They want to require people to show government-issued photo IDs when voting to prove they have the right to vote.
We could start a campaign now, or just after the next election in 2020, and get people to sign up for cards by 2028, and enforce that then. We have census every 10 years, it's something the country can easily coordinate.
Have you tried educating yourself on the matter? For "some" reason, there are large swaths of land where people have to travel 25+ miles and pay with their already taxed income just for the displeasure of standing in line at the DMV/etc.
Tell me how much of a priority this is to someone who might not be able to drive their own car, or take time out of their job for.
I don't understand why someone would front their statement with "I'm a progressive liberal" while remaining intentionally obtuse, unless they're arguing in bad faith to begin with.
Particularly on a political thread.
As it is currently, it's absolutely a way to suppress the vote of low-income (and minority) people. In many areas of many states getting photo ID is non-trivial, especially if you're in a shitty job.
Are government mandated requirements to produce an ID when purchasing a firearm an effort to prevent black ownership of legal firearms?
Once you get beyond the arguments around voting, it wildly begins to fall apart, and either shows a complete lack of logical consistency in standing up for minority rights, or an ulterior motive is at play.
The registration/license requirement which was introduced with the gun control act (with NRA backing) was pretty much introduced as a response to Black Panthers publically/legally carrying guns. So, in a way, yes.
What hassle? Nearly everyone has them already for driving and they're valid for 6+ years. Might take an hour or two of your time every 6 or so years.
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-po...
No, not nearly every eligible voters has one, and the distribution is significantly skewed by race and a number of other demographic factors.
And more than one of the politicians pushing voter ID has been recorded in what seemed to be politically safe venues pointing to those biases as motivating factors.
Only issues I could think of are: 1. No central registry of addresses, so how would the government know where to send the IDs. 2. Where would the photograph for the ID come from? 3. Possible fraud/abuse from stolen mail
I mean the solution to #1 is obvious: forced registration. I think you'll have a hard time getting people on board with passing a law for that.
It just seems like an hour at the DMV would solve all 3 problems at once: provide address, current photo, and reduce fraud/abuse. Seems like a good system to me.
Can you give me an example of what other country(-ies) system you're thinking about? I'm curious how it's handled elsewhere as well without the need to appear in person to get an ID.
The most common type of identification is a State driver's license, but there are also alternative non-driver license ID cards available. None of these IDs are mandatory, but are nearly required to live in modern society (open a bank account, drive a car, vote, etc).
Everyone should have an ID because of how important they are for accessing government benefits, freedom of mobility, employment, etc.
If that means that getting an ID should pay you $100 instead of cost you $100 then I’m totally for that.
Again, to reiterate, I believe that getting an ID should be economically neutral at worst (which means you should be paid at least a few dollars for going through the trouble to get one) regardless of whether IDs are required to vote, but if a voting requirement is what it would take to make that happen it’s a perfect win/win.
Globally, it is pretty typical. Not just Mexico and the U.S., but France, Germany, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada, Brazil, India, Israel. [1]
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state
We require ID in almost every kind of daily transaction imaginable, from healthcare to banking, employment, travel, alcohol, cigarettes, all other government services, and so on. But go apoplectic when we try to use it for one transaction every two years and act as if over half the population lacks the ability to participate in daily basic society.
Black people are intelligent enough to get ID's, as are women and any other minority in this country. The constant denigration as if they lack the faculties or intelligence to get an ID is pretty insulting.
Let's get real.
Let's say we have 100k people that live in a few poor counties where not everyone has government ID and they can't afford to spend time / money to go very far. Now, if 40k of those people need an ID to vote, reducing the hours that the nearest DMV operates will reduce the number of people that get an ID.
Now, you might say, "but why can't they just go to the DMV in the next county?" or "why can't they get their IDs well ahead of time?", and you'd have a valid question! But when you have 100k people.. creating what looks like a minor inconvenience will definitely translate to fewer voters in the end. Now, lets create a bunch of minor inconveniences and the numbers really start to shrink.
I'm under the impression that to vote you must register in a voting district, surely that registration requires something like a birth certificate or a SSN, which I believe is the only requirement for a government issued ID... Operating on the idea that the requirement for government IDs may in fact be a good faith measure to prevent voter fraud, would perhaps an optimal solution be to bring a web camera to that voting registration area and simultaneously issue IDs there?
To be honest, I thought it was a non-issue since my voter registration is also my draft registration, so I assume I provided some form of citizenship proof when I registered. It was a while ago though so I don't recall the details.
[1] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/election-fraud-in-the-...
As to having non residents vote, vastly more eligible voters don’t vote than people ineligible to vote. Honestly, as much hoopla as this gets it’s clear from recent elections it’s a non issue. Look for actual examples of this happening and your coming up empty.
Can the same argument not be made for requiring voter IDs? youeseh I'm replying to says it's "few numbers" adding up. Another thread from sverige in this tree links vox and nyt saying that requiring ID has small numbers effect of turnout. So saying that their concern of voter fraud is a small numbers thing kind of lacks heft as an argument.
