In the GR area, I have. The law to show photo ID was on the books but unenforced during some legal challenges, but then the courts said it was OK and the Secretary of State is requiring ID now. But, there’s a loophole, where you can sign an affidavit if you don’t have an ID, which I assume is there simply to allow them a smaller sample of people to verify. If there’s a seriously disputed election, I’d expect those affidavit votes would be the first to be scrutinized.
One of the things I like about Governor Snyder is that he’s not a slave to ideology on subjects like this. (Not that I agree with him on everything, but at least I feel he’s putting thought into it, not just toeing the party line.) He recently vetoed even more stringent voter ID laws on the basis that the new rules would be more confusing than helpful. He signed some others into law, which were mostly supported by both parties. His fellow Republicans weren’t happy about it, but it certainly made this independent voter think more favorably toward him.
Yea, pretty much the same in the UK. Two instances are being using as grist for moving to “individual registration”, where people will have to go out their way (in many cases, it looks like not even a phone call, they’ll have to send a letter requesting a form, every time they move even if it’s within the same area. For EACH person, no multiples!) to become registered, rather than the yearly registration form to houses.
Between the Democrats and the Republicans, it sometimes seems to be just a matter of time before we co-opt all the stuff we used to rail against 20 years ago… in the Soviet Union.
How is a National ID a Republican virtue now? I thought they were against the all powerful Federal Government.
I could see things to justify both sides, however I do think if you can’t be arsed to go get an ID (which doesnt’ take much time or money in the grand scheme of things AND is useful for things other than voting) then you probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place. I prefer people informed enough to understand the merits of owning a photo id in to be the people voting in elections.
Some of the most consistent voters I’ve ever met are amongst the most rabidly ideological, low-information people I’ve known. I don’t think putting up barriers to the act itself will make for a better, more patriotic citizenry.
Not if the photo ID was supplied free of charge. I do understand that argument if those without ID’s are required to buy them. Of course, if a taxpayer doesn’t wish to buy an ID on their own then the government would have the right to tax them. :)
Even if the state will issue you an official ID free of charge, it’s also a question of the time involved to get your butt to the DMV office or wherever, stand in line for who knows how long, etc. Especially onerous if you don’t have a car (as is the case with many poorer people) or have to work more than a full time schedule just to make ends meet.
This is CLEARLY an effort to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voting blocks. Why else would the GOP be pushing so hard for it?
Ah, OK. You’re suggesting a new ID system, not piggybacking on one already in place. That does still get into the opportunity costs of obtaining such an ID and whether that constitutes a poll tax, but it’s a trickier argument there.
Of course, if a taxpayer doesn’t wish to buy an ID on their own then the government would have the right to tax them. :)
Sure, so long as that ID isn’t then required for voting. ;)
This is silly though. You are starting with the assumption that the goals of a party are too disenfranchise voters.
If you are willing to start with such an assumption, then you can flip it around and say that obviously the lack of a voter id system promotes voter fraud, because why else would the democrats oppose it? It’s a silly, empty argument.
No it’s not. The burden of argument is on those trying to keep people from voting. If “voter fraud” is so easy, surely it’s open to would-be GOP-leaning fraudsters, so where’s the partisan advantage?
