I.D., Please.

[SEC=UGA]

To no one’s surprise, the state Supreme Court this morning announced this morning that, in a 6-to-1 decision, it has upheld the Georgia law requiring voters to show valid photo ID at the polls.

 

Justice Robert Benham, the first African-American elected to the high court bench, issued the lone dissent.

 

Read the decision here. From the court summary:

 

“As did virtually every other court that considered this issue, we find the photo ID requirement as implemented in the 2006 Act to be a minimal, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory restriction which is warranted by the important regulatory interests of preventing voter fraud,” Justice Hugh Thompson writes in today’s 23-page majority opinion.

 

Before 1998, Georgia voters were not required to present any form of identification as a condition for voting. After 1998 and until 2005, voters could cast their ballots at the polls if they showed one of 17 forms of identification, including a utility bill or Social Security card, or signed an affidavit swearing to their identity. If a voter stated certain reasons why he or she could not come to the polls, the voter could submit an absentee ballot by mail.

 

With the Photo ID Acts of 2005 and 2006, the legislature amended the voting laws by requiring that voters bring to the polls one of six forms of government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license. At the same time, the changes made it easier for voters to cast absentee ballots by eliminating the requirement they provide a reason before doing so.

 

In 2005, some groups sued the state in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on grounds that the photo requirement violated voters’ rights under the U.S. Constitution. The District Court ruled the State could not enforce the act because, among other things, it imposed a poll tax in violation of the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

The defendants then appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. While that was pending, the Georgia Legislature passed the 2006 Act with identical photo ID requirements to the 2005 Act. The major difference, however, was that the fee was eliminated under the 2006 law that had been charged under the 2005 law for the ID card given to those voters who showed up to vote without an acceptable photo ID.

 

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s photo ID law, concluding that it imposed no undue burden on voters. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Georgia officials and determined that the District Court “did not err when it determined that the legitimate interest of Georgia in preventing voter fraud justified the insignificant burden of requiring voters to present photo identification before they vote in person.”

 

This appeal involves a lawsuit brought in 2008 by the state Democratic Party against former Gov. Sonny Perdue, former Sec. of State Karen Handel and the State Election Board. Unlike previous lawsuits, this one challenged the voter ID requirement on the ground that it violated rights guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution.

 

In 2010, a Fulton County judge again upheld Georgia’s 2006 Photo ID Act as an “evenhanded restriction” designed to protect the “integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” The Party then appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

“We conclude that no voter is disenfranchised by the 2006 Act, and the Act does not violate Article II, Section I, Part III of the Georgia Constitution,” today’s majority opinion says. The Constitution states that any citizen 18 or older “who meets minimum residency requirements as provided by law shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people.” It also states that the “General Assembly shall provide by law for the registration of electors.”

 

“Although the right to vote guaranteed by our Constitution cannot be ‘absolutely denied or taken away by legislative enactment, the legislature has the right to prescribe reasonable regulations as to how these qualifications shall be determined,” says today’s opinion, quoting the high court’s 1949 decision in Franklin v.Harper.

 

The majority concludes that the 2006 Act “does not deprive any Georgia voter from casting a ballot in any election.” A voter who lacks a photo ID and wants to vote in person may obtain a free voter ID. Or, a voter may cast a provisional ballot and have the vote counted upon presentation of photo ID within 48 hours. Finally, a person may vote by absentee ballot, which requires no photo ID at all.

 

The photo ID requirement has already been used in 15 elections during 2007 and 2008 “without problems and voter turnout has not been suppressed,” the opinion says.

 

Justice Robert Benham dissents. Following a quote by Susan B. Anthony, he writes: “This country has a long history of denying the franchise to certain groups of citizens-non-property owners, members of certain religions, African-Americans, women, Native Americans, young adults aged 18 to 21, etc. It is unfortunate that over the course of the last 13 years, this State has placed ever increasing restrictions on its citizens’ ability to cast regular, non-provisional ballots at their local polling precincts.”

