Is it a "Poll Tax"

[Clementine]

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 agree. The voter ID is needed to prove citizenship because our own government made it necessary to do this. If they had done their job all these years and upheld laws, we wouldn't be in this mess. The forefathers likely never saw this coming, as with many other things our government has done.

The constitution is for the American people, not for citizens of other countries who sneaked in here. The government has muddied the waters and now protests efforts to get things clear, namely who really can legally vote. We know damn well illegals are voting and there are an estimated 20 million here and that doesn't include anchor babies and their grandchildren. When members of a family are here illegally, the rest of the family will also vote for whomever is willing to overlook that.

We cannot allow millions of illegal aliens to cancel out the votes of millions of citizens. It is the citizens who are grossly disenfranchised when our votes no longer count because too many illegals are participating.

I believe the rights of the majority of citizens far outweighs the desires of illegal aliens.

Obamacare will require the use of IDs, so shouldn't people be getting those IDs anyway? I'm sure if Obama wins because of all those voters (who could register and get to polls with no problem) get him re-elected, he won't hesitate to turn around and demand that each and every person in America obtain ID so they can be forced to purchase and/or use his crappy health care plan. What will the left's argument be then? Probably the usual, "it's for your own good." Well, it's in the best interest of al citizens to protect our voting rights by ensuring no one casts an illegal vote. If the illegals have a problem with this, fuck 'em.

A hell of a lot more people will have their voting rights trampled if we don't insist on ID.

 

[Desperado]

Seriously, in this day an age, you need an ID for a number of reasons not just for voting.
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
This line alone justifies the voting precinct to ask for an ID just to ensure you are eligible to vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here is an example of the person in Arizona that would not have a utility bill, someone who does not own a home, and is not the person who is on a lease contract, someone who is homeless. Here is an example of someone who does not have DL, someone who elderly, disabled, or has yet to aquire one. Here is an example of someone who does not have a property tax statement, someone who does not own property. Just a little example for you.
Vid removed by me for brevity

Actually, the vid does not say anything about her having difficulty supplying the proper identification at the poll. It has absolutely zero to do with the voter I'd process. Her problem is at she cannot register to vote in e first place. It is an interesting situation, very rare (possibly unique tbh) and brings into question if there should be alternatives for people to prove citizenship when they were born before birth certificates were even issued. IMHO, they should just register you if you are in that category. Its not like there is an army of 100 year old people ready to influence the vote.


All in all, it does not show someone that is unable to show proper ID at the polling place where they are only trying to ensure you are who you say they are. It is a case where she is unable to register because she can't provide proof of citizenship. I do find it rather asinine that a SSN does not work. The law should be amended for this situation.

 

[PratchettFan]

If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and get a job I don't think they should be supported by society. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and obtain a valid ID so that the process can be kept from being abused then I don't think they should be allowed to vote. What can I say...I'm one of those "hard asses" who believes in personal responsibility.

As for government regulation? I'm sorry but I don't see requiring a valid ID as an oppressive government regulation. It's something that every adult should already have if they're a functioning part of society.

You are free to be a hard ass, if that pleases you. What can I say, I'm one of those bleeding hearts who does not assume he knows and understands the personal circumstances of every American citizen and would prefer to err on their behalf. It takes all kinds.

I notice that you didn't provide me with any examples of where voter ID laws had been passed where provisions hadn't been made to provide free ID's to those who could not afford them.

As for that charming old lady? There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have had to struggle to get valid ID's because of some circumstance or another. She's one of them simply because she's gone so long without having a valid ID. When I moved from North Carolina to Florida they wouldn't accept my North Carolina driver's license as a valid form of ID to get a Florida license. (That State was on a list of States whose licensing procedures had been deemed to be so shoddy that they weren't reliable) Trust me when I say it was a pain in the butt to get a Florida license. I had to contact the Town Clerk in the town I was born in back in Massachusetts and obtain a certified copy of my birth certificate...something which I believe cost me $40 to have mailed to me. The point I'm making is that this old lady in Arizona WILL get a valid ID if she is persistent. It's something that she really should have taken care of years ago (when she couldn't rent a movie without one and had to have her son do it for her SHOULD have been the tip off that an ID would be useful!) and she has nobody to blame but herself for not doing so.

Oh. sorry...was that me being a "hard-ass" again? Like I said before...that whole notion of "personal responsibility" is something that I was raised to admire.

I didn't provide examples because, as I said, I don't think there are. I think this entire thing is a made up issue. There are no states that don't require some form of ID and there are no states which have narrowed it down to one, voter specific ID. There is no significant voter fraud issue either. This is an issue created for the purpose of taking our eyes away from the politicians. It's just smoke and mirrors. A non-issue to distract the voters from the real issues.

Now, let me state my position one more time. I have no problem with requiring an ID to vote. My only position on this is if the state does require a specific type of ID solely for the purposes of voting, it should be free of charge. If it is not free of charge, then they are charging to vote and that is a poll tax.

You are the one who called yourself a "hard-ass". But if you simply lump all people into a single category and pass judgement upon them with no information at all about them, that is not taking personal responsibility.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 agree. The voter ID is needed to prove citizenship because our own government made it necessary to do this. If they had done their job all these years and upheld laws, we wouldn't be in this mess. The forefathers likely never saw this coming, as with many other things our government has done.

