Is it a "Poll Tax"

[DiamondDave]

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 parent’s 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 child’s 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

Then do not require it as a means to vote, its that simple or perhaps as I suggested put the persons face on their voter registration card. The point is, if a state wishes a person to engage in the process and then turns around and charges a fee for it, they are instituting a poll tax upon that person. The answer to your last question is yes.

The fee for an additional copy is no different than the fee to replace a lost license.. And since the license could be used to prove who you are and where you live at the polls.. It should be free??

I can't find my license... Oh.. I am not going to bother looking all over the garage, I will just stop by MVA on the way home from work and get another one. The next week, I shredded my social sec card, I will just get one for free. The next month I think my old soc card looks a little wrinkled and I like it neat, I think I will just go get another one for free.... No.. While I think your initial soc card and birth cert should be free, I do not see where someone's negligence means they should obtain additional copies for free. The state/fed/whatever did what it was obligated to do in providing you a free one. It should not be required to keep giving you free ones at whim... IMHO

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The governing case would be 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board where the SCOTUS upheld Voter ID law.


>>>>

 

[Navy1960]

?

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 parent’s 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 child’s 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.

I don’t see your point. States with voter ID have provisions to supply that ID for FREE. That is, no fees whatsoever. That is the process as I understand it. If I am incorrect, please show me how. The list you presented is for a birth certificate. Not for a voter ID.

As for the Arizona requirements, here they are:

Every 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.

Voter ID: State Requirements
And the list of some valid alternatives:
Valid Arizona driver's license
Valid Arizona non-driver identification
Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
Valid U.S. federal, state or local government issued identification
Utility bill dated within 90 days of the election
Bank or credit union statement dated within 90 days of the election
Valid Arizona vehicle registration
Indian census card
Property tax statement
Vehicle insurance card
Recorder’s Certificate


And if you don’t have any of them, you still get a provisional ballot and you can prove identity later to the county recorder. Your voter registration card is also a valid alternative.


Where are the hidden fees? If you don’t have an ID you can use alternative sources? I guess there can be a problem should you have no bank account, no car, no utilities, no ID, no birth certificate, or any connection with any other government form of ID. IOW, if you are homeless then you could have some problems. Some.

Of course, in that situation, you would also not be able to register to vote in the first place so that even states where there are no voter ID laws you would be unable to vote. As a matter of fact, requiring you to register to vote in the first place is a poll tax using your criteria. It involves, essentially, the exact same problems you are attributing to voter ID laws. Do you have any problems with voters being required to register?

I fail to see how registering to vote falls under my criteria for "fees " associated with obtaing vaild ID for the purpose of voting. I have no issues with people being required to register to vote and as long as those registrations have zero fees associated with them . It seems fairly obvious that a person who needs to obtain the required forms of ID needed to vote, should it be a state ID, would have to pay a fee to do so even if that ID were given to that person for free, because that person is doing so for the sole purpose of voting. Not everyone in Arizona owns property for example, nor do they all pay APS or SRP, own a car, or for that matter have a need for car insurance if they don't drive a car or a bank account. Any Wal-Mart will sell you a debit card without an ID. The point is, voting should be free and if a state requires a person to have an ID then that also should be free of any fees associated with it. As I mentioned above , I fail to see how the fraud standard applies here as a reason for having these laws as data does not support that.
As for the provisional ballot, according to my read , unlike Indiana here in Arizona a person still must provide ID in order for their vote to count whereas in Indiana their vote can count if that provisional ballot is filed and sworn by affidavit which I have no issue with as well.

 

[Full-Auto]

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..........

the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID

In the post, and still on the pier, so far no one has proven that that these documentation costs are not fee's associated with obtaining an ID for the purpose of voting and are therefor a "poll tax" as defined in Harper.

Prove the ID was for voting and not collecting some other government stipend.......Or for opening that bank account for your government direct deposit...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

What if the state offers free voter IDs?

Problem solved

 

[WorldWatcher]

Paul Carroll, an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same Ohio town for four decades, was denied a chance to vote in the state’s primary contests today after a poll worker denied his form of identification...

No, Mr. Carroll voluntarily refused to vote. When his ID was not accepted he was offered a provisional ballot and turned it down.


Portage County veteran, 86, doesn't vote after VA identification card rejected at polls | cleveland.com


>>>>

 

[Navy1960]

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.

The governing case would be 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board where the SCOTUS upheld Voter ID law.


>>>>

Crawford v Marion County Election Board

(a) Under Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. However, “even handed restrictions” protecting the “integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” satisfy Harper’s standard

CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD.

Harper is the standard, and that is why a voter in Indiana who does not have ID can still vote and their vote counts, and the law was upheld.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Federal LAW requires all voters to be identified before voting. Some States imply that just means at registration. How exactly does one verify someone is a legally allowed to vote person with some sort of ID? Your premise is false and foolish.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

He's talking about the cost of obtaining a birth certificate as a "hidden fee" which would count as a "poll tax" even if the ID itself is free.


>>>>

 

[Navy1960]

When Ids became free your argument took a long walk off of a short pier..........

the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID

In the post, and still on the pier, so far no one has proven that that these documentation costs are not fee's associated with obtaining an ID for the purpose of voting and are therefor a "poll tax" as defined in Harper.

Prove the ID was for voting and not collecting some other government stipend.......Or for opening that bank account for your government direct deposit...

Easy, individual did not have the required ID prior to an election and then seeks it for the purpose of voting.

 

[Full-Auto]

the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID

In the post, and still on the pier, so far no one has proven that that these documentation costs are not fee's associated with obtaining an ID for the purpose of voting and are therefor a "poll tax" as defined in Harper.

Prove the ID was for voting and not collecting some other government stipend.......Or for opening that bank account for your government direct deposit...