 

He argues that “obtaining the ‘free’ voter identification card is actually more burdensome than registering to vote,” due to the amount of documentation a person must provide. And voting by absentee ballot deprives a person of “the right to be among one’s fellow citizens at the polling precinct and to openly exercise his or her right to participate in a democracy.”

 

“Citizens at the margins of our society (i.e., the poor, infirm, and elderly) are still effectively being disenfranchised in the name of the government’s purported interest in preventing voting frauds that have not been proven to occur at any rate of significance,” Justice Benham writes in the dissent. “As such, I must respectfully disagree with the majority opinion in this case.”

[wiegie]

fine by me

 

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=156223

 

now we need to work on item #2

[detlef]

I've never understood the argument against the ID bit and I can't fathom a voting area so corrupt that someone could pull off the sort of abuses that people bring up.

 

Do you think that a volunteer could actually get away with insisting, say, the photo ID of a voter that obviously looked like him or her was not them or fake? Everyone there would have to be in on it, up to and including the rest of the voters who were there. I know that whomever it was happening to would make a pretty effing big issue about it.

 

Regardless, there's a simple fix. If you go to the voting place and are refused because of ID reasons, you sign a form and get a copy for yourself that allows protest of the refusal. Then, you go to the county building or something within a week or so, re-verify your ID, and vote there. I don't know, something like that.

 

But I am always amazed that I can just walk up to the polling station and just give them my name and be on my way. I know the name of the ultra-conservative dude across the street. If I vote my way and he votes his, we cancel each other out. If I say I'm him, vote my way and nobody says they're me, that vote doesn't get canceled out. I can't imagine this sort of thing doesn't happen.

 

BTW, I've never voted early. Do you need to show ID if you do that? Because then you could literally vote twice and most certainly not get caught doing what I described above, because the polling places are not in your neighborhood. You could vote for your neighbor early and vote for yourself day of.

[nuke'em ttg]

is it so tough ta show an ID

"yes i'd like a 5th of Captain"

"Smallest Jager ya got"

" cartan of camels,no not 100's ya flamer"

"can i see an ID"

sure

 

"Hello i'm here to vote for the most powerful job in America"

"can i see an ID"

F YOU, YOU'LL HERE FROM MY LAWYER

[tazinib1]

is it so tough ta show an ID

"yes i'd like a 5th of Captain"

"Smallest Jager ya got"

" cartan of camels,no not 100's ya flamer"

"can i see an ID"

sure

 

"Hello i'm here to vote for the most powerful job in America"

"can i see an ID"

F YOU, YOU'LL HERE FROM MY LAWYER

 

Not to mention boarding a plane, buying a train ticket, being stopped by a police officer, confirming a credit card when making a purchase....we could go on and on.

[westvirginia]

is it so tough ta show an ID

"yes i'd like a 5th of Captain"

"Smallest Jager ya got"

" cartan of camels,no not 100's ya flamer"

"can i see an ID"

sure

 

"Hello i'm here to vote for the most powerful job in America"

"can i see an ID"

F YOU, YOU'LL HERE FROM MY LAWYER

 

 

"and a little child computer illiterate shall lead them"

 

Way to drop some freakin' sense on people nukie. OK, so you can show me 3 grandma's who never got a license and don't want to have to get a photo ID to vote. But hell, IIRC they can get a photo ID FREE and in about the same time it takes to go vote? And only have to do it once every 5 years?

 

You guys know I'm one of the most obtuse people anywhere when it comes to abridgement of rights, but I think people SHOULD have to prove who they are before voting.

[tosberg34]

"and a little child computer illiterate shall lead them"

 

Way to drop some freakin' sense on people nukie. OK, so you can show me 3 grandma's who never got a license and don't want to have to get a photo ID to vote. But hell, IIRC they can get a photo ID FREE and in about the same time it takes to go vote? And only have to do it once every 5 years?

 

You guys know I'm one of the most obtuse people anywhere when it comes to abridgement of rights, but I think people SHOULD have to prove who they are before voting.

 

But surely we are disenfranchising whole swaths of people, right?

[Ursa Majoris]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, there are two facts that are worth bearing in mind:

 

There is no voter fraud problem that this is addressing. It's a solution for no problem.

