well then lets also get rid of ID’s for purchasing guns. after all its a right to bear arms. I feel like I am being disenfranchised when buying a gun. nice try, but no dice. can you name one person that does not have an ID that is eligible to vote ?
Jeremy, it is completely unfair and dishonest to use this “name one voter affected” tactic when the impact of photo ID requirements are well-documented.
Read the report below from the NAACP: amopng other findings, the NAACP discovered that as many asd 1 out of 10 blacks do not have photo ID, these laws are being passed in states which saw record levels of black and Hispanic votes in 2008, and that many elderly blacks, born during the Jim Crow era, DO NOT HAVE BIRTH CERTIFICATES and could be disenfranchised.
Jeremy, you and I both know that individual voting fraud is virtually nonexistent: these laws are targeted at a problem which odesn’t exist.
But I also know I’m wasting my time on you, since YOUR right to vote has never been challenged.
Yes, I can name a person who is eligible to vote and does not have an ID, my mother, but that is not the point.
The point is that this is an obvious attempt to suppress voting by certain groups of people: the elderly, the poor and minorities.
I have a voter registration card in my wallet that I received when I registered to vote and it signed by the county auditor. On it is my precinct and when I go to vote, my name is on a list and I need to check in. That should be ID enough.
Can you name 5 people in the last 25 years that have been convicted of voter fraud that would have been prevented by using photo IDs?
Laura, i can give you 8 just this year http://mentalrecession.blogspot.com/2012/01/eighth-democrat-indicted-in-upstate-new.html
Add the Sec of State in Indiana.
Totally beside the point, Jeremy. Your link is about alleged voter fraud organized by a Democrat official, NOT about individual voter fraud. And EIGHT people indicted!? Wow, it’s a crime wave of voter fraud!
And really, how credible is a blog which is obviously partisan and dismissive of any political perspective which is not “conservative?” “Mental recession” is more descriptive of the close-mindedness many self-described “conservatives” evidence…
I have to question the writer’s assertion that most “seniors vote Democratic”. I suspect that that is not the case, at least in Iowa, and probably in a substantial portion of the rest of the nation as well. Most geezers are emphatically not gray-haired, starry-eyed hippies.
Being a geezer myself, it seems to me that the nationwide GOP plan to effectively disenfranchise geezers would be a good way to shoot itself in the foot.
A birth certificate might not be enough. You might also need a marriage certificate, to document name changes from your birth name to your current name. Each document has its own cost.
Demanding full identity documentation is a small price to pay to keep undesirables (the poor, elderly, racial minorities, immigrants) from casting a ballot.
snark ? no that’s was the democrat playbook up until the 1960′s.
You’re admitting it’s been the GOP playbook since the 60s?
And once again, Jeremy, your partisanship shows. You lambaste the Democrats about a history no one I know of disputes, while you are deliberately silent about GOP misdeeds.
The democratic process is important enough to protect to the best of our ability. If a person has the means to get to the polling place they have the means to obtain identification.
“they have the means to obtain identification”
Yeah, it’s the voter registration card we all received when we registered. That one document should be enough.
If the alleged purpose for this law is to limit voter fraud, why hasn’t anyone demonstrated that voter fraud is a problem in this state?
I cannot think of a single incident of voter fraud that has occurred in Iowa.
there is no way to prove it until it happens. the only issue locally we have had was this, but they did not prosecute her http://marion.patch.com/articles/attempted-voter-fraud this was only caught because she turned herself in, how many do not go reported because we lack the oversight. so it can and has happened, enough with this nonsense of it “never happens here”.
first you guys on the left say it never happens, then we show you in other states how prevalent it is, then you change it to not happening in in our state, then we show you it has. then you change it to locally , then we show you it has….. you keep moving the goal post here.
” then we show you in other states how prevalent it is, then you change it to not happening in in our state, then we show you it has. then you change it to locally , then we show you it has….. you keep moving the goal post here.”
No, Jeremy, you have proven NOTHING. You bear the burden of proof to show that individual voter fraud, which is the supposed target of photo ID laws, is a widespread problem. All I see here so far are links to ORGANIZED fraud, which the system can combat, or to ONE VOTER in the area.
You haven’t born that burden at all. You’re simply comforming to what has become a standard part of conservative ideology, since these are measures now being pushed by the GOP.
A quote from the link that Jeremy provided, “He said voter fraud is rare in Linn County.” In this quote the “He” is the county sheriff.
In this case, an older women voted by absentee ballot and later voted in person. It could be that she just forgot that she had voted earlier by absentee ballot. We don’t know.
It is also germane that in this case, a pictured ID would not have prevented the “fraud”.
Jeremy – You have proven nothing and, in fact, you have helped make the case that voter fraud is not a problem. Thank you.
rich, you have already lost the argument. you said it doesn’t happen, the sheriff says its rare. this lady did it. and yet you still deny that it can happen.
You just believe whatever supports your delusion, Jeremy. You have provided zero evidence that individual voter fraud is a widespread problem which justifies laws which will restrict ballot access. http://strangengines.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/the-winans-steam-gun-1861/
Jeremy…a better tact to approach the subject with is to ask them why they are against an ID…which virtually all have?
