Supreme Court allows Texas voter ID law for now

[Teddy B 17,252]

Here's an eyeopener.

Providing ID cards free of charge involves the

expense of producing and distributing them. It also

means a drop in revenues, because some who might

have opted to obtain a state issued non driver’s

license will now be able to do so without a fee.

According to a report released in 2011, Indiana

estimated spending $13 to produce each free ID

card, for a total of between $2 million and $3 mil-

lion per year, for an overall total of $10,023,221

between 2007 and 2010.

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/legismgt/elect/Voter_ID_Costs_June2014.pdf

Edited October 23, 2014 by Teddy B

[Karee 4,190]

So?

And the low end estimate for South Carolina by proponents of voter id is not just 260K a year, it will cost a minimum of 1.3 million to implement it, the approx. 260K per year after. I seriously doubt those numbers as they are much lower than any of the other states. in that article.

Litigation can be very expensive as well.

LITIGATION:

More than half of the voter ID

laws that have been enacted have faced legal scru-

tiny. Given this litigation rate, states that enact ID

laws should be prepared to defend them in court.

Legal fees for defending an ID law can be expen-

sive

—

especially if a case goes through multiple

rounds of appeals, as many ID cases have. For

instance, South Carolina’s voter ID lawsuit

was

expected to cost the state approximately $1 mil-

lion

but

ended up costing more than $3.5 million

(though the federal government was ordered to

cover part of the cost). A recent estimate

placed

Wisconsin’s cost for its voter ID lawsuits at more

than $1 million

.

Yep the litigation probably costs more than actually running it. No doubt about that. But that's the litigious society we live in. But yeah it initially costs 1.3 million in South Carolina, and 260k each year after. Big deal. That's nothing. South Carolina's budget for 2013 was 22.8 billion. I'm pretty sure folks there don't have an issue spending .0001% of the budget on voter ID.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yep the litigation probably costs more than actually running it. No doubt about that. But that's the litigious society we live in. But yeah it initially costs 1.3 million in South Carolina, and 260k each year after. Big deal. That's nothing. South Carolina's budget for 2013 was 22.8 billion. I'm pretty sure folks there don't have an issue spending .0001% of the budget on voter ID.

Again, those are the lowest estimates of any state in the country and they are from proponenst of the id law. I seriously doubt the real numbers would come even close to that. Either way, it's still alot of money spent on a non-existent problem.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Here's an eyeopener.

Quote

Providing ID cards free of charge involves the

expense of producing and distributing them. It also

means a drop in revenues, because some who might

have opted to obtain a state issued non driver’s

license will now be able to do so without a fee.

According to a report released in 2011, Indiana

estimated spending $13 to produce each free ID

card, for a total of between $2 million and $3 mil-

lion per year, for an overall total of $10,023,221

between 2007 and 2010.

http://www.ncsl.org/...ts_June2014.pdf

Yeah, but it is not like he is concerned with money anyway...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/08/290830/perry-farm-subsidies/

Anti-Government Spending Crusader Rick Perry Accepted More Than $80,000 In Farm Subsidies

Falling into line with the Tea Party rhetoric against “out-of-control” government spending, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is now supporting a move away from direct subsidies to the agriculture industry in favor of an incentives-driven model. But Perry himself has benefited from over $80,000 in farm subsidies over the years and publicly declared his support for farm subsidies when running for Texas Agriculture Commissioner in 1990. After his opponent accused him of wanting to terminate price supports for farmers, Perry was quick to deny the claim:

“

[Former Commissioner Jim Hightower] says I support eliminating our farm program payments. That’s not true. I’ve participated in the program as a producer.

My neighbors participate. I know what would happen to rural areas of Texas if these programs were discontinued. I do not support such an action.”

Perry certainly has benefited from the nation’s proclivity toward farm payouts; his 40-acre farm — which he finally sold in 1998 — brought him $72,687 in farm payments between 1987 and 1989 and even made him an additional $9,624 for leaving his land lying fallow. Perry’s father has also received $6,443 from cotton and wheat subsidies in 2002 and 2003.

When asked to comment on the subsidies, Perry’s office defended his record. “The governor is proud of his years in the farming industry, which he believes is an important part of the nation’s overall economy,” spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said.

But she also reiterated Perry’s position on federal spending, saying, “Out of control Washington spending is threatening every aspect of our economy, and now, more than ever, the federal government has an opportunity and obligation to have a real conversation about how to get our country’s fiscal house in order.”

Perry is expected to declare his intention to run for president during a speech in South Carolina this weekend. If he is to win the GOP nomination, however, he will have to appeal to an anti-spending, anti-government base — something that his history of accepting farm subsidies may hinder.

Edited October 23, 2014 by JohnR!

[Karee 4,190]

Again, those are the lowest estimates of any state in the country and they are from proponenst of the id law. I seriously doubt the real numbers would come even close to that. Either way, it's still alot of money spent on a non-existent problem.

It's money spent on a potential problem. Better to be safe than sorry. Especially with the current administration's policy of not enforcing immigration laws and making its own.

[JohnR! 5,495]

In that case only a valid US passport should do. No other picture ID can be used as proof of citizenship.

It's money spent on a potential problem. Better to be safe than sorry. Especially with the current administration's policy of not enforcing immigration laws and making its own.

