Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Navy,
What hidden fees are you talking about in voter ID laws that include a free ID from the state. You have not stated what those fees are exactly and I would rather not try and guess.
?
Navy,
What hidden fees are you talking about in voter ID laws that include a free ID from the state. You have not stated what those fees are exactly and I would rather not try and guess.
?
Republican want people to jump hurdles to vote...then tell everyone else that they arent hurdles because in their opinion they are really small hurdles that should be easy.
Still a hurdle....Where are the "more freedom" crowd on this?
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...
Look Dave, if there were no costs for voting, "Period" I would have no issues with this, at all. I have yet to be convinced though other than perhaps in Indiana that this is the case, and in some of these states these laws strike me as "fee's " for some needed to pay for the cost of exercising their right to vote. If say, a state would place a person(s) face on a voter registration card, and that was the ID and offered the cost of obtainging those state ID's for Free I would have no issue with it.
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.
Republican want people to jump hurdles to vote...then tell everyone else that they arent hurdles because in their opinion they are really small hurdles that should be easy.
Still a hurdle....Where are the "more freedom" crowd on this?
Freedom requires fair elections. This means hurdles...very, very small hurdles. Life's tough, get a helmet.
Navy,
What hidden fees are you talking about in voter ID laws that include a free ID from the state. You have not stated what those fees are exactly and I would rather not try and guess.
?
Here is an example in one state Arizona..
Adult Child
The adult child of a registrant is eligible to receive a certified copy of his/her parents birth certificate if all of the following criteria are met:
The adult child must be at least 18 years of age.
The adult child must:
Produce a copy of his/her birth certificate which names the registrant as the parent of the applicant or
If the adult child was born in Arizona, a search can be done on the EBS for the adult childs record to verify the record names the registrant as the parent of the applicant.
The adult child submits a signed application.
The adult parent submits valid government issued identification or notarized signature on the application.
The adult child submits the appropriate fee(s).
In Maricopa County for example that Fee is $20.00
These fee's vary depending on what state a person lives in and also what documentation they seek to obtain for the purpose of voting. Again, I have no issue with an ID in general for voting , my issue is when these laws impede someones ability to vote that has every right to do so.
Republican want people to jump hurdles to vote...then tell everyone else that they arent hurdles because in their opinion they are really small hurdles that should be easy.
Still a hurdle....Where are the "more freedom" crowd on this?
Freedom requires fair elections. This means hurdles...very, very small hurdles. Life's tough, get a helmet.
Elections are already fair. Strawman fail.
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...
Look Dave, if there were no costs for voting, "Period" I would have no issues with this, at all. I have yet to be convinced though other than perhaps in Indiana that this is the case, and in some of these states these laws strike me as "fee's " for some needed to pay for the cost of exercising their right to vote. If say, a state would place a person(s) face on a voter registration card, and that was the ID and offered the cost of obtainging those state ID's for Free I would have no issue with it.
And such a thing is what I would support.. a no fee voter ID card... and that card could be used as proof of ID for other things as well, negating the need for the for fee ID card that some MVAs offer those who do not have the privilege to drive
But my other point is that now we have many on the winger left who want MORE compensated by the government for them to get their ID, as I stated... They call for free transportation, free babysitting, paid time off from work, etc
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.
When Ids became free your argument took a long walk off of a short pier..........
Freedom requires fair elections. This means hurdles...very, very small hurdles. Life's tough, get a helmet.
Elections are already fair. Strawman fail.
Really? All the proven stories of fraud mean nothing? Are you ready for the army of 1,000's of Lawyers that will be in polling places across the fruited plain come November?
Strawman my ass.
Freedom requires fair elections. This means hurdles...very, very small hurdles. Life's tough, get a helmet.
Elections are already fair. Strawman fail.
Really? All the proven stories of fraud mean nothing? Are you ready for the army of 1,000's of Lawyers that will be in polling places across the fruited plain come November?
Strawman my ass.
