Is it a "Poll Tax"

[Darkwind]

... because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't states that require voter IDs offer to provide one free of charge? If true, that rather destroys your entire argument, wouldn't you agree?

yes, and to prove that they are who they say they are to obtain that ID is ridiculously easy.

 

[Navy1960]

I can see where I need to expand on this based on some of the postings, while its true these states do have provisions for "Free" ID's the cost to obtain the documentation to get those ID's is not Free and the only state that has a provision according to my read is Indiana. Futher if it is nonsense to oppose this why then is it such an issue now, if it were such an issue, then those that support these ID laws would have advocated for them long ago.

If indeed there is NO charge incurred or charged by the state/government to obtain the ID, you would then have no objection to a required ID to vote??

Now.. what gets me is some of the wingers on here that feel that everything associated to getting the ID has to be provided as well... babysitting, transportation, paid time off of work. compensation for their time, etc... and this is absolute horse pucky

Oh.. and I have advocated this from the very first I ever started hearing more and learning more about registration SNAFUs, overvotes, and the lack of requirements to prove you are indeed eligible to vote and you are who you say you are when it comes to voting... I think my eyes started to be opened in 1994, voting in PA, presenting my military ID and drivers license at the ready and getting looked at funny. As I realized many military folks at our base were not eligible to vote in the localities where they lives (barracks or otherwise) but I had just bought a house in PA and changed my home of record...

Look Dave, if there were no costs for voting, "Period" I would have no issues with this, at all. I have yet to be convinced though other than perhaps in Indiana that this is the case, and in some of these states these laws strike me as "fee's " for some needed to pay for the cost of exercising their right to vote. If say, a state would place a person(s) face on a voter registration card, and that was the ID and offered the cost of obtainging those state ID's for Free I would have no issue with it.

 

[eflatminor]

... because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't states that require voter IDs offer to provide one free of charge? If true, that rather destroys your entire argument, wouldn't you agree?

As i mentioned in several postings... the cost to obtain those "Free ID's" are not , so no it doesn't. Futher I also mentioned, that as Haper is the standard even in the recent Indiana case where Voter ID's were upheld, its very clear if there is a "fee" involved its a "poll tax" .


Judge Stevens in the Indiana Case...

"is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. "

This is why I mentioned in my original thread "with the exception of Indiana" because even voters in Indiana without Voter ID may case a ballot and have it counted so that discounts the "poll tax" argument.

Regarding Indiana, if a voter can cast a provisional ballot but must execute an affidavit "at the circuit court clerk's office", isn't there a cost associated with that? After all, the voter must get themselves to the circuit court clerk's office. That could involve the cost of a bus ride. How does that not make it a poll tax by your definition?

Stated differently, what's the difference between requiring the voter to incur the cost of getting to a government office before or after the election?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

In fact, I will tell you that there are NO people in PA, or anywhere else in this country that will be affected by these laws. If, during the course of a full two-year period, a person is unwilling to spend an hour (or even a whole day) of their life to obtain an ID in order to vote, then logic says that their vote does not mean anything to them.

Life is participation, and you can't sit back and say, I want My vote, but I don't want to do anything to protect it. That simply does not fly with Me and I am uncaring if people, to lazy to make an effort to secure their rights, cannot vote because of their inaction.

 

[Navy1960]

... because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't states that require voter IDs offer to provide one free of charge? If true, that rather destroys your entire argument, wouldn't you agree?

yes, and to prove that they are who they say they are to obtain that ID is ridiculously easy.

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, a recently-acquired photo ID from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The poll worker rejected the ID because it did not contain an address, as required by Ohio law.

Carroll told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he got the ID from the VA after his driver’s license expired because he doesn’t drive anymore:


“My beef is that I had to pay a driver to take me up there because I don’t walk so well and have to use this cane and now I can’t even vote,” said Paul Carroll, 86, who has lived in Aurora nearly 40 years, running his own business, Carroll Tire, until 1975.