Easy, individual did not have the required ID prior to an election and then seeks it for the purpose of voting.

How did he/she register?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I's free, numskull, so how does it consitute a tax?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The governing case would be 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board where the SCOTUS upheld Voter ID law.


>>>>

Crawford v Marion County Election Board

(a) Under Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. However, “even handed restrictions” protecting the “integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” satisfy Harper’s standard

CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD.

Harper is the standard, and that is why a voter in Indiana who does not have ID can still vote and their vote counts, and the law was upheld.

Emphasis on the last part of your own quote. Verifing the identity of those voting as being eligible to vote is applied equally and is a common sense standard aimed at protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.

(a) Under Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. However, “even handed restrictions” protecting the “integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” satisfy Harper’s standard
​

>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The only plausible explanation for why someone would oppose requiring picture IDs to vote is becuase they support voter fraud.

 

[Navy1960]

Paul Carroll, an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same Ohio town for four decades, was denied a chance to vote in the state’s primary contests today after a poll worker denied his form of identification...

No, Mr. Carroll voluntarily refused to vote. When his ID was not accepted he was offered a provisional ballot and turned it down.


Portage County veteran, 86, doesn't vote after VA identification card rejected at polls | cleveland.com


>>>>

Point is, there was no reason to deny the man in the first place and do you think this man was at that point trying to commit voter fraud? I don't nor would any rational thinking person.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Ah, how does the poll worker KNOW that the person standing in front of them claiming to be "Joe Voter" actually IS who they say they are unless they have valid ID? Voter registration does not establish identity.

Sorry, but since the legislation to require ID to vote always includes a provision to pay for those who can't afford it...your argument would appear to have been cut off at the knees.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID

In the post, and still on the pier, so far no one has proven that that these documentation costs are not fee's associated with obtaining an ID for the purpose of voting and are therefor a "poll tax" as defined in Harper.

Prove the ID was for voting and not collecting some other government stipend.......Or for opening that bank account for your government direct deposit...

Easy, individual did not have the required ID prior to an election and then seeks it for the purpose of voting.

NAVY1960 if the govt provided free voter IDs to all legal citizens would that make it not violate the poll tax in your opinion?

 

[Navy1960]

The governing case would be 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board where the SCOTUS upheld Voter ID law.


>>>>

Crawford v Marion County Election Board

(a) Under Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. However, “even handed restrictions” protecting the “integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” satisfy Harper’s standard

CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD.

Harper is the standard, and that is why a voter in Indiana who does not have ID can still vote and their vote counts, and the law was upheld.

Emphasis on the last part of your own quote. Verifing the identity of those voting as being eligible to vote is applied equally and is a common sense standard aimed at protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.

(a) Under Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. However, “even handed restrictions” protecting the “integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” satisfy Harper’s standard
​

>>>>

Emphasis on the last sentence words... satisfy Harper’s standard and Harper clearly states the following

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

Prove the ID was for voting and not collecting some other government stipend.......Or for opening that bank account for your government direct deposit...

It’s implied. To argue for voter ID laws we must argue on the merits of voter ID law alone, not on the general condition that most people are in. Just because most have an ID really means nothing when talking about voter ID’s. The real debate lies right where he is putting it: when you need to obtain one simply for the purpose of voting, is it a valid practice. I believe that is a resounding yes. Navy sees otherwise.

I fail to see how registering to vote falls under my criteria for "fees " associated with obtaing vaild ID for the purpose of voting. I have no issues with people being required to register to vote and as long as those registrations have zero fees associated with them . It seems fairly obvious that a person who needs to obtain the required forms of ID needed to vote, should it be a state ID, would have to pay a fee to do so even if that ID were given to that person for free, because that person is doing so for the sole purpose of voting. Not everyone in Arizona owns property for example, nor do they all pay APS or SRP, own a car, or for that matter have a need for car insurance if they don't drive a car or a bank account. Any Wal-Mart will sell you a debit card without an ID. The point is, voting should be free and if a state requires a person to have an ID then that also should be free of any fees associated with it. As I mentioned above , I fail to see how the fraud standard applies here as a reason for having these laws as data does not support that.
As for the provisional ballot, according to my read , unlike Indiana here in Arizona a person still must provide ID in order for their vote to count whereas in Indiana their vote can count if that provisional ballot is filed and sworn by affidavit which I have no issue with as well.

It applies because the requirements are almost identical. You are saying that the fees for a FREE ID include such things as requiring a 20 dollar BC in order to obtain one. Such requirements are also there when you register to vote. If they are unacceptable in one case, why are they ok in another?

I also do not see why you say that it is obvious that a free ID is not free because it is obtained for the soul purpose of voting? What is that supposed to mean. A free ID is a free ID, period. In the case of AZ law, you don’t even need an ID. If that is such an insurmountable task, then you can bring in many alternatives. No, you don’t need a car so bring a utility. A bank statement. Any number of other documents that all incur zero charge to obtain. You are arguing a poll tax but have not specified where that tax lies. Show us where you are required to pay anything.

 

[Navy1960]

Prove the ID was for voting and not collecting some other government stipend.......Or for opening that bank account for your government direct deposit...

Easy, individual did not have the required ID prior to an election and then seeks it for the purpose of voting.

NAVY1960 if the govt provided free voter IDs to all legal citizens would that make it not violate the poll tax in your opinion?

I think I made that pretty clear to Dave Pilgrim, if not I will try to make it clear again, if a state or Govt. were to make these ID's Free of charge and the fees associated with getting them then I would have no issue with them at all. In fact I see no issue with a person having to identify themselves at the polling place and unlike some, I do not see this as much as an issue as some would make it out to be and very easily solveable.