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.
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 states 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.
Its 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 IDs. 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.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 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 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.
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 dont even need an ID. If that is such an insurmountable task, then you can bring in many alternatives. No, you dont 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.
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 Harpers 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 Harpers standard
>>>>
Emphasis on the last sentence words... satisfy Harpers 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.
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.
They are less than 1% of all voters. Let me give you an example. Less than 1% of gun owners go on killing sprees. Should we punish them for the actions of less than 1%?
When your head explodes after trying to twist your way out of it you can use one square of toilet paper to clean up
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 Harpers standard
>>>>
Emphasis on the last sentence words... satisfy Harpers 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.
Affluence of the voter is not a factor in Voter ID laws when free ID's are provided for the purposes of voting.
Saying that presenting a birth certificate as part of having a valid ID is "affluence" is like saying that putting gas in the car to drive to the polls is part of "affluence" for voting.
>>>>
Its 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 IDs. 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.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 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 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.
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 dont even need an ID. If that is such an insurmountable task, then you can bring in many alternatives. No, you dont 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.
http://www.azsos.gov/election/forms/voterregistrationform.pdf
There is the voter registration form in Arizona and you can even do so online however in Arizona for example you need to establish citizenship in order to do so, which also is a fee should the person not have a documentation for the purpose of doing so and is a "poll tax" as well. My issue is NOT with the ID not is it with the registration it is with the fees needed to obtain the documentaion to register and get the ID's needed to vote. In so doing these fees qualify as a poll tax under Harper because it is a fee associated with voting.
Your assertion that someone that if they don't have A , then bring B, or C is a false one in that not all people meet those requirments and are therefor subject to those fees. The tax or fee lies in the cost to obtain the documentation for the purpose of voting, even if that fee is .5 cents to make a copy of ones utility bill.
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 Harpers 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.
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.
And what is required to register to vote in the first place in nonvoter ID states? Here, AN ID IS REQUIRED ..
In addition to something that proves your place of residence.
So, unless you are also against requiring registration to vote (uniform across all states if I am not mistaken) then you need to explain why it is an unacceptable poll tax in one instance and a perfectly acceptable practice in another.
Edit; thought you were navy. Sry, I did not mean to attribute being against voter IDs to you. As I dont know your stance, reply/disregard the last statement as it applies
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.
And what is required to register to vote in the first place in nonvoter ID states? Here, AN ID IS REQUIRED ..
In addition to something that proves your place of residence.
So, unless you are also against requiring registration to vote (uniform across all states if I am not mistaken) then you need to explain why it is an unacceptable poll tax in one instance and a perfectly acceptable practice in another.
Edit; thought you were navy. Sry, I did not mean to attribute being against voter IDs to you. As I dont know your stance, reply/disregard the last statement as it applies
What does or does not make something a tax is money. My state also requires an ID, but it will take a driver's license. If I have to go out and purchase an entirely seperate ID just so I can vote, then I am being charged to vote. That is a poll tax.
I have no problem with people having to provide a photo ID. However, if a state is going to institute a process by which everyone has to have a photo voter ID, then it should be free of charge. Further, if I need to go get a copy of my birth certificate solely for the purpose of obtaining the ID, then I should be given a copy free of charge. Otherwise, the practical effect is to discourage people from voting - especially those at the lower income range.
Its 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 IDs. 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.
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 dont even need an ID. If that is such an insurmountable task, then you can bring in many alternatives. No, you dont 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.
http://www.azsos.gov/election/forms/voterregistrationform.pdf
There is the voter registration form in Arizona and you can even do so online however in Arizona for example you need to establish citizenship in order to do so, which also is a fee should the person not have a documentation for the purpose of doing so and is a "poll tax" as well. My issue is NOT with the ID not is it with the registration it is with the fees needed to obtain the documentaion to register and get the ID's needed to vote. In so doing these fees qualify as a poll tax under Harper because it is a fee associated with voting.
Your assertion that someone that if they don't have A , then bring B, or C is a false one in that not all people meet those requirments and are therefor subject to those fees. The tax or fee lies in the cost to obtain the documentation for the purpose of voting, even if that fee is .5 cents to make a copy of ones utility bill.
And we are then right where I was talking about earlier.... so if the person has to hire a babysitter to go get their ID, or if they have to pay for gas to make the copy of form X to go get their ID... or the clothes that are needed to go in public without getting arrested for indecent exposure to get the gas to make the copy of form X needed to go to the MVA to get the ID... it is a never ending way to milk more crap
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 Harpers 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.
There's nothing in Harper that would rule out rquiring a valid picture ID to vote. Your ID is obviously related to your qualification to vote.
The court has already ruled the requiring picture ID is constitutional.
