Jackson Free Press

Despite Gov. Phil Bryant signing the voter-identification bill recently passed in the Legislature, the measure isn't law just yet. The federal government still has to OK the controversial measure before it can take effect.

At a signing ceremony in his office at the Capitol, Bryant called presenting photo identification before casting a vote on Election Day a "simple act" that the majority of Mississippians support.

"It's not more complicated than that," Bryant said.

In November 2011, a ballot referendum amending the state's Constitution to require voter ID passed with 62 percent of the vote. After the ballot initiative's passage, the Legislature had to pass legislation to put the law on the books, which lawmakers did, although the measure sparked debate whenever it came up for a vote.

Now that the governor has approved the bill, the federal government has to examine the law to make sure it complies with sections of the Voting Rights Act, which requires Mississippi and other states that regularly engaged in vote suppression in the past to get permission to change its voting laws.

Bryant said that the voter ID law does not contain provisions to deter participation in upcoming elections. The governor also took issue with the characterization of civil-rights advocates that the law will disproportionately affect people of color, senior citizens and college students.

Bryant pointed out that Mississippi has two female statewide elected officials--Treasurer Lynn Fitch and Agriculture and Commerce Commissioner Cindy Hyde-Smith--and the most local elected African American officials in the nation.

The U.S. Department of Justice typically makes sure voting laws comply with the Voting Rights Act. President Barack Obama's administration has already shot down voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas.

The scuttlebutt around the Capitol is that Mississippi officials may attempt to bypass the DOJ and let the federal courts decide on Mississippi's law.

In its recent budget, lawmakers appropriated $495,000 to Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann's office for voter ID litigation.

Hosemann, who pushed for voter ID's passages, said he hopes his office doesn't have to use the funds.

He added that in the coming weeks, his office would begin public outreach around the state to educate voters on the new law. Those efforts, he said, will focus on senior citizens.

"When we find someone who doesn't have an ID, we're going to give it to them free," Hosemann said.

Previous Commentsshow

If I were a snowball descending into hell, I would feel better about my prospects than the chances that this voter ID bill has of surviving federal review. Bryant can complain that the intent of the bill has nothing to do with race, though many of us would disagree. But unless I'm mistaken, federal law concerns the discriminatory effects of restrictions on voting rights, and pure intentions are irrelevant. If that is the case, then it will be almost impossible for Mississippi to prevail in court because there is no question that requiring photo ID will have a disproportionate impact on African-American voters. It should be quite easy for DOJ to demonstrate that this law will disproportionately impact African Americans, and then the new voter ID law will be consigned to the dustbin of restrictions Mississippi has tried and failed to place on voting rights. It is, I am afraid, rather a full dustbin.

Brian C Johnson

May 17 2012

Phil Bryant failed to mention a relevant fact. 75% of African American voters voted against the referendum in November. The bill passed because 82% od white voters voter for it. That won't be the reason for the rejection but it certainly won't help.

Iwrite Poetry

May 17 2012

Come on DOJ. Your move is next. If it is any place in the US that a Voter ID Bill should not stand, it's here in Mississippi. Our history of discriminatory practices against voting rights for Black African-Americans is toooooo egregious!

justjess

May 17 2012

It's really unnecessary. Yes, I'm for making sure our elections are free of fraud, but the fact is that voter fraud is extremely rare. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning that of someone committing fraud. Plus, in order to commit fraud, one has to actually register and then vote. In most cases, the perpetrator doesn't get past the registration stage. Even many voter ID proponents can't really name specific incidents of fraud. It's just a ploy to decrease the voting populace. That's very un-American.

golden eagle

May 18 2012

I ask you, Brian and Iwrite and justjess and golden, out of simple ignorance this little question: why is producing a picture ID discriminatory against blacks? Please...no huff and puff, just a simple question for which there is likely a simple answer... I would really like to know why! Iwrite, it doesn't matter what the voting demographics were. That's the wonderful thing about voting and elections and the like - it's color/sex/religion/ethnicity-blind. I'm not a big fan of Phil because of the abortion hijinks he is pulling, but his failure to mention the racial breakdown is correct.