There's no chance that everyone eligible to vote will go get an ID. The ones that don't will most likely have been Democrat voters.

 

This is deliberately aimed at cutting the Democrat vote. I'm not saying the law is right or wrong, just saying what the real aim is.

 

Just out of interest, how will the need to present a photo ID square itself with postal / absentee voting?

[Kid Cid]

But surely we are disenfranchising whole swaths of people, right?

Yes, the millions of illegals.

[bpwallace49]

Just out of interest, how will the need to present a photo ID square itself with postal / absentee voting?

 

That is a great point.

 

Personally, I have no problem with having to show a picture ID to vote It looks like the absentee voting issue should be resolved to close another loophole.

[Ursa Majoris]

That is a great point.

 

Personally, I have no problem with having to show a picture ID to vote It looks like the absentee voting issue should be resolved to close another loophole.

It may become an equal protection issue.

[SEC=UGA]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, there are two facts that are worth bearing in mind:

 

There is no voter fraud problem that this is addressing. It's a solution for no problem.

There's no chance that everyone eligible to vote will go get an ID. The ones that don't will most likely have been Democrat voters.

 

This is deliberately aimed at cutting the Democrat vote. I'm not saying the law is right or wrong, just saying what the real aim is.

 

Just out of interest, how will the need to present a photo ID square itself with postal / absentee voting?

 

With absentee ballot voting one has to fill out a form outlining their address, name, etc. This can be checked against voting records and address can be verified. Thus, they can eliminate certain amounts of fraud by cross checking these things. There is a semblance of identity verification with an absentee ballot.

 

Here is GA's absentee ballot request form.

http://www.sos.georgia.gov/elections/elect..._ballot_app.pdf

[SayItAintSoJoe]

With absentee ballot voting one has to fill out a form outlining their address, name, etc. This can be checked against voting records and address can be verified. Thus, they can eliminate certain amounts of fraud by cross checking these things. There is a semblance of identity verification with an absentee ballot.

 

Here is GA's absentee ballot request form.

http://www.sos.georgia.gov/elections/elect..._ballot_app.pdf

 

 

So why not just have someone who shows up to vote but doesn't have a picture ID, fill out a form with the same types of info: address, name, etc.?

[tazinib1]

[JebBush]Voting doesn't matter anyway you fools[/JebBush]

[bpwallace49]

So why not just have someone who shows up to vote but doesn't have a picture ID, fill out a form with the same types of info: address, name, etc.?

 

I was thinking the same thing.

 

If there already is a mechanism for this, then why not just apply it now ?

[SEC=UGA]

I was thinking the same thing.

 

If there already is a mechanism for this, then why not just apply it now ?

 

There are even issues with absentee ballots as we all know, this is the area in which the most instances of fraud have been found due to (gasp) state employees (wow) doing their job and noticing that multiple ballots have been sent to a given address (nursing homes are primary repositories for this type of fraud.) So it seems to indicate that this system, with its checks and balances, has worked.

 

It is impossible, in most cases, to ferret out voter fraud at local polling precincts without having some means to check the identity of a person. One can easily look through the obituaries and find a newly deceased individual and go in and claim to be that person, without any check in place to verify that person's identity the fraud could be perpetrated and no one be any the wiser. Also, with as outdated as many state's voter registration systems are some people can easily be registered in multiple precincts at the same time.

 

For instance, when I got kicked out of school I moved my registration back to Atlanta. Voted in the 1994 Congressional election. When the 1996 Presidential election came around I was back in school, checked with the county to move my registration, I was still registered there and in Cobb County. They had never cancelled my registration even though I was registered in two different polling precincts in the same state. Now, checking my ID wouldn't have helped in this scenario, but say I knew I was registered in 2 or 3 different precincts, I could call up a buddy and say "Hey, go vote for me today" and if there wer not a system in place to verify the identity of the person, I through a proxy could vote multiple times in a single election.

Edited March 8, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, there are two facts that are worth bearing in mind:

 

There is no voter fraud problem that this is addressing. It's a solution for no problem.

There's no chance that everyone eligible to vote will go get an ID. The ones that don't will most likely have been Democrat voters.

