Is it a "Poll Tax"

[Navy1960]

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

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.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
It is argued that a State may exact fees from citizens for many different kinds of licenses; that, if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver's license, [n5] it can demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216), are traditionally disfavored. See Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 184-185 (Jackson, J., concurring); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections


After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax". If for example these state who wish a form of ID for a voter to identify themselves in a election to combat voter fraud which seems a little bit of a stretch in my humble opinion given the fact that data suggests the instances of fraud do not justify these laws, then that state would put in place a voter ID where the voter at registration would use the registration card as the voter ID, otherwise why bother to register to vote if additional state ID is required. In addtion if the instances of fraud justified the need for these laws to such a degree then the question is, why now?, why not in the last election, or the one before that or the one before that? I seem to recall a very close election in 2000 where the words "fraud" were being tossed around often especially in Fl. and yet we seemed to survive that with little problem. While many might disagree with me on this one and as they are entitled to, it is my humble opinion these laws serve no useful purpose if they keep on American from voting who is entitled to do so because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

 

[tjvh]

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

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.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
It is argued that a State may exact fees from citizens for many different kinds of licenses; that, if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver's license, [n5] it can demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216), are traditionally disfavored. See Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 184-185 (Jackson, J., concurring); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections


After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax". If for example these state who wish a form of ID for a voter to identify themselves in a election to combat voter fraud which seems a little bit of a stretch in my humble opinion given the fact that data suggests the instances of fraud do not justify these laws, then that state would put in place a voter ID where the voter at registration would use the registration card as the voter ID, otherwise why bother to register to vote if additional state ID is required. In addtion if the instances of fraud justified the need for these laws to such a degree then the question is, why now?, why not in the last election, or the one before that or the one before that? I seem to recall a very close election in 2000 where the words "fraud" were being tossed around often especially in Fl. and yet we seemed to survive that with little problem. While many might disagree with me on this one and as they are entitled to, it is my humble opinion these laws serve no useful purpose if they keep on American from voting who is entitled to do so because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

See highlight above^. It would be ridiculous to think that a person would be obtaining an ID "for the sole purpose of voting". Is there a single American citizen that can get through life without any form of ID whatsoever? I highly doubt it. That person couldn't be hired w/o valid ID (IRS), couldn't collect public assistance, couldn't do pretty much anything. The term frivolous Lawsuit comes to mind.

 

[Conservative]

every voter ID law INCLUDES the provision to get a free ID. FREE... lack of cost... unincumbered by expense...

 

[onecut39]

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

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.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
It is argued that a State may exact fees from citizens for many different kinds of licenses; that, if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver's license, [n5] it can demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216), are traditionally disfavored. See Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 184-185 (Jackson, J., concurring); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections


After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax". If for example these state who wish a form of ID for a voter to identify themselves in a election to combat voter fraud which seems a little bit of a stretch in my humble opinion given the fact that data suggests the instances of fraud do not justify these laws, then that state would put in place a voter ID where the voter at registration would use the registration card as the voter ID, otherwise why bother to register to vote if additional state ID is required. In addtion if the instances of fraud justified the need for these laws to such a degree then the question is, why now?, why not in the last election, or the one before that or the one before that? I seem to recall a very close election in 2000 where the words "fraud" were being tossed around often especially in Fl. and yet we seemed to survive that with little problem. While many might disagree with me on this one and as they are entitled to, it photo I
D is my humble opinion these laws serve no useful purpose if they keep on American from voting who is entitled to do so because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

See highlight above^. It would be ridiculous to think that a person would be obtaining an ID "for the sole purpose of voting". Is there a single American citizen that can get through life without any form of ID whatsoever? I highly doubt it. That person couldn't be hired w/o valid ID (IRS), couldn't collect public assistance, couldn't do pretty much anything. The term frivolous Lawsuit comes to mind.

If an old person in a nursing home needs a photo ID to vote and for no other reason why would that not be called a poll tax?

For sure there better be absolutely no fee for obtaining such an ID.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

every voter ID law INCLUDES the provision to get a free ID. FREE... lack of cost... unincumbered by expense...