Darryl

May 19 2012

@Darryl, since you asked...it's essentially a poll tax. If a person doesn't have an ID, then they'd have to pay money to get one. If they don't have a copy of a birth certificate, then that's extra money to pay to get one. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Also, minorities, young college students and the elderly have higher rates of not having valid IDs. Some states even restrict what kind of college IDs to use. But, of course, the driving force behind this is political, as these groups of people tend to lean Democratic. The ones pushing these laws are Republicans. Frankly, I don't care who benefits and loses, but we should all want to make it easier for all citizens 18 and over to register and vote. How ironic that some voter ID proponents are always pushing for democracy (sometimes, at the barrel of a gun) around the world, but not for their own people.

golden eagle

May 21 2012

Golden, I agree with the sense that this is essentially a poll tax. But it's a poll tax that'll be paid by all of the tax-paying Mississippians, not just those registering or wishing to vote. My argument is that since this applies to everyone, what is the rationale for the hue and cry within the black community? Why do they feel that this disproportionately affects them? Brian writes, "...there is no question that requiring photo ID will have a disproportionate impact on African-American voters." Iwrite and justjess specifically mention blacks in their comments. Why not mention, equally, the tax-paying youth too young to vote. If I were them, I would be incensed that I couldn't vote but elderly, non-taxed citizens could.

Darryl

May 22 2012

I would be interested to know what percentage of the voting age population does not have identification in this day and age.

bill_jackson

May 22 2012

Darryl, out of my "simple ignorance" I ask you this "little question:" Why are registered voters here in the State of Mississippi being asked to produce a picture ID? When the State had all white voters because blacks were viewed as non-infranchised, half-human, biologically and intellectually inferior to other racial groups, ( referenced in most data bases dealing with the "Negro Race"), there was absolutely no ID request. After all is said and done, Darryl, there is ONE SIMPLE answer: It is the fear that Black Mississippians have in their sub-conscious, fore-conscious, and even their conscious mind, especially for older blacks, that Voter ID is just another nail in the coffin of our humanity as black Mississippians and Black Americans. This fear is born out of several centuries of oppression and egregious violations of black civil and human rights. Darryl, hopefully when you have answered my "Simple Question", you will have a better formulation of your query which will elicit a more definitive answer.

justjess

May 22 2012

I am in agreement with Golden Eagle - requiring I.D. ties a fee into voting, the only reason why its considered "discriminatory" towards black, is because it places back into an era where we faced the same stimulations for voting. Now if state identification cards are going to be free, then I have no issue with showing any kinds of identification at the poll. To say the purpose of requiring identification to vote is to curtail voter fraud is a bunch of hot air! When you register to vote You will need to provide your driver's license number or the last 4 digits of your Social Security number on your voter registration form. If you do not have a driver's license number or Social Security number and you are registering by mail for the first time, you must include one of the following with your application: •A copy of current valid photo identification •A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document showing your name and address Once you are registered, you generally remain registered indefinitely, unless you move or no longer meet one of the qualifications to vote. All of which must be maintained by your circuit or county clerk, you are then assigned to a polling place, within your respective area - and you are in turn given one vote, per election. However, with this new voter ID policy, there is an entire new headache and level of bureaucracy created - right in front of the Tea Party supporters that complained about all the bureaucracy in the first place.

Duan C.

May 22 2012

Darryl, I think it is simply a statement of fact that African Americans in Mississippi are less likely to have the required photo ID. If so, the new law is discriminatory in effect, even if it is not discriminatory in intent. My understanding of federal law is that the discriminatory effect is sufficient reason for the courts to strike down the law because of Mississippi's special status under the Voting Rights Act. I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the law. Whether it is moral or wise to require photo ID is distinct from this legal question.

Brian C Johnson

May 22 2012

justjess, I can only hope that the reason that this bill passed is that, for once, our lawmakers listened to the majority of Mississippians and crafted this bill. But, recall, that this issue has come up before the legislature many times in the past...this is the first time that it has passed. I went to school and paid attention in all of my Mississippi History classes and am well aware of the discriminatory practices that occurred in the past. Continuing to huff and puff about it, however, well...women might as well feel the same way since the Suffrage movement is almost a century old. Or I might as well continue to look askance at my English and Viking colleagues. Duan, my understanding of the bill is that the ID is free and supported by the taxpayers of Mississippi. Brian, thank you. Often times, legality and morality and wisdom are not in lock-step.

