Voter ID laws: Everyone has an ID, right? Nope

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Huh, you keep asserting that the framers made sure that all votes counted the same when the exact opposite is true.
I assumed you must have read this somewhere so I was curious if you interpreted the Bill of Rights differently than I did.

But we don't live by the 1700's version, do we? Our laws and constitutional amendments say all our citizens have the franchise to vote. Right? ALL our citizens.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

But we don't live by the 1700's version, do we? Our laws and constitutional amendments say all our citizens have the franchise to vote. Right? ALL our citizens.

Actually they give the reasons you cannot tell someone that they cannot vote. Age, race, sex etc.
Does say you need to be a citizen, proof of citizenship is the key.
How do you prove it without a verifiable form of identification?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Actually they give the reasons you cannot tell someone that they cannot vote. Age, race, sex etc.
Does say you need to be a citizen, proof of citizenship is the key.
How do you prove it without a verifiable form of identification?

you don't prove it. you take voters at their word. i mean, who would lie?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Actually they give the reasons you cannot tell someone that they cannot vote. Age, race, sex etc.
Does say you need to be a citizen, proof of citizenship is the key.
How do you prove it without a verifiable form of identification?

Look at your states current requirements to register to vote. Why do you want to eliminate some of those as invalid, making it more difficult for some to vote?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Look at your states current requirements to register to vote. Why do you want to eliminate some of those as invalid, making it more difficult for some to vote?

Some are a bit of a stretch to prove that you are a citizen, even you would agree with that no?
Or that they prove you are in fact that person?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Some are a bit of a stretch to prove that you are a citizen, even you would agree with that no?
Or that they prove you are in fact that person?

The facts are that states determine their current requirements to register to vote. Our country at the federal level prohibits discrimination against any group of American citizens, or poll taxes, in voting.


Under the current system, voter fraud incidence is 0.0002 to 0.0004% of votes. That is several hundred votes in a national election. Voter fraud is virtually non-existent

Additionally, most of those cases of voter fraud could not be eliminated by a stricter photo ID requirement (felons voting when they should not, etc).

Thus requiring stricter requirements to vote has zero basis in need.

Implementing stricter requirements to vote will measurably disinfranchise up to 5 million valid, currently voting American citizens, and take their right to vote away, as determined by our judicial system, who is overturning restrictive Voter ID laws.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Actually they give the reasons you cannot tell someone that they cannot vote. Age, race, sex etc.
Does say you need to be a citizen, proof of citizenship is the key.
How do you prove it without a verifiable form of identification?

I guess when I registered to vote at the DMV, I should have never showed them my ID, because it allowed me to be discriminated.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I guess when I registered to vote at the DMV, I should have never showed them my ID, because it allowed me to be discriminated.

Every state currently has requirements to register to vote. Why do you want to remove some of those current requirements and make registering to vote harder?

[Danzig]

and here's some more clarity, as i thought the constitution had been amended to give voting rights to specific groups, but that there wasn't an overall 'right' for all citizens included in that document. and lookie here:

"Given that the Constitution does not include an affirmative right for citizens to vote, the decision is left in the hands of individual states. In a country of 50 states, only six of them-- Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania—do not prohibit the mentally incompetent from voting. 2 That means that 44 still do and,according to some research, this amounts up to 1.2 million people. Centuries ago, the Declaration of Independence was written to claim all men as being created equal. However, it was not until the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, in 1870, that black men in America were granted the right to vote. Moreover, it was another 50 years before women were enfranchised."


that was from an article regarding disenfranchisement of the mentally ill.

[Danzig]

then there's this, from wikipedia:

The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the US Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots [2]

A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_..._United_States

its only the reasons stated in the amendments to the constitution that bar specific discriminations. religion, age, race. nothin g in there about id. states are the ones who set rules other than what is included in the amendments. so, yes, actually, a state could actually test people. it's not something explicitly banned.

[Danzig]

and i have to say, for the most part, i love these types of discussions. gets the mind working and the juices flowing. i love history, and any excuse to delve into it on things is a fantastic!
this seems another instance where the constitution is felt to give more than it actually does. a learning experience, that shows that things are still left in many cases to the individual states, as it should be. what works in massachusetts, may not work in north dakota, or arizona, or here in my adopted state, which is different from my home state. not better, or worse, just different.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, yes, actually, a state could actually test people. it's not something explicitly banned.

Wrong. Only if you ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.[2]

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.[2][4]

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I guess when I registered to vote at the DMV, I should have never showed them my ID, because it allowed me to be discriminated.

they require it? they must be racist.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

But we don't live by the 1700's version, do we? Our laws and constitutional amendments say all our citizens have the franchise to vote. Right? ALL our citizens.

nope, not all