Of course.... any objection to having an ID is ridiculous.

 

[Navy1960]

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

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.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
It is argued that a State may exact fees from citizens for many different kinds of licenses; that, if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver's license, [n5] it can demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216), are traditionally disfavored. See Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 184-185 (Jackson, J., concurring); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections


After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax". If for example these state who wish a form of ID for a voter to identify themselves in a election to combat voter fraud which seems a little bit of a stretch in my humble opinion given the fact that data suggests the instances of fraud do not justify these laws, then that state would put in place a voter ID where the voter at registration would use the registration card as the voter ID, otherwise why bother to register to vote if additional state ID is required. In addtion if the instances of fraud justified the need for these laws to such a degree then the question is, why now?, why not in the last election, or the one before that or the one before that? I seem to recall a very close election in 2000 where the words "fraud" were being tossed around often especially in Fl. and yet we seemed to survive that with little problem. While many might disagree with me on this one and as they are entitled to, it is my humble opinion these laws serve no useful purpose if they keep on American from voting who is entitled to do so because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

See highlight above^. It would be ridiculous to think that a person would be obtaining an ID "for the sole purpose of voting". Is there a single American citizen that can get through life without any form of ID whatsoever? I highly doubt it. That person couldn't be hired w/o valid ID (IRS), couldn't collect public assistance, couldn't do pretty much anything. The term frivolous Lawsuit comes to mind.

Short answer is yes a person can go through life without the "required" forms of ID that these new laws impose. While many have various forms if IS , some do not have the "required" form of state ID, and to obtain them they must seek documentation the state requires to do so. If you look at form I-9 you will see that some of those documents that people do have are not accepted forms of ID for the purpose of voting. For example in Texas if you have a "school ID" that is NOT an accepted form of ID, however, it is on form I-9. School records, report cards, etc. are also acceptable forms of ID, as for working in general, there are millions of Americans who work in inner-cities who have never had a drivers license because they have never had a need for one, and elderly Americans who also do not have an ID for the same reason other than perhaps a social security card. All this does not matter though, if these laws keep just a single American from voting who wishes to do so who cannot afford the documentation to aquire these ID's then they are violating not only the constitution but that person(s) rights given them under several Amendments. No, these laws are nothing more than a solution for a non existant problem and do more harm than good. As I mentioned, if they had the intent of making the identity of the voter its main purpose then the voter registration would be the ID.

 

[tjvh]

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

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.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
It is argued that a State may exact fees from citizens for many different kinds of licenses; that, if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver's license, [n5] it can demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216), are traditionally disfavored. See Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 184-185 (Jackson, J., concurring); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections


After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax". If for example these state who wish a form of ID for a voter to identify themselves in a election to combat voter fraud which seems a little bit of a stretch in my humble opinion given the fact that data suggests the instances of fraud do not justify these laws, then that state would put in place a voter ID where the voter at registration would use the registration card as the voter ID, otherwise why bother to register to vote if additional state ID is required. In addtion if the instances of fraud justified the need for these laws to such a degree then the question is, why now?, why not in the last election, or the one before that or the one before that? I seem to recall a very close election in 2000 where the words "fraud" were being tossed around often especially in Fl. and yet we seemed to survive that with little problem. While many might disagree with me on this one and as they are entitled to, it photo I
D is my humble opinion these laws serve no useful purpose if they keep on American from voting who is entitled to do so because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

See highlight above^. It would be ridiculous to think that a person would be obtaining an ID "for the sole purpose of voting". Is there a single American citizen that can get through life without any form of ID whatsoever? I highly doubt it. That person couldn't be hired w/o valid ID (IRS), couldn't collect public assistance, couldn't do pretty much anything. The term frivolous Lawsuit comes to mind.

If an old person in a nursing home needs a photo ID to vote and for no other reason why would that not be called a poll tax?

For sure there better be absolutely no fee for obtaining such an ID.