Darryl

May 23 2012

@Darryl 5/23 "....for once, our lawmakers listened to the majority of Mississippians and crafted this bill." My question is still on the table: What were you "majority Mississippians" saying to lawmakers? I hope that your MS History books were better and more inclusive than the MS History books my children had. Remember, it hasn't been that long ago since the World Book Encyclopedia had only one page under the title of "Negroes", ONE PAGE. The only way your history of the treatment of Blacks in this State or in all of the world could be accurate, would be from self reports and our oral historians. Very little, to date, has been accurately written in the State's History Books. Your assessment of "discriminatory practices that occurred in the past" is about as far off track as aything I have read in a very long time. Racism and discriminatory practices continue. I would like for things to be different; however, they are not. We have had some improvements in race relations but, when the Governor of the State takes on Dr. Carl Reddix and allows his Lt.Governor to call Dr. Reddix "Unqualified", these are our reality checks. Just as the Jews will never forget the pain and suffering of the Holocaust; Blacks will not forget the pain and suffering of slavery, killings, bombings, segregation, discrimination in hiring policies - neither should we. Never forget that what you call "huffing and puffing" about the past simply translates as a WARNING that vigilance is a necessary survival tool for black Mississippians. There are people still alive - just waiting for the opportunity to actualize the teachings that they embody from the past, relative to race. These are the residues of the old guard who cheered when the Kennedys were assignated; when Dr.Martin King was assignated; when Medgar Evers was assignated; and, the present reporting of assignation attempts on President Barac Obama. How can we forget? How can I pretend?

justjess

May 23 2012

I can only hope that the reason that this bill passed is that, for once, our lawmakers listened to the majority of Mississippians and crafted this bill. Considering that the "majority" of Mississippians voted in the 1960s to close the public schools rather than integrate them, this is sure not a standard that has always made a lick of sense. I could say so much on this thread, but with my schedule today, I'll leave it with two single points: 1. In the United States, constitutional "rights" are not subject to majority opinion and whims. It has to, and must be, about the right of the individual, regardless of majority opinion at any moment. (Those of you worried about the Second Amendment might take this to heart as public opinion continues to shift against you going forward.) 2. Regardless of the back-and-forth about whether or not voter ID will disparately impact black voters, you supporters of voter ID need to have a serious conversation with yourself about why you are supporting an expensive legal regulation on a constitutional right with no evidence that it is needed or will change anything. Y'all are supposed to be conservative about regulation; why are you being led around by your ear by the people who so desperately want this unneeded, pricey regulation? WHY are you allowing yourselves to be used (by the very people who actually think the answer to the back-and-forth about limited black (Democratic) voting is YES. Regardless of why you bozos are going along with anti-conservative limits on American rights/values, the fools pushing the legislation think it's going to keep Democrats, young people and people of color from voting. THEY WOULDN'T GO AGAINST THEIR SUPPOSED ANTI-REGULATION VALUES IF THEY DIDN'T. Use your heads here and try not to be such pawns in a corporate shell game. Just because the Koch brothers/ALEC crowd want you to put your brain and reasoning ability on a shelf doesn't mean you have to. Their success depends on your ignorance, boys. Think about it. Of course, I hope and pray that the joke will be on the fools who are actually stuck in the past and trying to enact a new kind of poll tax/barrier -- and that it will not affect the vote, except to increase it. Then the joke will be all y'all for pushing expensive, unneeded regulation.

DonnaLadd

May 23 2012

@Jess, I think the word you're looking for is "assassination". @Darryl, do we really know that the majority of MS'ians wanted this, when you consider that this was a manufactured issue? Voter ID was not an issue here or anywhere else until the GOP made it one, as part of their ongoing assembly line of wedge issues they use to get votes. I'm all for our elections are free of voter fraud, but the truth is, voter fraud is extremely rare. I believe the system is working fine to prevent Mickey Mouse is not voting illegally.

golden eagle

May 23 2012

Wow, my English was bad on the previous post. You know how it is on these iPhones.

