Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Voter ID Works Again

There were problems in yesterday's election for sure. But requiring voters to present a valid ID was not one of them. Try as they might, proponents once again are unable to document cases of voters being disenfranchised because of the law. The law's requirement is so simple and so fundamental to our way of life. Yet, opponents cling to any little nugget of evidence, no matter how weak, to advocate removing this essential safeguard for maintaining the integrity of our voting process. Alas, the Supreme Court will decide the case once and for all before the end of its current term. Maybe we can go back to debating daylight savings time, another silly but favorite Hoosier pastime.

15 comments:

Angry Republican said...

Well, given how few people turned out yesterday, I don't know that it's a good test case.

That said, however, I've heard more than one democrat say, "if just one person has been disenfranchised, that's one too many."

What about the nearly 500 voters who were potentially disenfranchised yesterday because they were removed from their precinct's polling book?

While now doubt some of them were able to vote (you know, once they were finally told the right place to vote and got put back on the registration roll), I'm certain not all did. And, of course, if juse ONE of those voters yesterday was disenfranchised, well, that's just one too many.

What's good for the goose...

AR

M said...

As a gay, liberal Democrat, I have no problem with a law requiring me to have an ID at the polls. I just can't understand why this should be an issue, especially since in this day and age one must show ID for so many transactions.

BTW, "Pass time" should be "pastime." Sorry, it's the English teacher in me.

M

Anonymous said...

Please. The quoted article sounds like it's right out of an Advocacy Journalism class.

You have to provide government ID just to *enter* the federal building downtown.

Some jerk in front of me at the voting location gave his state or city employee ID card. The judge said no, you need a government ID, meaning an ID approved for the purpose of proving one's identity for voting. Said jerk said that it WAS a government-issued ID. Judge said try again, so he pulls out his license and votes.

If ANY government ID could work then each polling location would have to be able to verify any ID from any of the 10,000 cities and towns in Indiana.

Anonymous said...

6:09-

That voter shouldn't have been challeneged.

From the SOS's office:

IC 3-5-2-40.5(4) requires that a Photo ID be “issued by the United States or the state of Indiana.” We have received inquiries about whether Photo ID cards issued by state supported post-secondary educational institutions would comply with the requirement that
the Photo ID be issued by “the state of Indiana.”

It is our opinion that state supported colleges and the universities are agencies of the state and, therefore, a Photo ID issued by one of these institutions satisfies the requirement in the
Photo ID law that a Photo ID be issued by the “state of Indiana.”


http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/pdfs/PhotoIDAdvisory_4_30_06.pdf

If it was a state employee ID card with an expiration date (even if the expiration date was listed as "INDEF"), then the ID was valid for voting.

If you read this document:
http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/pdfs/2007ElectionAdminManual.pdf

you'll also learn that no voter should have been denied a vote based on failure to meet the ID requirements.

Anonymous said...

Most government employee IDs do not list a expiration date which is required by the republican passed voter ID law....it is silly but the law is the law and republicans wouldn't make bad law, would they?

dr1103 said...

If people paid attention, they'd notice the law merely requires that the poll clerk *ask* for ID. The voter is free not to present it. Sure, sure, that means extra paper work (and maybe a provisional ballot?), but the bottom line is the voter is not *required* to show ID and vote.

I suppose voters could protest with a mass vote on provisional ballots, then we'd find out if they actually count the provisional ballots, too.

Anonymous said...

7:14 + 7:38

So the law is good because it doesn't require ID, but bad because it does ?

You leftists need to get your story straight.

Advance Indiana said...

Thanks for the correction, m.

Angry Republican said...

I'm not sure what dr1103 is referring to:

IC 3-11-8-25.1
Admittance of voter to polls; proof of identification; procedure
Sec. 25.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (e), a voter who desires to vote an official ballot at an election shall provide proof of identification.


Another part of the Indiana Code specifies what that identification is.

Really, if people paid attention...

AR

Anonymous said...

You can't cash a check or rent a movie without an id. So why the big deal about an id to vote? Get serious there isn't anyone being disenfranchised.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how much ignorance there about this ridiculous and unnecessary photo ID law. Look, dr1103, yes you can "refuse" to present ID, but if you do, you vote by provisional ballot and your ballot won't count unless you trek to the county election board with your ID within 10 days after the election is over. So despite what you say, the presentation of a photo ID is required (not merely optional) at least if you want your vote to count, which is presumably the only reason anyone votes in the first place.

