Supreme Court. And, we must also immediately step up on-the-ground efforts to educate and inform voters about their rights.

Please donate now to help the ACLU protect voting rights and defend freedom in Pennsylvania and at-risk areas across the country. (Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information already filled in.)

The ACLU is pursuing vital litigation challenging discriminatory and unnecessary voter suppression laws across the country. Now, with Election Day around the corner, we are in a race against time — with an enormous amount of work still to be done. Even in states where we have stopped block-the-vote laws, an atmosphere of distrust and confusion remains.

We will be in touch in the weeks ahead as the ACLU seeks your participation in vigorous and urgently-needed efforts to defend the right to vote. But, right now, the most powerful step you can take is rushing an immediate donation to help the ACLU gear up for three months of intense activity.

Donate now to help the ACLU defend the right to vote and other fundamental freedoms in Pennsylvania and across the nation.

Thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director, ACLU

Fortunately the ACLU also supports valid defenses of freedom - a recent example being Citizen's United - or I would quit donating to them.