golden eagle

May 23 2012

justjess, you stated "Racism and discriminatory practices continue." What objective data do you have to support this? Calling someone unqualified is a subjective interpretation of that person's ability to perform the requested action. Regarding my off-track assessment of past discriminatory practices, it is actually a fair parallel to compare black indignation based on historical actions to those that women encountered prior to the passage of the Suffrage act. Donna, it is unnecessary to call someone a bozo that disagrees with you or supports this issue. I voted based on how my interpretation of the proposed legislation impacts me. Just as I did on the Personhood and Immigration proposals. Just as I did on the candidates for elected office. Not because some talking head/magazine/newspaper swayed me. Though it is often difficult to tease out of the morass of opinions I subject myself to in my readings/radio listenings, I hope that I make a correct choice each voting opportunity. Golden, I should have been more specific in my assessment: the majority of registered voters who took the time out of their day to vote. And assassination is what, I think, justjess meant to say (at least that's how it sounded in context), there are certainly moral and ethical assignations made regarding President Obama.

Darryl

May 23 2012

That's funny that you blocked my last comment...

Darryl

May 24 2012

No, Darryl, no one blocked you. Stop being paranoid. We just typically open comments in moderation during non-office hours. To me, a bozo isn't someone who disagrees with me. It's someone who cares not a whit about actual evidence or cost and just allows themselves to be led around by powerful interests and played as fools. Voter ID is one major way that is happening in today's world. So prove to me you're not a bozo: Explain how the proposed voter ID affects you in a positive way, considering that it will be costly and that there is no evidence that it will fix actual problems. Please. And, yes, I think anyone who goes along with expensive regulations on constitutional rights with no evidence that the regulation are are bozos. At best. At worst, they might be people who think that, somehow, the regulation will discourage people who believe differently from voting. Those people I would call bigots. Or maybe Kochs.

DonnaLadd

May 24 2012

I might be missing something here, but I am a little confused by Golden Eagle's points: "the fact is that voter fraud is extremely rare"--so it is of no consequence that some precincts have more registered voters than residents? "Plus, in order to commit fraud, one has to actually register and then vote"--no, that's exactly the point; people are voting who are not registered--they just happen to be voting in other voters' (dead or alive) names. "Even many voter ID proponents can't really name specific incidents of fraud." The number of such incidents could fill a railroad car full of ballot boxes, but here's just one: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/ "It's just a ploy to decrease the voting populace"--no, it's just a ploy to decrease the dead voting populace, to verify that a voter is not representing himself to be someone he is not, and to ensure that every vote counts--but only once.

notmuch

May 24 2012

Rather than using ideological websites to support your argument, I'll use the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice. Really good site.

golden eagle

May 24 2012

I don't think you could have found a more liberal example of a "non-partisan" site, but even so, their evidence seems to consist of 250 carefully chosen instances in one area of Indiana. I'll stick with the facts.

notmuch

May 24 2012

Ms. Ladd, my apologies for my "paranoia." Did get a chuckle, though. As to your calling me a bozo, you're assuming that I was swayed and played a fool. Fine...I doubt that whatever answer I give will place me in your non-bozo box. (Reminds me of the scene from "Dune" where Paul places his hand in the box...) But, I'll play. My vote was quite simply this: does it affect me? Yes. Does it inconvenience me? No. Okay - check - next item. Abortion: Does it affect me? No. Does it inconvenience me? No. Does it limit the availability of medical care to the women I care about? Yes. Okay - check - next item. I daresay that I would rather my taxes go to ensuring that all voting age Mississippians have a valid photo ID than to the other boondoggles that we are saddled with (Civil Rights Museums, renaming airports and nepotistic studies about the Byram-Clinton Parkway). I wish we had the opportunity to have voted on those items... What is the estimated cost of ensuring that registered voters have photo ID? I would hazard a guess (purely a guess) that there is a small population of Mississippians who do not have some form of valid photo ID. What if each county did a trial run with the next election to determine how many people that turned up didn't have one? Since we have never had an election with 100% turnout, this would be an imprecise approximation, but it would at least be a firm start to projecting numbers.