Despite the smug prognostications to the contrary, this law is so irrational and unfair that even Justice Kennedy is going to find it unconstitutionally burdensome. It is irrational and unfair to the thousands of Hoosiers who don't or can't afford to drive (and with gas at $3 and rising, that may include quite a few of us pretty soon). The poll worker from Richmond said it all: the law was really intended only for urban (i.e. minority and/or poor) voters and doesn't make any sense for "rural" voters who all look alike and know each other.

And m, the self-professed gay, liberal Democrat, no one has a problem requiring voters to identify themselves at the polls. But do you really believe that a voter who has 15 pieces of ID but not a photo ID issued by the state or federal government with an expiration date should be denied the right to vote by regular ballot? If so, explain to me how your position is consistent with representative democracy and being a "liberal".

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
It's amazing how much ignorance there about this ridiculous and unnecessary photo ID law. Look, dr1103, yes you can "refuse" to present ID, but if you do, you vote by provisional ballot and your ballot won't count unless you trek to the county election board with your ID within 10 days after the election is over. So despite what you say, the presentation of a photo ID is required (not merely optional) at least if you want your vote to count, which is presumably the only reason anyone votes in the first place.

Despite the smug prognostications to the contrary, this law is so irrational and unfair that even Justice Kennedy is going to find it unconstitutionally burdensome. It is irrational and unfair to the thousands of Hoosiers who don't or can't afford to drive (and with gas at $3 and rising, that may include quite a few of us pretty soon). The poll worker from Richmond said it all: the law was really intended only for urban (i.e. minority and/or poor) voters and doesn't make any sense for "rural" voters who all look alike and know each other.

And m, the self-professed gay, liberal Democrat, no one has a problem requiring voters to identify themselves at the polls. But do you really believe that a voter who has 15 pieces of ID but not a photo ID issued by the state or federal government with an expiration date should be denied the right to vote by regular ballot? If so, explain to me how your position is consistent with representative democracy and being a "liberal".

10:49 PM EST


There were problems in yesterday's election for sure. But requiring voters to present a valid ID was not one of them. Try as they might, proponents once again are unable to document cases of voters being disenfranchised because of the law. The law's requirement is so simple and so fundamental to our way of life. Yet, opponents cling to any little nugget of evidence, no matter how weak, to advocate removing this essential safeguard for maintaining the integrity of our voting process. Alas, the Supreme Court will decide the case once and for all before the end of its current term. Maybe we can go back to debating daylight savings time, another silly but favorite Hoosier pastime.
posted by Advance Indiana at 5:20 PM on Nov 7, 2007



Word Verification

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Choose an identity
Google/Blogger
Other
Anonymous
Sign in with your Google Account
Username

Password

No Google Account? Sign up here.
You can also use your Blogger account.

Email follow-up comments to my Google account address
Name

Your web page

All of these fields are optional.


Publish Your Comment


Preview


So why aren't you bitching about being a member of society when you have to produce an ID when you use your credit card or any other transaction? Fool! WE ALL DO IT NOW! Are you bitching about that? No, you only have a problem when people have to vote because you know that are illegal votes to propogate your cause for a socialist state. Get over it because it levels the playing field for people who actually have the right to vote and are actually paying for this socialist state. And guess what? It worked to prevent a lot of dead people from voting for the dems this time. Good luck in the Supreme Court, fool. We can't afford you leaches anymore.

Angry Republican said...

10:49 said:
"It is irrational and unfair to the thousands of Hoosiers who don't or can't afford to drive (and with gas at $3 and rising, that may include quite a few of us pretty soon)."

A driver's license is not required; the requirement is that the ID be issued by the state of Indiana or the United States (and contain the required information.) If you don't drive, the state-issued ID card will work just as well.

AR

Doug said...

What instances of voter fraud are being prevented here? Why aren't similar impositions placed on absentee voters?

The fact that there wasn't any evidence of voter impersonation prior to adoption of this law suggests to me that this rationale is a pretext. I don't think it's a huge burden, but there seems to be a Republican pattern of putting layers of bureaucracy in between citizens and their right to vote. So much for the party of small government.

And, what do you mean "go back" to debating Daylight Saving Time again? Some of us never stopped. :-)

Anonymous said...

No it doesn't work, unless you count disenfranchisement as a success.

I was in inspector, and I was amazed how zealous Republican pollworkers were on this law. They over-stepped their bounds regularly, and I had to reign them in all day.

What in the hell are some Republicans scared of--people actually voting? We already make it difficult in Indiana. Our machines and the process are ridiculously complicated, and we don't do anything to encourage more voting.

Todd Rokita can go to hell.