Voter ID Compromise

[M14 Shooter]

Well, to be fair. NO ONE will rent an apartment to you unless you show them some ID to prove you are who you say you are .

So... you then have n ID to use at the polling place.
So, what's the problem with having to produce such an ID when you vote?
Answer:
There is none.

I have not a clue. I find their claims ludicrous to say the least.

Simple and easy comparison.

I have a constitutionally protected right to buy a gun. I have a constitutionally protected right to vote. Meaning both are enumerated not just assumed rights. Why on Earth are these people defending requiring ID to exercise one right, but not another? It's just odd and dishonest.

Requiring a ID to vote serves to protect the rights of those that would vote.
Requiring an ID to buy a gun does not serve to protect the rights of those that would own a gun.
As such, there is a far stronger argument for requiring an ID to vote than to buy a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree having some valid ID is sensible, regardless of whether voter fraud is an actual problem. But if state-issued ID do indeed present some with an unfair burden aqquiring them, why not use any legally recognized contract as proof of identity? Like the rental contract even poor people would have signed renting their apartments, or a sworn affidavit under pains and penalties or perjury, or some other legal document? Why wouldn't those qualify as 'valid ID?' Presumedly whoever rents to you was presented with some kind of satisfactory ID before you moved in, so why couldn't whatever proof was presented be used, or the rental contract itself?

Why do some people insist that getting a valid ID is an unfair burden?

"Papers, please?"

No sir, I don't like it.

Better would be to have postcards sent out to the addresses of registered voters, who would then present them at the polling place to obtain a ballot. Don't have a legit local address, no voter registration.

No same-day registration or any other such silliness.

Problem solved.

Except that its not, as, absent a requuirement to show an ID, there is no positive way to verify that the person at a polling place is the person he claims to be.

 

[Bill Angel]

So... you then have n ID to use at the polling place.
So, what's the problem with having to produce such an ID when you vote?
Answer:
There is none.

I have not a clue. I find their claims ludicrous to say the least.

Simple and easy comparison.

I have a constitutionally protected right to buy a gun. I have a constitutionally protected right to vote. Meaning both are enumerated not just assumed rights. Why on Earth are these people defending requiring ID to exercise one right, but not another? It's just odd and dishonest.

Requiring a ID to vote serves to protect the rights of those that would vote.
Requiring an ID to buy a gun does not serve to protect the rights of those that would own a gun.
As such, there is a far stronger argument for requiring an ID to vote than to buy a gun.

I did not have to produce a valid photo ID to vote in Maryland. But I do have to produce a valid photo ID each time I want to enter and use the library of Johns Hopkins University or the library of the University of Maryland. And the guards don't just look at my ID, but record in a log that I entered the premises. Go figure.

 

[candycorn]

You are correct. A political science degree is not a requirement for a poll worker. Anyone that can read and write can compare a name and address on a photo ID to the name and address on the registration list. And the picture on the ID should resemble the person wanting to vote.
Are you suggesting that poll workers are stupid?

No.
Are you suggesting they are infallible? If so they'll be the first humans ever that are.

Since the ONLY thing they have to do is COMPARE the name, address and appearance of a person, one at a time, I maintain that the odds of them making a mistake is 1 in a billion.

One in a billion. Okay.

 

[Steinlight]

If you need an ID to enter the country, buy a gun, drive a car, you should need an ID to perform the most important civic duty, voting. Don't see why anyone should oppose this common sense measure.

 

[Intense]

I agree having some valid ID is sensible, regardless of whether voter fraud is an actual problem. But if state-issued ID do indeed present some with an unfair burden aqquiring them, why not use any legally recognized contract as proof of identity? Like the rental contract even poor people would have signed renting their apartments, or a sworn affidavit under pains and penalties or perjury, or some other legal document? Why wouldn't those qualify as 'valid ID?' Presumedly whoever rents to you was presented with some kind of satisfactory ID before you moved in, so why couldn't whatever proof was presented be used, or the rental contract itself?

Why do some people insist that getting a valid ID is an unfair burden?

It is an argument rooted in false premise. The rare cases where, this is a real problem, could merit special circumstance and consideration. Acting like it is the norm, is deceitful. Same argument for States not cleaning their Registered Voter Roles, keeping them current. There really is no excuse for not being capable of keeping a mandated trust. At the least, the failure is the result of gross incompetence.

 

[Jackson]

I agree having some valid ID is sensible, regardless of whether voter fraud is an actual problem. But if state-issued ID do indeed present some with an unfair burden aqquiring them, why not use any legally recognized contract as proof of identity? Like the rental contract even poor people would have signed renting their apartments, or a sworn affidavit under pains and penalties or perjury, or some other legal document? Why wouldn't those qualify as 'valid ID?' Presumedly whoever rents to you was presented with some kind of satisfactory ID before you moved in, so why couldn't whatever proof was presented be used, or the rental contract itself?

Why do some people insist that getting a valid ID is an unfair burden?

It is an argument rooted in false premise. The rare cases where, this is a real problem, could merit special circumstance and consideration. Acting like it is the norm, is deceitful. Same argument for States not cleaning their Registered Voter Roles, keeping them current. There really is no excuse for not being capable of keeping a mandated trust. At the least, the failure is the result of gross incompetence.

Agree on both points, the ID being a unfair burden is a very rare occurrence that could be taken care of and the states not cleaning their roles is certainly incompetence that should be dealt with harshly.

 

[Bill Angel]

If you need an ID to enter the country, buy a gun, drive a car, you should need an ID to perform the most important civic duty, voting. Don't see why anyone should oppose this common sense measure.

There is another important civic duty citizens are called upon to perform: jury duty. The lists of registered voters are used to identify and summon people for jury duty. And one needs to produce a valid photo ID during the juror check-in procedure at the courthouse.