 

This is deliberately aimed at cutting the Democrat vote. I'm not saying the law is right or wrong, just saying what the real aim is.

 

Just out of interest, how will the need to present a photo ID square itself with postal / absentee voting?

 

Some interesting facts I found regarding people without photo IDs:

 

Elderly:

 

* In 2006, the Missouri Secretary of State estimated that almost 200,000 Missourians of voting age do not have a state-issued photo ID. This includes at least 16 percent of Missouri’s seniors.

 

* According to the AARP, 36% of citizens in Georgia over the age of 75 do not have driver’s licenses.

 

* Survey results indicate that seniors disproportionately lack photo identification. Eighteen percent of American citizens age 65 and above do not have current government-issued photo ID. Using 2005 census estimates, this amounts to more than 6 million senior citizens.

 

Minority Communities:

 

* The US Census reports that Americans have an annual mobility rate of 14 percent. Hispanics and Blacks, however, have an annual mobility rate of 18 percent, while those with incomes below the poverty level are almost twice as likely to move (24 percent) as those with incomes above the poverty level (13 percent). Consequently, people of color and poor people are less likely to have photo identification showing a current address, even if they have a photo ID.

 

* According to the survey, African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo identification. Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens. Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult African-American citizens without photo identification. The survey also indicated that sixteen percent of Hispanic voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, but due to a low sample size, the results did not achieve statistical significance.

 

Low income people:

 

* Citizens earning less than $35,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack current government-issued photo identification as those earning more than $35,000. Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 15 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government-issued photo ID.

 

I haven't seen any voter fraud statistics (or estimates) that come anywhere close to these types of figures. So does passing laws that require photo id's really get us to the goal of election outcomes that truly reflect the will of the people? Or does it get us further away from that goal?

 

[Ursa Majoris]

Some interesting facts I found regarding people without photo IDs:

 

 

 

I haven't seen any voter fraud statistics (or estimates) that come anywhere close to these types of figures. So does passing laws that require photo id's really get us to the goal of election outcomes that truly reflect the will of the people? Or does it get us further away from that goal?

 

Exactly. The aim is not fraud prevention, it is to cut the potential Democrat vote. Period.

[tosberg34]

Exactly. The aim is not fraud prevention, it is to cut the potential Democrat vote. Period.

 

No, not really. You're basing it off of emotion. You need a photo ID for just about everything else so how this requirement leads to Democratic vote disenfranchisement is purely conjecture and has no basis in fact any way you cut it. Even if you were right in your suggestion, you're ignoring the fact that the statistics SIASJ posted also include conservative voters as well.

Edited March 9, 2011 by tosberg34

[gbpfan1231]

Exactly. The aim is not fraud prevention, it is to cut the potential Democrat vote. Period.

That is a conclusion that you are assuming. Couldn't I use the same data and conclude that Democrats are lazy stupid people to not have an ID?

[SayItAintSoJoe]

No, not really. You're basing it off of emotion. You need a photo ID for just about everything else so how this requirement leads to Democratic vote disenfranchisement is purely conjecture and has no basis in fact any way you cut it. Even if you were right in your suggestion, you're ignoring the fact that the statistics SIASJ posted also include conservative voters as well.

 

You're right. You do need a photo ID for just about everything else. When I first heard about the photo ID requirement I thought it was a no brainer till I started looking at these statistics. I can't believe how many people in this country have no photo ID. I don't think that all of these people should be denied the right to vote regardless of party affiliation. However, we do need some way of identifying these people as legitimate voters.

 

I feel that if you have no photo id you should be allowed to present the same type of documentation that allows you to get a photo id in the state where you are voting. Here in SC to get a government issued photo ID you must prove the following:

 

Proof of citizenship

Proof of Social Security Number

Proof of Residency

 

There are several different (non-photo) documents that you can use to prove each of these. For citizenship you can show a valid birth certificate. For SS# you can show your SS card. For residency you can show a utility bill in your name less than 90 days old. I say if someone has the proper documentation they should be allowed to vote whether they have a photo ID or not. I just don't think that voter fraud is so rampant that huge numbers of non-eligible voters are going to show up at the polls with all this fake documentation. Even if a few do it certainly won't be enough to justify keeping so many legitimate voters from being able to vote.