Your opinion doesn't mean squat.
http://www.azsos.gov/election/forms/voterregistrationform.pdf
There is the voter registration form in Arizona and you can even do so online however in Arizona for example you need to establish citizenship in order to do so, which also is a fee should the person not have a documentation for the purpose of doing so and is a "poll tax" as well. My issue is NOT with the ID not is it with the registration it is with the fees needed to obtain the documentaion to register and get the ID's needed to vote. In so doing these fees qualify as a poll tax under Harper because it is a fee associated with voting.
Your assertion that someone that if they don't have A , then bring B, or C is a false one in that not all people meet those requirments and are therefor subject to those fees. The tax or fee lies in the cost to obtain the documentation for the purpose of voting, even if that fee is .5 cents to make a copy of ones utility bill.
And we are then right where I was talking about earlier.... so if the person has to hire a babysitter to go get their ID, or if they have to pay for gas to make the copy of form X to go get their ID... or the clothes that are needed to go in public without getting arrested for indecent exposure to get the gas to make the copy of form X needed to go to the MVA to get the ID... it is a never ending way to milk more crap
For the sole purpose of voting the costs to get the documentation are fees in my humble opinion and the things you mentioned are ancillary to those fees and are therefor not a part of voting. Take for example a person who would otherwise not need a BC for another other reason than to obtain it to get the ID to vote, and yet has voted in prior elections and it is well established that person is a citizen, that person is paying a "poll tax" in order to vote as is the case with the Ms Applewhite in PA.
And we are then right where I was talking about earlier.... so if the person has to hire a babysitter to go get their ID, or if they have to pay for gas to make the copy of form X to go get their ID... or the clothes that are needed to go in public without getting arrested for indecent exposure to get the gas to make the copy of form X needed to go to the MVA to get the ID... it is a never ending way to milk more crap
For the sole purpose of voting the costs to get the documentation are fees in my humble opinion and the things you mentioned are ancillary to those fees and are therefor not a part of voting. Take for example a person who would otherwise not need a BC for another other reason than to obtain it to get the ID to vote, and yet has voted in prior elections and it is well established that person is a citizen, that person is paying a "poll tax" in order to vote as is the case with the Ms Applewhite in PA.
yet the person can and does need the birth cert from everything from employment, to drivers license, to whatever else... and in this case anyone could say they lost whatever or did not have whatever and that they would only now use it to register to vote and vote, even though they would indeed be using it for other things...
None of the things needed to prove who you are have only that use, and none of the things needed to do things for yourself to obtain the documentation to prove who you are are solely for you to register to vote or to vote.... it immediately opens for the "there was on old lady" landslide
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.
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.
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.
For the sole purpose of voting the costs to get the documentation are fees in my humble opinion and the things you mentioned are ancillary to those fees and are therefor not a part of voting. Take for example a person who would otherwise not need a BC for another other reason than to obtain it to get the ID to vote, and yet has voted in prior elections and it is well established that person is a citizen, that person is paying a "poll tax" in order to vote as is the case with the Ms Applewhite in PA.
yet the person can and does need the birth cert from everything from employment, to drivers license, to whatever else... and in this case anyone could say they lost whatever or did not have whatever and that they would only now use it to register to vote and vote, even though they would indeed be using it for other things...
None of the things needed to prove who you are have only that use, and none of the things needed to do things for yourself to obtain the documentation to prove who you are are solely for you to register to vote or to vote.... it immediately opens for the "there was on old lady" landslide
Not really. I think the only thing I have used my birth certificate for in the last 30 years was to get a passport. I have never had an employer request it. I think I used it for my first driver's license. If I am required to obtain a document from the state for the sole purpose of obtaining another document from the state just to be able to vote, then there should be no charge.
I understand the intent is to prevent fraud. I am fine with that. However, there should be no unintentional effect of preventing or even discouraging people from voting. If the state wishes to acheive the former, it should do so in a manner that will not create the latter. After all, we want people to vote..... don't we?
yet the person can and does need the birth cert from everything from employment, to drivers license, to whatever else... and in this case anyone could say they lost whatever or did not have whatever and that they would only now use it to register to vote and vote, even though they would indeed be using it for other things...
None of the things needed to prove who you are have only that use, and none of the things needed to do things for yourself to obtain the documentation to prove who you are are solely for you to register to vote or to vote.... it immediately opens for the "there was on old lady" landslide
Not really. I think the only thing I have used my birth certificate for in the last 30 years was to get a passport. I have never had an employer request it. I think I used it for my first driver's license. If I am required to obtain a document from the state for the sole purpose of obtaining another document from the state just to be able to vote, then there should be no charge.
I understand the intent is to prevent fraud. I am fine with that. However, there should be no unintentional effect of preventing or even discouraging people from voting. If the state wishes to acheive the former, it should do so in a manner that will not create the latter. After all, we want people to vote..... don't we?
Or to get married.. or to obtain a soc card.. or to obtain other things an employer or bank or whatever would need... and when the floodgate is opened, there is always something else that can be said that is needed to obtain the things to then obtain the free ID...
There was an old lady....