Darryl

May 24 2012

I don't think you could've found a more partisan right-wing site than the Daily Caller. The fact of the matter is that the right is using this issue not as a means of improving elections, but as a way of shrinking the electorate.

golden eagle

May 24 2012

@ golden eagle. Thanks for the spell check. I didn't just spell assassination wrong ONE time, I did it over and over. LOL! You are right on the mark; I was trying to use the word assassination. Thanks!

justjess

May 24 2012

Oh, I have hundreds of those right-wing sites, and I couldn't say which ones are more "partisan"--they all include those pesky facts. Yes, when dead voters and multiple voters under the same name are eliminated, the electorate will necessarily shrink. In my opinion, that does improve elections--not because I think it will result in a particular outcome, but because it will result in an outcome that more accurately reflects the will of the electorate (the live electorate, that is).

notmuch

May 24 2012

@notmuch, here are some facts about voter fraud, straight from the Brennan Center's website: Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. 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. What you guys are arguing is this idea that voter fraud is an epidemic, when it clearly isn't. Yes, it does occur, but look at the frequency that it's occurring. Not only are you likely to be struck and killed by lightning, but I'd bet the odds to win the lottery is better. So where's the epidemic that calls for disenfranchising people their constitutional right to vote?

golden eagle

May 24 2012

I'm not sure where the "@" came from, but I think golden eagle's response was directed to me, so I will respond one more time. First, the inclusion of the word "facts" and the phrase "straight from the Brennan Center's website" in the same sentence did give me a moment of humor--thanks for that. After all, this is the website that recently claimed that 25% of blacks and 16% of hispanics do not have photo ID's. I really do not have time to verify those numbers, but I will say that I find it hard to believe that those percentages do not drive, cash checks, buy alcohol or tobacco, marry, receive government benefits, use air travel, etc. Second, it is interesting that the quote from the Brennan Center is careful to use the phrase "Fraud by individual voters"; this seems to exclude fraud that is the result of organized group action. I do agree that voter fraud is irrational, as are murder, extortion, rape, and many other crimes that are more rare than voter fraud. However, I do not agree that this makes any of these crimes okay. Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade counties in Florida recently purged about 5,000 dead voters each from their rolls. Yes, these are small percentages, but considering how close recent Florida elections have been, I would venture to say that this is significant. The statement "the single vote is simply not worth the price" is a good one, and it describes exactly what voter ID laws are about--if voter ID is enacted, that will become a true statement. Without ID laws in place, that statement is meaningless since there is no prosecution. There are many documented cases of voter fraud to choose from, but at the risk of giving away ideas on how easy it is to commit, you might want to check out this link: http://www.redstate.com/smoovjc/2012/05/18/you-too-can-vote-100-times/ Yep, you guessed it--another one of those radical right-wing sites! "So where's the epidemic that calls for disenfranchising people their constitutional right to vote?" Again, I am not arguing the epidemic nature, or lack thereof; if one person commits fraud, it is wrong. Credit card hackers are not that common either, but if it is my card that is hacked, that is not much consolation to me. Similarly, if my vote is stolen, I am a little upset about that also. Therefore, I do think voter ID laws are a good idea--even though it might not be common, I would prefer not to be disenfranchised of my constitutional right to vote.

notmuch

May 25 2012

Notmuch, the Brennan Center carefully cites its sources, most of which are entirely non-partisan. If you have a problem with some particular claim they have made, by all means share it with us. Otherwise, you are simply sticking your tongue out at them, which is not worth our time. The Center's figures on minorities and photo I.D. are based on a 2006 survey conducted by an independent research group. If you have particular complaints about the methodology of that survey, please share them. We have no interest in what you find "hard to believe." You continue to conflate the potential for voter fraud and the actual occurrence of voter fraud. You say there are "many documented cases of voter fraud" to choose from, and then you immediately cite a source that does not actually document voter fraud at all. Instead, it muses on how a person could commit voter fraud. That does not support your claim. So far, you have cited only one case of voter fraud, as reported in the Daily Caller. Surely, you can see that it undermines your case that the perpetrator was discovered and convicted without requiring voters to present photo ID? Based on your comments above, I question whether you've done any real research on this subject. For instance, photo I.D. is not necessary to prevent your vote from being "stolen." That is, if someone tries to vote in your name, and you also cast a vote in your name, the state can already detect that fraud. Anyway, we are all waiting for your "railroad car full" of cases of documented voter fraud, or any fact-based refutation of the findings of the Brennan Center.

