Supreme Court rules that Indiana is allowed to require voters to produce photo ID

[mawilson 2,133]

Wait...are we talking about a new requirement to show identification at the time of registration or when you vote? Two different things.

Doesn't matter. Even if I can't register to vote *for* my candidate, I can use my Republican

neighbor's name and address to disqualify his vote *against* my candidate.

(If a person votes twice, his vote will be disqualified, no?)

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Wait...are we talking about a new requirement to show identification at the time of registration or when you vote? Two different things.

Doesn't matter. Even if I can't register to vote *for* my candidate, I can use my Republican

neighbor's name and address to disqualify his vote *against* my candidate.

(If a person votes twice, his vote will be disqualified, no?)

[greeneyedgirlfl 0]

I feel like I'm watching a tennis match....

Edited April 29, 2008 by greeneyedgirlfl

[kaydee457 13]

Wait...are we talking about a new requirement to show identification at the time of registration or when you vote? Two different things.

Doesn't matter. Even if I can't register to vote *for* my candidate, I can use my Republican

neighbor's name and address to disqualify his vote *against* my candidate.

(If a person votes twice, his vote will be disqualified, no?)

Unfortunately, probably not in time to matter.....I'm not sure as to how this could occur as in most places I've voted you have an assigned polling place and when you show up your name is checked to a list of registered voters in that precinct and at that time you can vote.

If you show up later (as an imposter) you'll be denied to vote again. If you try to vote at a different polling place other than the one assigned then you'll not show up on their list of registered voters and you'll be turned away.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wait...are we talking about a new requirement to show identification at the time of registration or when you vote? Two different things.

Doesn't matter. Even if I can't register to vote *for* my candidate, I can use my Republican

neighbor's name and address to disqualify his vote *against* my candidate.

(If a person votes twice, his vote will be disqualified, no?)

There's no evidence of this kind of voter fraud (stealing some other voter's identity) on a large scale because the way the polling place operate, if someone does, when the real voter shows up, they'll catch it.

I'm all for taking measures to prevent voter fraud, but as Dan pointed out earlier, the real potential for voter fraud is the voting machines that provide no paper trail...they've been proven to be easily manipulated.

[kaydee457 13]

For clarity sake...(from the CA Secretary of State)

FAQ - ID Requirements

WHAT ARE THE “ID REQUIREMENTS†FOR VOTING UNDER HAVA?

Section 303 (B) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) sets forth requirements for some voters to provide ID to vote.

Implementation of the specifics of this requirement can be quite complicated for election officials, but in general: If a voter registers to vote in a county on or after January 1, 2003 , the registration is by mail, and the voter has not previously voted in that county, then the voter must either provide ID when he or she registers or provide ID when he or she votes .

HOW DOES A VOTER PROVE ID?

Section 303 (B) (2) specifies the ID requirements for voters who vote in person or by absentee ballot.

“In person†voters must show a “current and valid photo identification†or “a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.â€

“Absentee voters†must submit with their ballot one of the documents listed above.

The Secretary of State, in accordance with Elections Code section 14310 (e), has promulgated emergency regulations defining the documents a voter may use to prove ID to vote (see FAQ #3 --- STANDARDS FOR PROOF OF RESIDENCY WHEN PROOF IS REQUIRED BY HAVA – Section 20107 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations).

IS THERE ANY WAY A VOTER CAN AVOID HAVING TO SHOW ID WHEN HE OR SHE VOTES?

Yes.

First, the requirement only applies to voters who have never voted in the county in a federal election. Persons who were already registered as of January 1, 2003, or who change address within the county and re-register, are not required to show ID to vote.

Second, voters who do not register to vote “by mail†are not required to show ID to vote.

Third, Section 303 (B) (3) states that if the voter provides his or her driver's license number, or the last 4 digits of his or her social security number, on the form to register to vote, and the elections official can verify the number is correct, then the ID requirement does not apply.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/hava_id_requirements.htm

Where's the proof of citizenship required to vote? I would expect something like this from Ca.......

Correct me if I'm wrong but do you not have to be a citizen to register, not just simply a resident, to vote?

As usual I had to answer my own question.......What cited here is alright for local elections if they're authorized for LPR's, but NOT FOR NATIONAL ELECTIONS, as is this conversation....

To vote in a national election one must register, and one must be a U.S. citizen......

Rights

As a Permanent Resident you have most of the rights of a United States Citizen but there are some exceptions.

Rights

To live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable (deportable) under the immigration law (section 237, Immigration and Nationality Act).

To be employed in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing.

To be protected by all of the laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions.

To vote in local elections where United States Citizenship is not required.

Exceptions

Some jobs will be limited to United States Citizens because of security concerns.

You may not vote in elections limited to United States Citizens.

voting right

Edited April 29, 2008 by kaydee457

[mawilson 2,133]

If you show up later (as an imposter) you'll be denied to vote again. If you try to vote at a different polling place other than the one assigned then you'll not show up on their list of registered voters and you'll be turned away.

So you show up early - as early as possible - and then the real guy will be turned away.

[kaydee457 13]

If you show up later (as an imposter) you'll be denied to vote again. If you try to vote at a different polling place other than the one assigned then you'll not show up on their list of registered voters and you'll be turned away.

So you show up early - as early as possible - and then the real guy will be turned away.

Yes, I realize that...It just seems to pull this scam off in any numbers to matter would be somewhat impractical........

My next question is how States, and local Counties distiguish between those that are residents, legal or not, and citizens.

It's been a long while since I registered (10 years in Illinois) but I don't recall having to prove citizenship by any means of ID. Perhaps I showed my Passport, I can't remember but hopefully there's a way they keep track for the sake of national elections.