[Rob L 3,811]

Those clerks are already there at the polling stations. You're making an (incorrect) assumption that they would need to hire more clerks to simply take a look at someones ID. They already look at the voter registration card and compare it to their list. I don't really see how giving the clerk your ID along with your voter registration card is going to add an expense. Your argument seems somewhat desperate really.

Yeah since it's not a problem now, why worry about it in the future.

And as you add more time per voter processing the number of clerks will increase unless they are not at capacity

[Teddy B 17,252]

It's money spent on a potential problem. Better to be safe than sorry. Especially with the current administration's policy of not enforcing immigration laws and making its own.

In that case only a valid US passport should do. No other picture ID can be used as proof of citizenship.

John makes a very valid point. It makes no sense to implement a multi million dollar voter id program with id's that can be easily tampered with or copied,or ones that don't prove citizenship. If it's going to be done, it needs to be done correctly with the newest and most secure technology available. Now we're talking hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to implement this program and more money every year to run it.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Teddy B

[Rob L 3,811]

This discussion about how to solve this problem , that has no substance compared to other issues facing out communities, how much it costs or whether we should even bother with the affairs of another state are not the primary question.

The question is: "Can you establish a new barrier to voting with the intention of impeding or discouraging legitimate voters?" The answer is no,that is a Federal offense. Is that occurring with this law in Texas? The majority of the supreme court said that probably not happening in this case, Justice Ginsberg for the minority outlined in no uncertain terms, the intent of this law is to disenfranchise certain groups and that is a violation of the law of the land. I invite you to read her statement and make your own informed choice.

"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," she wrote.

Ginsburg notes that the law could may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting, and "a sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14a393_08m1.pdf

[UncleBeer 244]

The question is: "Can you establish a new barrier to voting with the intention of impeding or discouraging legitimate voters?" The answer is no,that is a Federal offense. Is that occurring with this law in Texas? The majority of the supreme court said that probably not happening in this case

There you have it. The victory of common sense over blatant judicial activism.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I pointed out to Duncan at the time, links to voter id laws in other countries are irrelevant. If he had posted a link referencing a voter ID in the U.S. and it's cost, I'd take a look at it. Elections in the U.S. are not the same as elections in the UK.

Firstly, I don't think you know me well enough to be on a first name basis, since I don't know your first name. Unless you are prepared to offer it, please refrain from this behaviour or it may be seen as unnecessarily antagonistic.

Secondly, the story I posted isn't irrelevant just because you don't agree with it. Fraud proof ID systems are not cheap. That is a fact. They just aren't - you have to have a card that resists attempts to forge it, ideally with biometric data stored on the card. You need systems that can read that data and secure databases where the information is stored. I don't think that is cost-effective on a State level. The only way that is currently feasible is with a passport, however there is no legal requirement to have one - and I'm not sure that the State can bar people from voting who don't own a passport.

If you believe it is, feel free to prove otherwise.

[Karee 4,190]

Secondly, the story I posted isn't irrelevant just because you don't agree with it. Fraud proof ID systems are not cheap. That is a fact. They just aren't - you have to have a card that resists attempts to forge it, ideally with biometric data stored on the card. You need systems that can read that data and secure databases where the information is stored. I don't think that is cost-effective on a State level. The only way that is currently feasible is with a passport, however there is no legal requirement to have one - and I'm not sure that the State can bar people from voting who don't own a passport.

If you believe it is, feel free to prove otherwise.

You're reference to voter ID in the UK is 100% irrelevant. You might as well have posted a story concerning the voter id laws in Mozambique. The subject at hand is voter ID laws in the U.S. not the UK. If you can't stay on topic, head over to the games forum.

I didn't respond to the silly argument that an ID would need to be forgery resistant like a passport, because that's just plain dumb. Right now, no ID is required. Any ID is better than no ID. Currently anyone can just register to vote with few questions asked. This is an invitation for voter fraud. A govt. issued identification is accepted as proof of identity for just about everything in the U.S. except travel outside of the U.S. where a passport is required. So more apples and oranges from you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again, it's not irrelevant just because you say so. You don't have to agree with it - but the issues are not that different.

If the goal is to prevent voter fraud you need a system that is fraud proof. If you're not doing that then all you're doing is creating photo cards that anyone can forge if they have a printer. What's the point of that?

[Karee 4,190]

Again, it's not irrelevant just because you say so. You don't have to agree with it - but the issues are not that different.

If the goal is to prevent voter fraud you need a system that is fraud proof. If you're not doing that then all you're doing is creating photo cards that anyone can forge if they have a printer. What's the point of that?

Nothing is 100% fool proof when it comes to IDs. State issued IDs are better than no IDs.

ETA: as someone else pointed out in this thread, state IDs are accepted as proof of identification just about everywhere for everything where an ID is required. The argument for passports is not an argument, it's an attempt to derail the conversation.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Karee

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So if there are people don't have a state issued photo ID and there isn't one that they can get that is free of charge then the state would surely have to provide one. If not, them they are disenfranchising people who should be able to vote.

If the issue they want to solve is voter fraud then why would the solution not involve a photo ID programme that is resistant to fraud?

What is the point of that?