“I had to stop driving, but I got the photo ID from the Veterans Affairs instead, just a month or so ago. You would think that would count for something. I went to war for this country, but now I can’t vote in this country.”

86-Year-Old Ohio Veteran Can't Vote After Government-Issued ID Is Rejected At Poll | ThinkProgress

Again Dark, I respect your opinion but these kinds of things here, don't need to be happen and in my humble opinion if this man here defended this nation, Ohio should be walking that man to the polls and saying "thank you" as they do, not making it harder for him to do so.

 

[The T]

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.

In fact, I will tell you that there are NO people in PA, or anywhere else in this country that will be affected by these laws. If, during the course of a full two-year period, a person is unwilling to spend an hour (or even a whole day) of their life to obtain an ID in order to vote, then logic says that their vote does not mean anything to them.

Life is participation, and you can't sit back and say, I want My vote, but I don't want to do anything to protect it. That simply does not fly with Me and I am uncaring if people, to lazy to make an effort to secure their rights, cannot vote because of their inaction.

Same goes for Liberty entrusted to us by the Founders my friend.

 

[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.

In fact, I will tell you that there are NO people in PA, or anywhere else in this country that will be affected by these laws. If, during the course of a full two-year period, a person is unwilling to spend an hour (or even a whole day) of their life to obtain an ID in order to vote, then logic says that their vote does not mean anything to them.

Life is participation, and you can't sit back and say, I want My vote, but I don't want to do anything to protect it. That simply does not fly with Me and I am uncaring if people, to lazy to make an effort to secure their rights, cannot vote because of their inaction.

More than 1 million people may be stopped from casting ballots because of a Pennsylvania law requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls, a state official said at a trial challenging the measure.

About 1.5 million prospective voters lack the type of identification needed to cast ballots in November’s election, David Burgess, deputy secretary for planning and service delivery at Pennsylvania’s Department of State, testified yesterday in state court in Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania ID Law May Affect Million Voters, State Says - Businessweek

The Sec. of State of PA . seems to disagree with you on that.

 

[Navy1960]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't states that require voter IDs offer to provide one free of charge? If true, that rather destroys your entire argument, wouldn't you agree?

As i mentioned in several postings... the cost to obtain those "Free ID's" are not , so no it doesn't. Futher I also mentioned, that as Haper is the standard even in the recent Indiana case where Voter ID's were upheld, its very clear if there is a "fee" involved its a "poll tax" .


Judge Stevens in the Indiana Case...

"is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. "

This is why I mentioned in my original thread "with the exception of Indiana" because even voters in Indiana without Voter ID may case a ballot and have it counted so that discounts the "poll tax" argument.

Regarding Indiana, if a voter can cast a provisional ballot but must execute an affidavit "at the circuit court clerk's office", isn't there a cost associated with that? After all, the voter must get themselves to the circuit court clerk's office. That could involve the cost of a bus ride. How does that not make it a poll tax by your definition?

Stated differently, what's the difference between requiring the voter to incur the cost of getting to a government office before or after the election?

No because that person is actually exercising the right to "vote" at that time and would incur a cost to do so regardless or perhaps not depending on how they got themselves to the courthouse.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

In fact, I will tell you that there are NO people in PA, or anywhere else in this country that will be affected by these laws. If, during the course of a full two-year period, a person is unwilling to spend an hour (or even a whole day) of their life to obtain an ID in order to vote, then logic says that their vote does not mean anything to them.

Life is participation, and you can't sit back and say, I want My vote, but I don't want to do anything to protect it. That simply does not fly with Me and I am uncaring if people, to lazy to make an effort to secure their rights, cannot vote because of their inaction.

More than 1 million people may be stopped from casting ballots because of a Pennsylvania law requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls, a state official said at a trial challenging the measure.