Brian C Johnson

May 29 2012

Brian- I've got to agree with Notmuch and disagree with the Brennan Center's so called facts. Let's do a little figuring with their numbers and the Census Bureau numbers. The population of Mississippi is close to 3 million which 37% are black(1,11000) and 75% of those people are 18 and older. So that leaves roughly 832500 black voters and the Brennan Center says 25% of them have no ID. That would mean there are 208,125 black voters who supposedly have no id of any kind. Now be honest, do you really think there are over 200,000 black people in Mississippi, who don't work,have no home,who have no bank account,don't cash checks,have no phone ,electricity, water,gas, receive no Fed or State Gov't assistance,don't have a car, insurance, have mortgages, have kids in school, something that would require them to have had a id in the past? Where do they get money to live? They can't have jobs or receive gov't money without ids. Where do all these people live? Cardboard boxes? No renting or mortgages without id, they even run FBI background checks for new mortgages now. Where do they get food? If these people live so far off the grid to not have anything most normal citizen has, what makes you think they are even going to vote in the first place?

BubbaT

May 29 2012

OK, but what does not having utilities or a car have to do with voter ID?

golden eagle

May 29 2012

Golden- Atmos and Entergy require a id and SS# to hook up utilities, banks won't loan money for cars without an id,insurance companies won't write a policy without an id, oh and more importantly can't drive with out an DL and guess what? that's got a picture on it. So if these 208,000 people who supposedly don't have some kind of id to get a free voter id card, have a home,own a car,or drive,then somebody is lying. That what utilities and car have to do with voter id.

BubbaT

May 29 2012

Bubba T, The Brennon Center's study didn't say that 25% of Blacks in MS didn't have valid ID, it stated that they didn't have "valid, State Issued Photo" ID, which is different. Valid ID for things like school enrollment, credit applications, and such don't necessarily have to have "Valid State Issued Photo ID". One can use lease agreements, work ID, utility bills, etc. to vouch for things like residency and employment. When I first moved to MS, I officially didn't have "valid Photo ID" for about 3 years (I had an out of state driver's license), even though I purchased a home, became employed, and went to the Dr. for regular checkups. The overall point is that the Voter ID law is a solution looking for a problem, which indicates that something else is fueling this movement, other than voter fraud. If the supporters of voter ID are so concerned about voter fraud, why don't they allow for early voting, which would actually target where the voting fraud that does occur actually happens, absentee ballots? If people are so concerned that “dead people” are voting, then, instead of having absentee ballots cast by dead people, why not allow for early voting instead, and limit absentee ballots to people who vote who do not presently live in the district in which they have permanent residence and have voter registration (like service people, non-resident students, etc.)? This would allow more time for more people to vote and would eliminate the confusion about who casts live ballots on Election Day.

Renaldo Bryant

May 30 2012

Golden- Atmos and Entergy require a id and SS# to hook up utilities, banks won't loan money for cars without an id,insurance companies won't write a policy without an id, oh and more importantly can't drive with out an DL and guess what? that's got a picture on it. So if these 208,000 people who supposedly don't have some kind of id to get a free voter id card, have a home,own a car,or drive,then somebody is lying. But there is no constitutional right to do or have any of the aforementioned. There is a constitutional right, however, to vote. And you know what else is a right? Not to pay poll taxes, which is what I've equated this to, since one would need to pay money to obtain ID and/or money to retrieve a birth certificate.

golden eagle

May 30 2012

Renaldo- You're missing the point,doesn't matter if they don't have a valid state issued photo id right now, they can easily get a free one with the id they have now. So the argument about not having an id right now is pretty much useless. Yes, I know you can used utilities bills,lease agreements and such for residency, have been doing that every year for the past 15 yrs, but when I registered my children the first time ,I did have to show a photo id,and I don't know what doctor's you use, but every doctor I go to have show a photo id the first visit. I'm not concerned about voter id stopping voter fraud, I have never said we need voter id because of that. I just think voting is so important that you should have to prove who you are to do it. Plain and simple.