The delusion with leftists is to play the race card constantly and consistently. Which is what is happening here…
Ray, what you folks need to do is: 1.) show that individual fraud is widespread, and; 2.) why the current voter registration card is insufficient to address the problem.
Advocates of these laws have uniformly failed to meet their burden of proof. And, why are these laws being promoted exclusively by Republicans, unless it is to secure a partisan advantage?
Go ahead and coach Jeremy. Lord knows he could use some guidance…
Jeremy, Your problem with reading comprehension is showing again. I never said “it doesn’t happen”. I said, “I cannot think of a single incident . . . “. Those are two very different statements that mean different things. Of course, you will just interpret things the way you want to interpret them, whether it is accurate or not. That’s your way.
Why are you against a voter ID, Jeff?
I already have one, my voter registration card. As argued by the NAACP in the report I linked above, photo ID requirements will impact elderly, poor, and racial minority voters. The push for these laws strangely coincides with record minority voter participation during the 2008 e4lection. And, you still haven’t met your burden of proof.
Why are conservatives in lockstep conformity on this issue?
The Supreme Court has already said it does not impact your “victims” groups enough to change the Indiana law on Voter ID.
Take it up with the Supreme Court on burden of proof. They say you are dead wrong, and the burden of proof has been met.
Nope, you still have to show a need for such laws. You’re either misreading or misrepresenting the SC decision, Ray, which sets out the conditions such laws must meet to be constitutional. The SC said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about whether voter fraud is widespread, or if such laws are a necessity to protect the integrity of the ballot.
Nice try, though. You are game, I’ll give you that…
“In questioning the lawyer for the state Democratic Party and ACLU, Kennedy asked, “You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it’s a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?”
How am I misrepresenting what they said?
Voter fraud happens. Dead people have “voted”. Other people many times.
If even one person does it it needs to be fixed. Where there is one, there are many, as they say.
Actually Jeff, “my folks” needn’t do a thing, and leave it up to the SCOUTUS:
Lets’ see, Kennedy is skeptical, and you know that Alito/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas will vote in favor of the state of Indiana.
Huh. Apparently that burden of proof has not failed in front of the highest court in the land.
Let’s see, you cite a partisan source about a 2006 decision focused on an Indiana law, which didn’t prevent a REPUBLICAN Indiana Secretary of State from committing voter fraud…
LOL…The point is the Supreme’s see nothing wrong with states enacting voter ID laws.
The Republican Indiana SOS should be pummeled and destroyed for what he did…how is that Jeff? I couldn’t care less what side of the aisle does it.
LOL yourself, Ray. The US Supreme Court made clear how such laws cannot be used to hinder access to the ballot. That hardly means that states MUST enact such statutes. And look at the Indiana Secretary of State: he was motivated by money to commit fraud, and in the process showed how useless a photo ID law really is.
Again, cases of individual voter fraud are rare, and do not warrant the “nuclear bomb to kill a canary” approach photo ID laws represent. I will confess my bias: I cannot trust any measure coming out of the GOP which, in my mind, would work to restrict ballot access.
Now, how about YOU admit your own partisanship, that you will support just about anything the GOP proposes?
But it wouldn’t restrict ballot access according to the SC.
Your issue is you truly believe requiring a photo ID is a nuclear bomb.
What utter pap.
I don’t, and won’t vote for the GOP, haven’t for 8 years.
Good try though.
Good try, Calef.
for some reason I thought julie would have cats, like 30 of them… just goes to show you cant judge a book by its crazy cover.
What crazy cover, Jeremy? I like your Scottie pic. It’s a terrier, too.
Julie, Julie, haven’t you been paying attention!? Ray posts so he can serve as a rebuttal to all the “progressive tripe” that he sees plastered on these boards on a daily basis.
“I don’t, and won’t vote for the GOP, haven’t for 8 years.”
You sure about that, Ray?
Requiring a photo I.D. would do two things:
1. Prevent use of Internet Voting in the future.
2. Voting by absentee ballot. I guess a person could cut off their face and stick it in the envelope.
THIS LETTER IS JUST A DIVERSION away from the next vote that will not require a Photo I.D. !!!!
Rob, I’ve voted absentee for years.
The voter ID issue serves two purposes for repubs. It prevents poor and minority and seniors from voting while distracting from the real fraud,,, electronic voting machines that have been proven not to be secure.
The cost for a Iowa ID card is quite minimal: $5
How can Gov. mandate the purchass of cards? Some repubs should be saying thats unconstitutional. But , alas, they picks and chooses.
the same way they “mandate” that I show an ID when I purchase a gun. when I go to a Federal building, when I show up at the airport. a study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska scrutinized election returns for the years 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This study concluded that when viewed as either groups or as individuals, there was no reduction in voter turnout among blacks, Hispanics, women, the elderly or anyone else as a consequence of the implementation of voter photo-ID laws. It was their informed opinion that “concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”
Having to pay for an Iowa ID card in order to vote is in effect a Poll Tax. Poll Taxes are against the law per the Twenty-fourth Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Amendment Text | Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment24/
In the 2008 case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law. A similar decision in the same case by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the rarity of prosecutions for voter impersonation is “explained by the endemic under-enforcement” of voter fraud cases and “the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator” without the assistance of first-rate voter identification – such as a photo ID.