[Ursa Majoris]

No, not really. You're basing it off of emotion. You need a photo ID for just about everything else so how this requirement leads to Democratic vote disenfranchisement is purely conjecture and has no basis in fact any way you cut it. Even if you were right in your suggestion, you're ignoring the fact that the statistics SIASJ posted also include conservative voters as well.

 

 

That is a conclusion that you are assuming. Couldn't I use the same data and conclude that Democrats are lazy stupid people to not have an ID?

 

You are missing the point.

 

The law makes logical sense but the fact that this particular voting law aspect is being pursued so vigorously by Republicans when a] there is no remotely significant reason to do so AND b] it is very clear that the people who won't be able to vote would mostly vote Democrat lead one inexorably to the conclusion that this is politically driven.

[SEC=UGA]

You're right. You do need a photo ID for just about everything else. When I first heard about the photo ID requirement I thought it was a no brainer till I started looking at these statistics. I can't believe how many people in this country have no photo ID. I don't think that all of these people should be denied the right to vote regardless of party affiliation. However, we do need some way of identifying these people as legitimate voters.

 

I feel that if you have no photo id you should be allowed to present the same type of documentation that allows you to get a photo id in the state where you are voting. Here in SC to get a government issued photo ID you must prove the following:

 

Proof of citizenship

Proof of Social Security Number

Proof of Residency

 

There are several different (non-photo) documents that you can use to prove each of these. For citizenship you can show a valid birth certificate. For SS# you can show your SS card. For residency you can show a utility bill in your name less than 90 days old. I say if someone has the proper documentation they should be allowed to vote whether they have a photo ID or not. I just don't think that voter fraud is so rampant that huge numbers of non-eligible voters are going to show up at the polls with all this fake documentation. Even if a few do it certainly won't be enough to justify keeping so many legitimate voters from being able to vote.

 

I see a few issues with the AARP numbers. Because a certain % of senior citizens in GA don't have a DL, does not mean that they do not have a photo ID.

 

When they begin to delineate the numbers of people who do not have this, that and the other the numbers are in the teens. During the last presidential election the voter turnout, nationally, was 61.6%, indicating that more people than just those without a photo ID are not voting. This is also a national stat and not every state has an ID requirement. When we break it down by why people didn't vote, here are the reasons:

No Answer 0.1%

Refused 0.7%

Don't Know 4.0%

Missed Deadline 14.0%

Did Not Know Where or How to Register 3.6%

Did Not Meet Residency Requirement 3.5%

Permanent Illness of Disability 5.1%

Difficulty with English 1.4%

Not Interested 38.9%

My Vote Will Not Make a Difference 3.9%

Not Eligible 7.6%

Other 17.2%

 

Not a single one of those outlined specifically points to, "did not have valid ID", which, considering they have 'Refused" as a category and it is .7% of the answers, I would hazard a guess that "Did not have Photo ID" is lower than .7%.

 

Here is the turnout in '08 and '04 by age group:

18-29 51.1% 49.0%

 

30-44 61.8% 62.4%

 

45-59 68.5% 70.0%

 

60+ 70.8% 71.4%

 

Here is the Turnout in '08 and '04 by ethnicity:

White, Non-Hispanic 66.1% 67.2%

 

Black, Non-Hispanic 65.2% 60.3%

 

Hispanic 49.9% 47.2%

 

Other 49.5% 48.0%

 

In all of these categories there is a lower % of turnout than the AARP stats can point to % wise of those being disenfranchised for not having an ID. If voting is really that importan to a person, which it appears it is not, then they should be able to go and get a state issued photo ID. The fact of the matter is that those without a photo ID probably don't care enough to even vote. Yeah, they'll put someone on the news, some old, poor lady, who laments that she can't vote because she can't get to the DMV to get a photo ID, but the reality is that this person who is too lazy to go and get a free identification card is probably too lazy to drag their ass to the polls. And if it that big of a deal to get a photo ID, then, hey, they can simply fill out the form to get an absentee ballot.