BubbaT

May 30 2012

Bubba, you are missing the point. If anyone has to spend one dime (on gas, taking time off work, paying for an ID, anything) to get an ID in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote, it is a poll tax. I can't for the life of me see why you and others here, who claim to be such great conservatives, don't mind the government jumping up and down on the Constitution to pass expensive (to the taxpayers) legislation that has no evidence to back it up. It's truly remarkable.

DonnaLadd

May 30 2012

Donna- Not missing anything, just think your point in invalid. :) Expensive? Not really, what's the estimated cost,$1.5 million a year that figures out to be about 75 cents per taxpayer. Not really burden on taxpayers. :) I don't need any evidence to back anything up, I already said I think having to show an id to vote is the right thing to do. Stopping voter fraud has nothing to do with my opinion,. I don't feel having to show an id violates my constitution right to vote in form shape or fashion. Nor anyone else's. Plain and simple. Where is the evidence that it would suppress anyone's constitutional right to vote? Quoting numbers and speculation don't count. Got a single real live person that has no way possible to get a voter id? I mean the have no form of id any kind, no SS#, no birth certificate etc. Find one and I will concede that voter id will suppress someone's right to vote. Until then, ya'll are offering up no evidence,just like the people saying voter id will stop voter fraud.

BubbaT

May 30 2012

Bubba, I knew you weren't really a conservative. Thanks for proving it. You think it's perfectly find to throw $1.5 million in taxpayer money at a problem that doesn't exist. It also happens to be regulation that *could* violate one person's constitutional rights (which is what the U.S. Constitution protects, not the rights or desires of the majority)--and it doesn't matter whether it your rights that would be violated or not (America 101). You offer no basis for supporting wasting this money, and possibly violating one person's rights, except that *you* "think it is the right thing to do." Thus, you bring the argument back to square one: WHY is the right thing to do if there isn't a problem for it to solve? You're getting dangerously close to convincing me that you hope it might keep some voters you disagree with at home -- if it wasn't that, I suspect you could come up with a reason, any reason, that actually makes a lick of sense. As it is, you are arguing your way into a corner every time you post. Conservative, my butt. You and so many others clearly don't mind if unneeded, costly regulation is passed as long as it (a) doesn't hurt you personally and/or (b) might help silence your political opponents. And those politics sure aren't about fiscal conservative, as you guys are proving every time on this. So what is it really about?

DonnaLadd

May 30 2012

I think it's obvious the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote is way too high in this country. We need to do whatever we can to try to get that number down. I suggest taking voting rights away from anyone with a traffic violation or misdemeanor. Also, voters should have to present their high school transcripts to make sure they are making educated, wise decisions. Lastly, I think everyone should have to present their birth certificate, as well the birth certificates of their ancestors going back no less than 7 generations to assure they are truly American, not only by citizenship, but by blood.

Jacob Fuller

May 30 2012

LOL. Jacob, I think you're posting while on a chocolate high. ;-)

DonnaLadd

May 30 2012

You may be right. Apparently, the smart ass in me thrives on cake.

Jacob Fuller

May 30 2012

One thing that always gets me about this argument -- who are we going to be presenting our ID *to*? What is their training? Their jurisdiction? Their responsibilities? If your driver's license is out of date -- does that have anything to do with your right to vote? What if it's suspended for moving violations? Or if you've lost your drivers license because of age or eyesight and present an expired version. Will the poll worker know what to do in that instance? And will they be trained to spot fake IDs? I've heard it's possible to fake IDs. It always seems to me that Voter ID proponents are working from an un-articulated assumption that there's a trained law enforcement officer behind that table in the polling center. But they're not. They're volunteers, some of them potentially partisan (especially if they're poll watchers) and they have enough trouble getting the silly voting machines to work. Just a thought...

Todd Stauffer

May 30 2012

Todd- Good thought I would assume they would train them wouldn't you? I actually think everyone should have to register to vote again and use your thumb print, Got to the poll, use the print reader and vote. Ya'll can't say people don't have thumbprints or fingerprints if they are missing a thumb or two.

