Hacker News Reader

Comment by zdragnar | Hacker News Reader

If you do not currently have residence, your registration to vote is no longer valid. That is why an ID which proves residence at the time of voting is considered important by proponents.

View on HN

You're talking past the parent. They are literally saying the purpose of the ID is not to prove residence, it's to prove identity. Residence would be proven during registration, not at the time of voting. If you want same day voter registration, that's a completely different story, but people shouldn't have to prove residence twice to vote.

How does an ID help with that? People can move without updating their ID right away. And, heck, I don't remember there being much, if any, that I had to do to prove my address when I got my (non-RealID) license.

Really all the address proves is that I was able to get mail at this address when I got my license.

Are you saying that homeless people shouldn't be able to vote?

That probably does make things tricky. Personally I think that we should accept all IDs but vary their impact based on what they provide. For instance, a voter ID verifies residence, so you can vote in elections. If you have no residence, maybe that's a broader state or federal ID but you can't vote in local elections.

A bit of an aside, when I moved to California I wasn't able to vote in the primaries because I refused to pledge loyalty to the Democratic party, though registering to vote was rather easy. In Texas registering was rather easy and I could vote in primaries.

> If you have no residence, maybe that's a broader state or federal ID but you can't vote in local elections.

That would be sad, because local governments are the ones that pass ordinances criminalizing homelessness (e.g. sleeping and urinating outside). I think it would be unconscionable to prevent people from having a voice in their governance based on their landownership status, but I guess we can hardly call such an idea out of line with America’s founding values.

If you could guarantee that a homeless person were to stay in that city then it'd make sense. I doubt that's feasible though. The benefit a state ID allowing you to vote in state elections could potentially allow someone to do is vote for candidates that would have a state-wide policy on homelessness, rather than just local.

When I came to California it was kind of funny that I was able to vote in local elections immediately. I hardly knew anything about the area, what could I possibly vote for?

But other citizens don't have to prove they will be in a city in the future to prove residency; it's sufficient to prove they've been in a city in the past to fulfill residency requirements. I can move to a town, register to vote after the residency requirement is fulfilled, move away the very same day, and still vote in that city until I have residency elsewhere. Why should it work any differently for a homeless person?

> A bit of an aside, when I moved to California I wasn't able to vote in the primaries because I refused to pledge loyalty to the Democratic party, though registering to vote was rather easy.

I still don't get why people think they are entitled to participate in party-internal candidate selection elections without even claiming membership (with absolutely zero commitment ot pledge of loyalty of any kind) in the party.

(There are primary elections that serve different functions than selecting party nominees, often simultaneously with party primaries, and you've always been able to vote in them in California without identifying with a party; California has extended the scope of them and gotten rid of most party primaries, though the Presidential primary is still a closed party primary.)

Personally speaking, I despise both of our parties, and their worst constituents. That said, as an independent I have to deal with both of the parties. If I know I'm going to vote a certain way in an election then I'd like to have a voice in who the devil-that-I-choose is without affirming that I'm okay with the party. Maybe that makes better sense.

When did you move to California?

Around 4 years ago

Primaries for state and national offices except president were non partisan the whole time.[1] The Democratic Party allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in their presidential primary. Unlike the Republican Party.[2] And stating a preference isn't a loyalty oath.

[1] https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-californi...

[2] https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/no-party-...

I do remember not being able to vote in the primary, but I chalked it up to another weird California thing. I'm not sure how I don't count as unaffiliated but, regardless, the practice of not running an open primary is very strange to me coming from Texas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com