|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 07:15 AM EDT |
But requiring a photo ID has put control of who gets to vote into the hands of
whoever issues the photo ID.
Scot here, so who issues those in the states?
I know there's been a lot of manipulation of who's eligable to vote.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 07:51 AM EDT |
Many older people do not have a photo ID.
And for them $20 is a lot, but the real issue
is how to get it when getting around is so,
so hard.
If you are ever 90 or have a 90-year-old
relative, you'll understand.
Many poor people also do not have photo ID. And
lots of city people don't, because they don't
drive and so they don't need a license.
And then there is context. Ever since
Reconstruction, there have been efforts to
disenfranchise people, mostly in the South
but not exclusively so. In the last
election, we saw renewed efforts to
disenfranchise voters, precisely to avoid
what did in fact happen. I'm not into
politics, but anyone could see that the photo
ID thing was used for that purpose. Folks who
had voted regularly for many years were
told they could not vote. Long lines in
predominantly black or Latino neighborhoods
were a disgrace. People were unwilling to
be intimidated or discouraged, but the
attempt was made.
Racism is real, and it rarely shows itself
plainly. It's always couched in language
that sounds legitimate. Back in the day, in
the South, they'd force people to prove they
could read. That sounds legitimate at first,
in that you can't argue that being able to
read makes it more likely that the voter
knows the issues. But it was used maliciously,
with simple people who could read some but
not the high falutin' passages of Shakespeare
or whatever they were given to read. Whites
were not subjected to the same process. So
the law was used to make sure black voters
couldn't vote at all, and it worked. That was
what the Voting Rights Act was about, and
people lay down their lives to make it possible.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
Misleading. Only if you are cashing a check somewhere other
than at a bank
where you have an account is it necessary to
show "id", and this is a
commercial necessity (check fraud
is rampant).
It is necessary to register
to vote (and produce
identification and proof of voter eligibility), and this
registration provides one a voter registration card. If
that card is not an
accepted ID for the purpose of voting,
what is it for? I am asked to produce
that registration,
whether for early voting or for voting on election day
(although no ID is required for absentee ballot voting).
Voter fraud is not rampant.
The flush of laws to require "approved"
photo ID's on
election day is but one of several tactics by one party to
slow
down, intimidate and substantially reduce participation
by its opponents. The
evolution of these laws show that by
manipulating what "government issued" ID's
are allowed (gun
and hunting ID okay but student and library ID not), the mix
of voter participation can be altered.
--- Rosser's trick: "For every
proof of me, there is a shorter proof of my negation". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
Any general purpose identity document is an undemocratic tool that serves to
suppress human rights. It leads to identity checks for travel (show your
papers), forming a constraint upon freedom of association and movement. With a
photo, it provides the government with the means to link surveillance imagery to
identities - we've seen recent reports that the FBI is doing just that with
virtual lineups of drivers license photos. Even numbers are not innocuous, the
social security number was intended (and was limited by law) to serve only for
interactions with your social security records, it has morphed into a standard
tool for commercial identity management, credit reporting, medical records,
credit fraud and identity theft. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
That sounds an awful lot like an illegal poll tax to me.
Why should a photo id cost $20? That's got to be profit making opportunity for
the state. What's the cost of a drivers license?
I'm not against photo id for voting, but I am against poll taxes. $20 could feed
a family for a day, and if you're poor, what you you spend $20 on, meals or an
ID card? Also, if you're a two adult family (getting rare these days), that's
$40. Further why would an ID need an expiration date? I can see it for children,
but we're talking about voters here. Passports are good for ten years.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
Not everyone has a certified copy of their birth certificate or other official
documentation necessary to get the photo ID. It can cost a lot to procure those
documents. In Ohio, it's $21.50 for a certified birth certificate. Add that to
the cost of travel + $20 ID card, it begins to add up quickly. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
Where I am a state ID costs US$65.00.
No published discount if one is disabled, or 'old'.
Needed paperwork:
* Proof of residency;
* Proof of US citizenship;
* Proof of identity:
* SS# --- the card need not be present;
All of the "proof of residency" requirements assume that one is a home
owner.
Obtaining the "proof of US citizenship" paperwork requires one to have
the "proof of identity" paperwork.
Obtaining the "proof of identity" paperwork requires one to have the
"proof of US citizenship" paperwork.
Much easier, and simpler to pay $50 for an illegal alien identity kit.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
What about the guy who's homeless? No photo ID because he doesn't have a car
and doesn't have the money to get his driver's license renewed. No utility
bills. No home address to prove residency. Yet he's a US citizen and undeniably
a resident of the state. Is he somehow, despite being a citizen and resident,
not entitled to vote?
And I've seen the very subtle harrassment. I've
seen it where I go in as an obviously-well-off white male and just have to sign
the book, while the apparently-poor black woman ahead of me had to fumble for
half-a-dozen documents and had them spending 5 minutes checking her driver's
license to make sure it wasn't faked. This is, mind you, in a state that
isn't commonly accepted as having a problem with voter discrimination. I can
only imagine what it's like in a state where the government officials are openly
hostile to minorities. The discrepancy in treatment is not acceptable,
period end of line. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skyisland on Thursday, June 27 2013 @ 01:45 AM EDT |
However you try to justify it on the basis of high concept, the practical effect
is that plenty of people who ought to have the right to vote will be
disenfranchised by a technicality imposed by political powers who clearly have
that outcome as their goal. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|