BubbaT

May 30 2012

Good points, Todd. I never even thought about expired IDs. By the way, some innocent Florida voters are being purged off the rolls. I'll provide links when I get some time in front of the computer.

golden eagle

May 30 2012

If they have to be trained to deal with fake/expired IDs, it's going to cost us. Of course, this is a very important point and one that voter ID apologists ignore. Voter ID is a clusterfrack waiting to happen. And a pricey one. On top of that, I'm really hoping it gets more of the very people to the polls that the Koch bozos, and their blind followers, want to keep away. In other words, that it fail on all points, not just on cost and the fact that it is unnecessary regulation (that, admittedly, helps identify the hypocrites calling themselves "conservative.") Which brings up the vital point that it doesn't actually matter whether voter ID squelches the black/young vote or not. It's unneeded expensive regulation, with no evidence that it's needed, designed to squelch the right of each American to cast their vote without undue and unnecessary hampering. It's unconstitutional on its face, regardless of its effect (even if the judges bought by the U.S. Chamber don't agree.) THAT, boys, is why this is like a poll tax. The poll tax was unconstitutional even for anyone who paid it and then voted. Just because it didn't have its desired effect didn't mean that it was OK. Get your brains off mothballs and think it through. There is a very good reason that much of corporate America, including the Kochs, want this so badly, and it has little to do with cleaning up voter fraud. It's so they can keep the people home who might vote against the candidates they buy who will let them do anything they want. If you want them to lead you around by the nose ring because you're too dazzled by their power to think for yourself, go ahead. But many in America get this game, and we will continue to fight it, regardless of the effect the laws have on the vote. This is America, and we must stand up for the freedoms it promises. And that includes a whole lot more than the right to sleep with your gun under your pillow.

DonnaLadd

May 30 2012

Here's a link to the Florida voter purge, courtesy of Miami's CBS affiliate: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/05/30/florida-not-slowing-down-voter-purge-despite-questions/ One purged voter is a 91-year-old war vet.

golden eagle

May 30 2012

Donna, you said "It's unneeded expensive regulation, ..." I am curious as to what regulations you think our legislature should be targeting. Only the needed ones? The cheap ones? It seems to me that our past legislatures have not concerned themselves unduly with need or cost when it comes to bills.

Darryl

May 30 2012

That's an easy answer, Darryl, especially for someone who considers myself a "progressive libertarian until it gets stupid." We should have no legislation without a demonstrated need and solid evidence to support it. We can all debate that need and evidence, but in the case of voter ID, it's a no-brainer. It's not there. They're bamboozling y'all. And to try to regulate a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. We should all be losing sleep at night over this. Put another way: voter ID is one of the least conservative, least progressive and least libertarian -- not to mention least intelligent -- pieces of legislation I've seen in a long time. It's hard to hit all those "leasts," but this does. Oh, and allow me to add another: "least American."

DonnaLadd

May 31 2012

Todd- Good thought I would assume they would train them wouldn't you? I actually think everyone should have to register to vote again and use your thumb print, Got to the poll, use the print reader and vote. Ya'll can't say people don't have thumbprints or fingerprints if they are missing a thumb or two. Bubba, I don't disagree with that as much as you assume I might. I have nothing against *registering* to vote, although I think it could be easier. (Same day registration, etc.) Registration is the stage at which people present ID, make a case for their residency and citizenship and so on. I think it's an unnecessary burden for people to have to continue to prove that their entitled to vote when their valid signature should suffice; that includes my concern about the people who are going to make the decision as to whether you've met their ID tests at the polling place before you're allowed to cast your vote. As I mentioned before, if you're for voter ID, then you should be for gun licenses... since you're the type of person who believes the government should regulate your constitutional rights in an effort to preempt unlawful behavior.

Todd Stauffer 743

May 31 2012

Todd- l will remind you that everyone has to show an id and go through a background check everytime they buy a firearm. I will also say if you object to voter id then surely you want to remove all restrictions on the 2nd Amendment since I'm sure one of the thousands firearm laws violates it. :)

BubbaT

May 31 2012

As I have said before, voter ID requirement gives too much power to the Precint Manager who can, wrong or right, deny someone the right to vote because of a "concern" with their ID, e.g. expired license, wrong form of ID, etc. The focus of this legislative session seemed to be all about denial, denial to an abortion, denial to vote, denial to workmen's comp, etc.

833WMaple

Jun 1 2012