About 1.5 million prospective voters lack the type of identification needed to cast ballots in November’s election, David Burgess, deputy secretary for planning and service delivery at Pennsylvania’s Department of State, testified yesterday in state court in Harrisburg.
Pennsylvania ID Law May Affect Million Voters, State Says - Businessweek

The Sec. of State of PA . seems to disagree with you on that.

there are 98 days before the next election.

The official is wrong, the numbers are not that high, and frankly, as I said, if they don't want to go get the ID, I don't care about them.

I'm one of the people who think that if you take a government check (not a paycheck) or are enrolled in a government program, you should be required to sign a contract that eliminates your right to vote until such time as you no longer accept that government entitlement.

So, your arguments are ineffective, and in My opinion, wrong. The requirement to have an ID is no burden on people, and those (voters, not you) who claim it is, don't really care about their rights or wish to conduct some nefarious action with regard to voting.

BTW....if, as you claim, that any American who cannot vote due to these laws, is unacceptable, then the same standard MUST be applied to voter fraud and you will have to show where NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of voter fraud has ever occurred.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

In fact, I will tell you that there are NO people in PA, or anywhere else in this country that will be affected by these laws. If, during the course of a full two-year period, a person is unwilling to spend an hour (or even a whole day) of their life to obtain an ID in order to vote, then logic says that their vote does not mean anything to them.

Life is participation, and you can't sit back and say, I want My vote, but I don't want to do anything to protect it. That simply does not fly with Me and I am uncaring if people, to lazy to make an effort to secure their rights, cannot vote because of their inaction.

Same goes for Liberty entrusted to us by the Founders my friend.

Exactly right.

 

[Navy1960]

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.

In fact, I will tell you that there are NO people in PA, or anywhere else in this country that will be affected by these laws. If, during the course of a full two-year period, a person is unwilling to spend an hour (or even a whole day) of their life to obtain an ID in order to vote, then logic says that their vote does not mean anything to them.

Life is participation, and you can't sit back and say, I want My vote, but I don't want to do anything to protect it. That simply does not fly with Me and I am uncaring if people, to lazy to make an effort to secure their rights, cannot vote because of their inaction.

Same goes for Liberty entrusted to us by the Founders my friend.

"I served my country. I served my country so you can vote. I've earned my right to vote. This is my ID," Thompson tells polling place employees while pointing to the US Marine insignia on his jacket. He entered the voting center with a baseball cap embroidered with “VETERAN” and an American flag patch on his coat as well

Thompson argues that he has used the same form of ID, his voter registration card, for decades. "I've used this for 37 years. This was good enough for my father. This was good enough for my grandfather and I refuse to show you a picture ID,” he tells a polling center supervisor in the clip.

"I'll be damned if I'll stand here and allow you to not let me vote because some governor of this state decided he wanted to eliminate my right to vote — and put conditions on it — that I fought for."
Veteran denied voting rights over lack of ID — RT

Forgive me here, but I think people like these vets I put up here did EARN that right and when these laws deny those who have put their butts on the line for this nation then regardless of how well meaning they are, they serve no purpose other than to make people feel good at the expense of good Americans who wish nothing more than to exercise rights they have earned.

 

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUJhkCD26F4]Veteran Denied the Right to Vote - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Darkwind]

In fact, I will tell you that there are NO people in PA, or anywhere else in this country that will be affected by these laws. If, during the course of a full two-year period, a person is unwilling to spend an hour (or even a whole day) of their life to obtain an ID in order to vote, then logic says that their vote does not mean anything to them.

Life is participation, and you can't sit back and say, I want My vote, but I don't want to do anything to protect it. That simply does not fly with Me and I am uncaring if people, to lazy to make an effort to secure their rights, cannot vote because of their inaction.

Same goes for Liberty entrusted to us by the Founders my friend.