The constitution is for the American people, not for citizens of other countries who sneaked in here. The government has muddied the waters and now protests efforts to get things clear, namely who really can legally vote. We know damn well illegals are voting and there are an estimated 20 million here and that doesn't include anchor babies and their grandchildren. When members of a family are here illegally, the rest of the family will also vote for whomever is willing to overlook that.

We cannot allow millions of illegal aliens to cancel out the votes of millions of citizens. It is the citizens who are grossly disenfranchised when our votes no longer count because too many illegals are participating.

I believe the rights of the majority of citizens far outweighs the desires of illegal aliens.

Obamacare will require the use of IDs, so shouldn't people be getting those IDs anyway? I'm sure if Obama wins because of all those voters (who could register and get to polls with no problem) get him re-elected, he won't hesitate to turn around and demand that each and every person in America obtain ID so they can be forced to purchase and/or use his crappy health care plan. What will the left's argument be then? Probably the usual, "it's for your own good." Well, it's in the best interest of al citizens to protect our voting rights by ensuring no one casts an illegal vote. If the illegals have a problem with this, fuck 'em.

A hell of a lot more people will have their voting rights trampled if we don't insist on ID.

What you are arguing for is a national ID card.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Now, let me state my position one more time. I have no problem with requiring an ID to vote. My only position on this is if the state does require a specific type of ID solely for the purposes of voting, it should be free of charge. If it is not free of charge, then they are charging to vote and that is a poll tax.

I have no problem with that, but with one exception, if the ID is being issued has a primary purpose based on a function other than voting and there is a charge - then the normal charge applies. If you have an ID that qualifies as a voting ID already based on another purpose - then if an individual wants another (second) ID, then that does not have to be free.

For example. A Drivers License is an ID issued by the state whose primary purpose is to show that you are legal to drive motor vehicles on public roads, and there is a fee associated with that. It also qualifies as an ID for voting purposes. Because you may want an ID for voting doesn't mean that you get a Drivers License for free. Same goes with a Passport. The primary purpose of the Passport is as a document to secure international travel, just because you want a voting ID does not mean you get a Passport for free.


>>>>

 

[PratchettFan]

Now, let me state my position one more time. I have no problem with requiring an ID to vote. My only position on this is if the state does require a specific type of ID solely for the purposes of voting, it should be free of charge. If it is not free of charge, then they are charging to vote and that is a poll tax.

I have no problem with that, but with one exception, if the ID is being issued has a primary purpose based on a function other than voting and there is a charge - then the normal charge applies. If you have an ID that qualifies as a voting ID already based on another purpose - then if an individual wants another (second) ID, then that does not have to be free.

For example. A Drivers License is an ID issued by the state whose primary purpose is to show that you are legal to drive motor vehicles on public roads, and there is a fee associated with that. It also qualifies as an ID for voting purposes. Because you may want an ID for voting doesn't mean that you get a Drivers License for free. Same goes with a Passport. The primary purpose of the Passport is as a document to secure international travel, just because you want a voting ID does not mean you get a Passport for free.


>>>>

Sure. I'm good with that. That's the way it is currently and it works just fine.

 

[Navy1960]

Here is an example of the person in Arizona that would not have a utility bill, someone who does not own a home, and is not the person who is on a lease contract, someone who is homeless. Here is an example of someone who does not have DL, someone who elderly, disabled, or has yet to aquire one. Here is an example of someone who does not have a property tax statement, someone who does not own property. Just a little example for you.
Vid removed by me for brevity

Actually, the vid does not say anything about her having difficulty supplying the proper identification at the poll. It has absolutely zero to do with the voter I'd process. Her problem is at she cannot register to vote in e first place. It is an interesting situation, very rare (possibly unique tbh) and brings into question if there should be alternatives for people to prove citizenship when they were born before birth certificates were even issued. IMHO, they should just register you if you are in that category. Its not like there is an army of 100 year old people ready to influence the vote.


All in all, it does not show someone that is unable to show proper ID at the polling place where they are only trying to ensure you are who you say they are. It is a case where she is unable to register because she can't provide proof of citizenship. I do find it rather asinine that a SSN does not work. The law should be amended for this situation.

I agree completely on the SSN issue, one more thing of note in the Vid. is that her son made it clear she has voted since 1932, so I would suggest that because she cannot obtain the proper ID now, as a result of these new laws, then it is a Voter ID issue.

One other thing I might suggest here that seems to be overlooked, if the intention here is to prevent fraud and make sure only American citizens can vote with the proper ID, then it would follow that only American citizens should be the ones with these ID's which they clearly are not. Frankly, this issue seems to be one that would be solvable in any number of ways without having to punish Americans in the process. As I mentioned in my postings before, I tend to fall on the side of wanting more Americans engaged in their nation rather than less and I tend to believe that laws like these discourage Americans and at times as is the case with the women in the video prevent them from doing so.

Something else I might note here too, in the recent case in PA. on this issue, the state of PA stipulated to the following.

Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”

So it would seem to me that if these laws make it harder for people to vote rather than easier based on misconception then it does more harm than intended good.