[no name 1]

Wait...are we talking about a new requirement to show identification at the time of registration or when you vote? Two different things.

Doesn't matter. Even if I can't register to vote *for* my candidate, I can use my Republican

neighbor's name and address to disqualify his vote *against* my candidate.

(If a person votes twice, his vote will be disqualified, no?)

Escept when you register to vote, you tick a box that you are a USC. So that's fraud there.

I've always had to show ID in NYC, and Ohio & Cali to vote.

-------

OBAMA CALLS VOTER ID RULING 'WRONG'

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan

INDIANAPOLIS, IN -- Obama said he was disappointed today in the new Supreme Court decision that has upheld Indiana's voter ID law, calling it "wrong," and emphasizing that the law could suppress turnout among minorities and poorer voters.

"I am disappointed by today's Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's photo identification law -- one of the most restrictive in the nation," Obama said in a written statement.

He referenced his decision to file an amicus brief when Indiana's voter ID law was first challenged, saying he did it because he believed that "it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups."

Obama pledged to ensure that all voters have "unfettered access to the polls" on May 6th, and added that he was "encouraged that the Court has not complete closed the door to future challenges to state voter ID laws that create discriminatory barriers to the right to vote."

In a 6-3 decision today, the Supreme Court said that Indiana's requirement that voters show a form of identification at the polls is not unconstitutional. Opponents of the law argued that the law placed a burden on the right to vote and would depress turnout among poor, elderly, minority and disabled voters at the polls.

Clinton's Indiana state director, Robbie Mook, when asked about the law, avoided any comment on the decision, only saying: "Our top priority is that every vote will be cast and counted." He added that the campaign would act according to the law and was encouraging its supporters to vote absentee and vote early.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../28/954290.aspx

Edited April 29, 2008 by illumine

[Sheriff Uling 3]

OBAMA SAID WHAT!!! These dahamn ultra liberal democrats are driving me nuts! By default, anyone living in a society surrenders some liberties by default. We need law, order, structure, and community. I write all that just to get to the point that requiring IDs to vote does NOT hinder the process. Goodness...

[sj5 4]

good idea

[GabiandVi 34]

Finally, the Numbers...

Josh Marshall

In our coverage of the US Attorney Purge story a major issue looming in the background was the Republican party's effort to reduce minority voting. And a key way of doing that was to get states to pass (and the gutted Voting section at DOJ to approve) so-called voter ID laws to crack down on vote fraud for which there was in fact no evidence.

The truth is that if you're an educated and reasonably well-off person who has time free to read about politics during the day at TPM you very likely have one or more pieces of ID, in all likelihood a drivers' license. But among minorities, low-income voters, the young and the old that's often not the case. And those who don't have acceptable voter IDs are disproportionately Democrats.

Remember, the point of voter ID laws is not to eliminate fraud it is to eliminate Democratic voters. So if your voter ID law disenfranchises 10% of voters and 80% of those are Democrats you've just handed yourself several percentage points that can win you a bunch of close elections -- it's certainly easier than winning them the old fashioned way.

In any case, I return to this topic because one of these laws has been enacted in Indiana. And the Brennan Center and others have filed an amicus brief with a new quantitative study which finally puts real numbers on how many people will effectively lose their right to vote.

I'm quoting here from the press release on some of the study's key findings ....

# 21.8% of black Indiana voters do not have access to a valid photo ID (compared to 15.8% of white Indiana voters - a 6 point gap).

# When non-registered eligible voter responses are included - the gap widens. 28.3% of eligible black voters in the State of Indiana to not have valid photo ID (compared to 16.8% of eligible voting age white Indiana residents - a gap of 11.5 percent).

# The study found what it termed "a curvilinear pattern (similar to an upside down U-curve)" in the relationship between age and access to valid ID - younger voters and older voters were both less likely to have valid ID compared to voters in the middle categories. 22% of voters 18-34 did not have ID, nor did 19.4% over the age of 70. (compared to 16.2% of Indiana voters age 35-54 without valid ID and 14.1% for 55-69 year olds).

# 21% of Indiana registered voters with only a high school diploma did not have valid ID (compared to 11.5% of Indiana voters who have completed college - a gap of 9.5%).

# Those with valid ID are much more likely to be Republicans than those who do not have valid ID. Among registered voters with proper ID, 41.6% are registered Republicans, 32.5% are Democrats.

The study puts in a very stark relief what the Republican effort to keep minority and low-income voters from the polls is really about. And the Supreme Court will soon sign off on whether this is permitted -- a decision that will have a huge effect on voting rights in this country for years to come. Please take a moment to check out the press release and find out more.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/058739.php

Now if a Republican had said that the majority of undereducated, uninformed voters are democrats, he would be accused of racism.

[Fandango 1,439]

The poor won't turn out? Give out their welfare checks that day, they'll have an id quicker than you can say tickety boo.

Seriously, free id, and it's too hard for them? I'm starting to see why some of them may be poor in he first place.

...oh and the minority thing that O said....how much more racist can one person be?

[kaydee457 13]

The poor won't turn out? Give out their welfare checks that day, they'll have an id quicker than you can say tickety boo.

Seriously, free id, and it's too hard for them? I'm starting to see why some of them may be poor in he first place.

...oh and the minority thing that O said....how much more racist can one person be?

I'm totally shocked at this posting!

[Fandango 1,439]

The poor won't turn out? Give out their welfare checks that day, they'll have an id quicker than you can say tickety boo.

Seriously, free id, and it's too hard for them? I'm starting to see why some of them may be poor in he first place.

...oh and the minority thing that O said....how much more racist can one person be?

I'm totally shocked at this posting!

Why?