"I served my country. I served my country so you can vote. I've earned my right to vote. This is my ID," Thompson tells polling place employees while pointing to the US Marine insignia on his jacket. He entered the voting center with a baseball cap embroidered with “VETERAN” and an American flag patch on his coat as well

Thompson argues that he has used the same form of ID, his voter registration card, for decades. "I've used this for 37 years. This was good enough for my father. This was good enough for my grandfather and I refuse to show you a picture ID,” he tells a polling center supervisor in the clip.

"I'll be damned if I'll stand here and allow you to not let me vote because some governor of this state decided he wanted to eliminate my right to vote — and put conditions on it — that I fought for."
Veteran denied voting rights over lack of ID — RT

Forgive me here, but I think people like these vets I put up here did EARN that right and when these laws deny those who have put their butts on the line for this nation then regardless of how well meaning they are, they serve no purpose other than to make people feel good at the expense of good Americans who wish nothing more than to exercise rights they have earned.

Let Me get this right.

You are saying that VETERANS, who are getting veteran benefits, are doing so without providing, or have provided proof, that they are eligible to receive those rights?

The VA does not require you prove you served prior to registration?

 

[The T]

Same goes for Liberty entrusted to us by the Founders my friend.

"I served my country. I served my country so you can vote. I've earned my right to vote. This is my ID," Thompson tells polling place employees while pointing to the US Marine insignia on his jacket. He entered the voting center with a baseball cap embroidered with “VETERAN” and an American flag patch on his coat as well

Thompson argues that he has used the same form of ID, his voter registration card, for decades. "I've used this for 37 years. This was good enough for my father. This was good enough for my grandfather and I refuse to show you a picture ID,” he tells a polling center supervisor in the clip.

"I'll be damned if I'll stand here and allow you to not let me vote because some governor of this state decided he wanted to eliminate my right to vote — and put conditions on it — that I fought for."
Veteran denied voting rights over lack of ID — RT

Forgive me here, but I think people like these vets I put up here did EARN that right and when these laws deny those who have put their butts on the line for this nation then regardless of how well meaning they are, they serve no purpose other than to make people feel good at the expense of good Americans who wish nothing more than to exercise rights they have earned.

Let Me get this right.

You are saying that VETERANS, who are getting veteran benefits, are doing so without providing, or have provided proof, that they are eligible to receive those rights?

The VA does not require you prove you served prior to registration?

It's called a DD214 bolstered by picture ID.

 

[eflatminor]

As i mentioned in several postings... the cost to obtain those "Free ID's" are not , so no it doesn't. Futher I also mentioned, that as Haper is the standard even in the recent Indiana case where Voter ID's were upheld, its very clear if there is a "fee" involved its a "poll tax" .


Judge Stevens in the Indiana Case...

"is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. "

This is why I mentioned in my original thread "with the exception of Indiana" because even voters in Indiana without Voter ID may case a ballot and have it counted so that discounts the "poll tax" argument.

Regarding Indiana, if a voter can cast a provisional ballot but must execute an affidavit "at the circuit court clerk's office", isn't there a cost associated with that? After all, the voter must get themselves to the circuit court clerk's office. That could involve the cost of a bus ride. How does that not make it a poll tax by your definition?

Stated differently, what's the difference between requiring the voter to incur the cost of getting to a government office before or after the election?

No because that person is actually exercising the right to "vote" at that time and would incur a cost to do so regardless or perhaps not depending on how they got themselves to the courthouse.

Okay, I got it. You're saying a "poll tax" as you define it is okay if it's incurred after the vote but not before. Personally, I'd get my shit together before the election...but that's just me.

 

[The T]

In fact, I will tell you that there are NO people in PA, or anywhere else in this country that will be affected by these laws. If, during the course of a full two-year period, a person is unwilling to spend an hour (or even a whole day) of their life to obtain an ID in order to vote, then logic says that their vote does not mean anything to them.

Life is participation, and you can't sit back and say, I want My vote, but I don't want to do anything to protect it. That simply does not fly with Me and I am uncaring if people, to lazy to make an effort to secure their rights, cannot vote because of their inaction.