Here is an example in one state Arizona..
Adult Child
The adult child of a registrant is eligible to receive a certified copy of his/her parents birth certificate if all of the following criteria are met:
The adult child must be at least 18 years of age.
The adult child must:
Produce a copy of his/her birth certificate which names the registrant as the parent of the applicant or
If the adult child was born in Arizona, a search can be done on the EBS for the adult childs record to verify the record names the registrant as the parent of the applicant.
The adult child submits a signed application.
The adult parent submits valid government issued identification or notarized signature on the application.
The adult child submits the appropriate fee(s).
In Maricopa County for example that Fee is $20.00
These fee's vary depending on what state a person lives in and also what documentation they seek to obtain for the purpose of voting. Again, I have no issue with an ID in general for voting , my issue is when these laws impede someones ability to vote that has every right to do so.
This is an ADDITIONAL copy.... there was an original provided.. thru the mishap, negligence, or whatever the person needs to obtain ANOTHER, and such a process takes up resources, which is why a fee would be charged...
Do we have to have the government issue and re-issue copies at whim at cost?? I don't really think so
Navy,
What hidden fees are you talking about in voter ID laws that include a free ID from the state. You have not stated what those fees are exactly and I would rather not try and guess.
?
Here is an example in one state Arizona..
Adult Child
The adult child of a registrant is eligible to receive a certified copy of his/her parents birth certificate if all of the following criteria are met:
The adult child must be at least 18 years of age.
The adult child must:
Produce a copy of his/her birth certificate which names the registrant as the parent of the applicant or
If the adult child was born in Arizona, a search can be done on the EBS for the adult childs record to verify the record names the registrant as the parent of the applicant.
The adult child submits a signed application.
The adult parent submits valid government issued identification or notarized signature on the application.
The adult child submits the appropriate fee(s).
In Maricopa County for example that Fee is $20.00
These fee's vary depending on what state a person lives in and also what documentation they seek to obtain for the purpose of voting. Again, I have no issue with an ID in general for voting , my issue is when these laws impede someones ability to vote that has every right to do so.
Voter ID: State RequirementsEvery qualified elector shall present one form of identification that bears the name, address and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector.
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.
Elections are already fair. Strawman fail.
Really? All the proven stories of fraud mean nothing? Are you ready for the army of 1,000's of Lawyers that will be in polling places across the fruited plain come November?
Strawman my ass.
Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, says he needs the states stalled voter identification mandate to ward off fraud at the polls.
When the U.S. Justice Department rejected the Texas voter ID law March 12, 2012, preventing it from taking effect, Abbott issued a press release saying: "Since 2002 ... election fraud investigations by the Texas Attorney General's Office have resulted in 50 convictions."
PolitiFact Texas | Greg Abbott claims 50 election fraud convictions since 2002
T, I'm afriad 57 cases out of how many votes cast since 2002 in the state of Tx. just in that one state does not constitute wide spread voter fraud in fact thats like 5.7 cases a year in just one state that has seen millions of votes cast since that time. Frankly these voter ID Laws while I don't really have an issue with them in general, fraud doesn't seem to support the need for them unless you can cite instances of wide spread voter fraud convtictions say in the 10's of thousands nationally over the last 10 yearrs because that is what you would have to come up with as a percentage based on the sheer number of votes cast. As I said, at least to me anyway T these laws seem simple enough to make if a state would just require to a person to put their name and address when getting a coter registration care and put their smiling face on the voter registration care and make that Free of charge. I just do not see this as being such an issue that it requires these laws to be to the point where it impedes honest Americans the right to engage in the voting.
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.
I think it depends upon the specific law. I see no problem with having to porduce identification to vote. However, if it has to be a specific ID you must obtain for the sole purpose of voting, then you are talking about a poll tax. Of coure, there are other issues. For example, in Louisiana you need a birth certificate to obtain a photo ID. However, you cannot obtain a copy of your birth certificate without a photo ID. A nice little catch 22.