 

Here is another interesting stat. The AARP stats show that the poor are disenfranchised and you guys lament that we are somehow turning into a society where the "elite" call the shots. Here is voter turnout by education level:

Less than H.S. Diploma 39.4% 39.5%

 

High School Diploma 54.9% 56.4%

 

Some College to Bachelor's Degree 71.5% 72.2%

 

Post-Graduate Education 82.7% 84.2%

 

Funny how the "elite" realize how important it is to vote, not so much for the poor and uneducated.

[SEC=UGA]

I have another idea. Since we're not going to agree on the Photo ID thingy, I put this forth: why should a person have to register to vote? If we're not going to verify who a person is when they come to the polls, why should one even have to register? It is obvious that by them simply showing up at the polls that they are fully entitled to vote as a citizen of the US. Besides, registration disenfranchises a large percentage of the population because some people don't have the time or the means to be able to register.

 

When someone comes to the polls, to keep them from voting more than once, we should do what countries such as Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and Ghana do, simply mark a persons index finger with indelible ink so that it is proof that they have voted.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I see a few issues with the AARP numbers. Because a certain % of senior citizens in GA don't have a DL, does not mean that they do not have a photo ID.

 

When they begin to delineate the numbers of people who do not have this, that and the other the numbers are in the teens. During the last presidential election the voter turnout, nationally, was 61.6%, indicating that more people than just those without a photo ID are not voting. This is also a national stat and not every state has an ID requirement. When we break it down by why people didn't vote, here are the reasons:

No Answer 0.1%

Refused 0.7%

Don't Know 4.0%

Missed Deadline 14.0%

Did Not Know Where or How to Register 3.6%

Did Not Meet Residency Requirement 3.5%

Permanent Illness of Disability 5.1%

Difficulty with English 1.4%

Not Interested 38.9%

My Vote Will Not Make a Difference 3.9%

Not Eligible 7.6%

Other 17.2%

 

Not a single one of those outlined specifically points to, "did not have valid ID", which, considering they have 'Refused" as a category and it is .7% of the answers, I would hazard a guess that "Did not have Photo ID" is lower than .7%.

 

Here is the turnout in '08 and '04 by age group:

18-29 51.1% 49.0%

 

30-44 61.8% 62.4%

 

45-59 68.5% 70.0%

 

60+ 70.8% 71.4%

 

Here is the Turnout in '08 and '04 by ethnicity:

White, Non-Hispanic 66.1% 67.2%

 

Black, Non-Hispanic 65.2% 60.3%

 

Hispanic 49.9% 47.2%

 

Other 49.5% 48.0%

 

In all of these categories there is a lower % of turnout than the AARP stats can point to % wise of those being disenfranchised for not having an ID. If voting is really that importan to a person, which it appears it is not, then they should be able to go and get a state issued photo ID. The fact of the matter is that those without a photo ID probably don't care enough to even vote. Yeah, they'll put someone on the news, some old, poor lady, who laments that she can't vote because she can't get to the DMV to get a photo ID, but the reality is that this person who is too lazy to go and get a free identification card is probably too lazy to drag their ass to the polls. And if it that big of a deal to get a photo ID, then, hey, they can simply fill out the form to get an absentee ballot.

 

Here is another interesting stat. The AARP stats show that the poor are disenfranchised and you guys lament that we are somehow turning into a society where the "elite" call the shots. Here is voter turnout by education level:

Less than H.S. Diploma 39.4% 39.5%

 

High School Diploma 54.9% 56.4%

 

Some College to Bachelor's Degree 71.5% 72.2%

 

Post-Graduate Education 82.7% 84.2%

 

Funny how the "elite" realize how important it is to vote, not so much for the poor and uneducated.

 

I know what you mean about the DL and the elderly. My father only had a state issued ID (not Driver's License) for the last 10 years of his life.

 

Haven't really had the time to digest all the other numbers.

 

That aside, do you have a problem with someone without a photo id being able to present all the documentation that is required to get a photo id as proof of identity. If so, why?