Same goes for Liberty entrusted to us by the Founders my friend.

"I served my country. I served my country so you can vote. I've earned my right to vote. This is my ID," Thompson tells polling place employees while pointing to the US Marine insignia on his jacket. He entered the voting center with a baseball cap embroidered with “VETERAN” and an American flag patch on his coat as well

Thompson argues that he has used the same form of ID, his voter registration card, for decades. "I've used this for 37 years. This was good enough for my father. This was good enough for my grandfather and I refuse to show you a picture ID,” he tells a polling center supervisor in the clip.

"I'll be damned if I'll stand here and allow you to not let me vote because some governor of this state decided he wanted to eliminate my right to vote — and put conditions on it — that I fought for."
Veteran denied voting rights over lack of ID — RT

Forgive me here, but I think people like these vets I put up here did EARN that right and when these laws deny those who have put their butts on the line for this nation then regardless of how well meaning they are, they serve no purpose other than to make people feel good at the expense of good Americans who wish nothing more than to exercise rights they have earned.

I am a Veteran that has no problem complying with picture ID requirements to vote, to apply for other things as situations may warrant in my job [you talk about jumping through hoops].

I think your premise here is one more of trust. History as far as voting is concerned is frought with fraud, and exactly why I support the notion of one person, one vote...and yes we need to know who you are especially in these times of rampant fraud we frequently read about.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

?

 

[Navy1960]

Same goes for Liberty entrusted to us by the Founders my friend.

"I served my country. I served my country so you can vote. I've earned my right to vote. This is my ID," Thompson tells polling place employees while pointing to the US Marine insignia on his jacket. He entered the voting center with a baseball cap embroidered with “VETERAN” and an American flag patch on his coat as well

Thompson argues that he has used the same form of ID, his voter registration card, for decades. "I've used this for 37 years. This was good enough for my father. This was good enough for my grandfather and I refuse to show you a picture ID,” he tells a polling center supervisor in the clip.

"I'll be damned if I'll stand here and allow you to not let me vote because some governor of this state decided he wanted to eliminate my right to vote — and put conditions on it — that I fought for."
Veteran denied voting rights over lack of ID — RT

Forgive me here, but I think people like these vets I put up here did EARN that right and when these laws deny those who have put their butts on the line for this nation then regardless of how well meaning they are, they serve no purpose other than to make people feel good at the expense of good Americans who wish nothing more than to exercise rights they have earned.

Let Me get this right.

You are saying that VETERANS, who are getting veteran benefits, are doing so without providing, or have provided proof, that they are eligible to receive those rights?

The VA does not require you prove you served prior to registration?

Of course not, and had you bothered to read any of the articles that I posted you would have seen that these Vets in question here are not saying that as well. Not all Vets , just so you know get benefits from the VA,

If you are a veteran of active military service and were discharged or released from service under honorable conditions, you are eligible to apply for VA health care as long as you met minimum duty requirements.

If you are a veteran who entered active duty military service prior to September 9, 1980, any amount of active duty qualify. If you enlisted or commissioned into the Armed Forces after September 9, 1980 or your entry on active duty was after October 16, 1981, you are eligible for veterans health care benefits if you completed 24 months of continuous active service or the full period of military service for which you were called or ordered to active duty.

A DD-214 in most state is an acceptable form of documentation for the purpose of obtaining a state ID, so are you saying that a vet, who has served his nation who has a DD-214, who has done so honorably, is lazy? because they have or are unable to go and get these ID's to vote should not be allowed too? simply because of some preceived and as yet unproven fraud claim to stop voter fraud ?

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often
Policy Brief on the Truth About “Voter Fraud” | Brennan Center for Justice

 

[tjvh]

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.

highlight^: How so? A Bus ride? How do they eat when they cannot travel to get their own groceries? This thread...

Oh... The humanity!!