If these are both the case, then why not go with the requirement (and possibly make the requirement "easier" by issuing IDs at the same time/place) so there's no possibility of contesting the election results with regard to this particular issue?
Whereas suppressing turn out just requires making it difficult for someone to have a bunch of ID they normally don't need on them in any part of their lives.
These laws are never just "photo ID" - they're always a box truck of weird edge rules about the type of ID.
Also, the DMV offices, where I can get my state ID has plenty of locations and they're open often enough and long enough every day that it doesn't prevent people from getting their ID.
Between those two, I think we're doing a pretty good job of keeping enough people honest that voter suppression or voting fraud aren't big enough issues here.
In California, at least, you can just use your state ID number and last four digits of your SSN [1]. California gives IDs to illegal aliens and SSNs are available to many non-citizens. These might have been checked for citizenship or might not. I suspect that they are not since the SSA itself wants you to bring the naturalization certificate if you want to change your non-citizen SSN card to a citizen's one. California never asked me for proof of citizenship so either it has an access to the citizenship data unavailable to the SSA or it just registers anyone with an SSN and a state ID.
However, the available evidence suggests that at present, voter fraud in the US (at least of the type that voter ID would prevent) is extraordinarily rare. [1] It's so rare that any measure that even slightly decreases turnout rates will likely cost at least an order of magnitude (if not multiple) more legitimate votes than illegitimate ones, meaning that the overall accuracy of the voting results will be reduced.
There's plenty of time to change course if and when there's an actual uptick in voter fraud, as opposed to an uptick in evidence-free allegations from politicians.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B...
To get one, you have to ask for a date about 2 or 3 weeks in advance, and you go to one of the official buildings. The process takes like 15 minutes and they send the ID to your home 2 or 3 weeks later.
Sometimes the government puts a truck with a mobile office in some parks. Sometimes you can get one also in some big shopping malls without a previous date. And if you wish, you can pay more to get the ID in the next day. Also, you can make your passport in the same office.
If we can, you can.
When conservatives (racists) attack voters using economics (in this case a voter tax), they know precisely which non-white voters they are targeting.
[0] https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-vote...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opinion/voter-id-study-re...
Some counterpoints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto
You can't imagine an American that cannot afford $50-100 for a government I.D.? You can imagine (& possibly smell) the feces on the street but not the poor people who excrete it?
We know most Americans can't come up with $400 for an emergency, are you going to act like this won't impact voting?
This thread is why people are forcing diversity quotas even when it seems unnecessary, income diversity should be next.
Also, you need an ID to have a bank account, buy a cellphone, buy alcohol or cigarettes.
Incorrect on all three accounts in the U.S.
Some states might have a law requiring ID for alcohol or cigarettes, but at least one definitely does not. Some stores actually violate their state's law with their store's ID policies.
I've done all three without ID (alcohol, not cigarettes though). Yes, it is possible to have a bank account without ID.
Where do you get that from? It seems incorrect: "You’ll need to provide a valid, government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, or a state ID card from the Department of Motor Vehicles." [1]
> Some states might have a law requiring ID for alcohol or cigarettes, but at least one definitely does not. Some stores actually violate their state's law with their store's ID policies.
All states require you to be 21 to buy alcohol. Which states do not require you to provide ID for that?
Seems like we might be splitting hairs here due to laws such as Indianas that "Indiana has a photo identification requirement for all off-premises transactions to anyone who is or reasonably appears to be less than forty (40) years of age." [3]
So yes, some liquor seller might be lax on enforcement or judge you to look over 40. However, that doesn't change the laws.
[1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/how-to-open-a-bank-a... [2] https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0388-alcohol-laws-stat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_Un...
Personal experience. I've opened bank accounts online with credit unions. Never had to show them my ID, even when I went in person to withdraw cash.
If I was a third party reading these comments, I wouldn't trust a *.com website, but instead some law, or official govt website.
There's a lot of things in this word that "seem wrong" but are perfectly legal.
If you don’t have a U.S. government-issued SSN or ITIN, some banks and credit unions will accept a passport number and country of issuance, an alien identification card number, or other government-issued ID number." [1]
[1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-i-get-a-checkin...
Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are equating "ID" to a physical identification card, right? Since I think that's what this conversation stemmed from.
I bet those credit unions were just running my Social Security Number against a database to make sure it matched with the name, DOB, etc I provided.
I wonder if there is a legal definition of "verify" when it comes to banks and customers. Verifying could just be asking the customer, what their name is.
Getting someone’s social security card is hard so this plus a piece of mail or government picture IDs seem fair for an election. Basically, the banking bar.
So, like, a 24-pack of expensive hipster brew? $50?
It costs $31 to get an ID in California, and $9 if you can't afford $31.
They can afford their booze and still get an ID here, and hopefully in other states too.