Do you honestly believe that "old person" entered a care facility without any form of ID to begin with, and they are just taking care of that person out of the goodness of their hearts... Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Navy1960]

I can see where I need to expand on this based on some of the postings, while its true these states do have provisions for "Free" ID's the cost to obtain the documentation to get those ID's is not Free and the only state that has a provision according to my read is Indiana. Futher if it is nonsense to oppose this why then is it such an issue now, if it were such an issue, then those that support these ID laws would have advocated for them long ago.

 

[tjvh]

every voter ID law INCLUDES the provision to get a free ID. FREE... lack of cost... unincumbered by expense...

Of course.... any objection to having an ID is ridiculous.

Unless you desire to commit election fraud, then... Not so much.

 

[kaz]

After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax".

Every State that requires ID to vote gives a free ID. Bam, an entire thread destroyed in one simple sentence. Sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Darkwind]

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

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.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
It is argued that a State may exact fees from citizens for many different kinds of licenses; that, if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver's license, [n5] it can demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216), are traditionally disfavored. See Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 184-185 (Jackson, J., concurring); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections


After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax". If for example these state who wish a form of ID for a voter to identify themselves in a election to combat voter fraud which seems a little bit of a stretch in my humble opinion given the fact that data suggests the instances of fraud do not justify these laws, then that state would put in place a voter ID where the voter at registration would use the registration card as the voter ID, otherwise why bother to register to vote if additional state ID is required. In addtion if the instances of fraud justified the need for these laws to such a degree then the question is, why now?, why not in the last election, or the one before that or the one before that? I seem to recall a very close election in 2000 where the words "fraud" were being tossed around often especially in Fl. and yet we seemed to survive that with little problem. While many might disagree with me on this one and as they are entitled to, it photo I
D is my humble opinion these laws serve no useful purpose if they keep on American from voting who is entitled to do so because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

See highlight above^. It would be ridiculous to think that a person would be obtaining an ID "for the sole purpose of voting". Is there a single American citizen that can get through life without any form of ID whatsoever? I highly doubt it. That person couldn't be hired w/o valid ID (IRS), couldn't collect public assistance, couldn't do pretty much anything. The term frivolous Lawsuit comes to mind.

If an old person in a nursing home needs a photo ID to vote and for no other reason why would that not be called a poll tax?

For sure there better be absolutely no fee for obtaining such an ID.

If yo have to reach for the most extreme circumstances imaginable, you have already lost the argument.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

There are many social agencies that will provide the services necessary for every voter who desires to vote to have an ID.
Its ironic the DOJ's efforts to curtail the ID election requirements are only being made in states where its possible for the Democrats to steal the election.
When you catch someone voting illegally, ie a Chicago voter voting multiple times in Racine, or a Detroit voter voting likewise in Cleveland, remember what they used to do to horsethieves in the 1870's.

 

[Navy1960]

After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax".

Every State that requires ID to vote gives a free ID. Bam, an entire thread destroyed in one simple sentence. Sucks, doesn't it?

No it doesn't because, I as I mentioned the "cost to obtain the documentation: needed for those so called "Free ID's " , so keep going.

also in Harper..

We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.

 

[eflatminor]

... because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't states that require voter IDs offer to provide one free of charge? If true, that rather destroys your entire argument, wouldn't you agree?

 

[LibertyForAll]

There are roughly 200 million registered voters. If even half of them don't have IDs then it would probably only cost a billion or so to get them IDs. Bill Gates like to give his money away, maybe he could fit the bill. Hell, I'll even chip in if it would mean every vote could be verified to be accurate. I am sure many people would.

Besides by this logic the Income Tax is a poll tax because by not paying it I can be charged with a felony and lose my right to vote.

 

[onecut39]

there are roughly 200 million registered voters. If even half of them don't have ids then it would probably only cost a billion or so to get them ids. Bill gates like to give his money away, maybe he could fit the bill. Hell, i'll even chip in if it would mean every vote could be verified to be accurate. I am sure many people would.

Besides by this logic the income tax is a poll tax because by not paying it i can be charged with a felony and lose my right to vote.

roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Darkwind]

After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax".

Every State that requires ID to vote gives a free ID. Bam, an entire thread destroyed in one simple sentence. Sucks, doesn't it?

No it doesn't because, I as I mentioned the "cost to obtain the documentation: needed for those so called "Free ID's " , so keep going.

also in Harper..

We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.

Your say so isn't quite up to standard.

There is a cost to breathing as well. Yet many people seem to be willing to pay it.

The simple fact remains, with nearly 2/3's of the electorate not even bothering to vote, an absurd standard of "if even one person is denied" is ridiculous.

The costs (if any) are negligible and worth it in the face of keeping just one unqualified voter from canceling out My vote.

Given the corruptions and daily loss of freedoms in this country, to protect the most sacred of our rights by requiring that each person provide proof that they ARE eligible to vote, it a very small price to pay.

There simply is no down side to requiring an ID to vote, except for those who would abuse the system and our generosity.

 

[Navy1960]

... because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't states that require voter IDs offer to provide one free of charge? If true, that rather destroys your entire argument, wouldn't you agree?

As i mentioned in several postings... the cost to obtain those "Free ID's" are not , so no it doesn't. Futher I also mentioned, that as Haper is the standard even in the recent Indiana case where Voter ID's were upheld, its very clear if there is a "fee" involved its a "poll tax" .


Judge Stevens in the Indiana Case...

"is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. "

This is why I mentioned in my original thread "with the exception of Indiana" because even voters in Indiana without Voter ID may case a ballot and have it counted so that discounts the "poll tax" argument.

 

[DiamondDave]

I can see where I need to expand on this based on some of the postings, while its true these states do have provisions for "Free" ID's the cost to obtain the documentation to get those ID's is not Free and the only state that has a provision according to my read is Indiana. Futher if it is nonsense to oppose this why then is it such an issue now, if it were such an issue, then those that support these ID laws would have advocated for them long ago.

If indeed there is NO charge incurred or charged by the state/government to obtain the ID, you would then have no objection to a required ID to vote??

Now.. what gets me is some of the wingers on here that feel that everything associated to getting the ID has to be provided as well... babysitting, transportation, paid time off of work. compensation for their time, etc... and this is absolute horse pucky

Oh.. and I have advocated this from the very first I ever started hearing more and learning more about registration SNAFUs, overvotes, and the lack of requirements to prove you are indeed eligible to vote and you are who you say you are when it comes to voting... I think my eyes started to be opened in 1994, voting in PA, presenting my military ID and drivers license at the ready and getting looked at funny. As I realized many military folks at our base were not eligible to vote in the localities where they lives (barracks or otherwise) but I had just bought a house in PA and changed my home of record...

 

[Navy1960]

Every State that requires ID to vote gives a free ID. Bam, an entire thread destroyed in one simple sentence. Sucks, doesn't it?

No it doesn't because, I as I mentioned the "cost to obtain the documentation: needed for those so called "Free ID's " , so keep going.

also in Harper..

We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.

Your say so isn't quite up to standard.

There is a cost to breathing as well. Yet many people seem to be willing to pay it.

The simple fact remains, with nearly 2/3's of the electorate not even bothering to vote, an absurd standard of "if even one person is denied" is ridiculous.

The costs (if any) are negligible and worth it in the face of keeping just one unqualified voter from canceling out My vote.

Given the corruptions and daily loss of freedoms in this country, to protect the most sacred of our rights by requiring that each person provide proof that they ARE eligible to vote, it a very small price to pay.

There simply is no down side to requiring an ID to vote, except for those who would abuse the system and our generosity.

Its not my standard, it is the standard set the SCOTUS in Harper, and while I respect your opinion, the instances of voter fraud do not justify the this as a "small price to pay" in my humble opinion should it deny an American who has every right to vote. As for your conclusion there is no down side, I tend to think that the over 1 million people in PA. who would be effected by this might disagree with you. I tend to think that those who wish to vote do not seek to abuse the system and those that do need to be sought out and punished for doing so and to assume that abuse is the the standard and we need to have a system that pre-supposes abuse and guard against that is nonsense , given the fact data does not support that.