>That DMV service center is inside the Sauk City Community Center. And, sure enough, as Oliver’s piece stated, it’s open only on the fifth Wednesday of every month, from 8:15 a.m. to 4 p.m.
> The DMV doesn’t list the actual dates, so we looked them up. The four fifth Wednesdays in 2016 are in, as Oliver noted, March, June, August and November.
That's a flat lie, as the article itself makes clear. That particular DMV desk (not office) is just the nearest to that one small town (not county), and residents there can go to any other DMV in the state as well.
Meanwhile, you need an ID anyway to have a bank account, enter a Federal building or state courthouse (even if summoned to jury duty), etc.
Partisans are so desperate to push this narrative, truth goes by the wayside.
If you're homeless you should be able to give a thumbprint to validate your identity.
I mean we could technically just have a DB of thumbprints, that are ONLY tied to the fact that you are a citizen of x town. No name, address, etc.. So there's no way the db could be used against you by the NSA or FBI etc... But no matter what you can get a ballot even if you forget your id at home.
Or make it so same-day registration and id registration at voting places is a thing and make early voting standard so you have from October 1st through the 2nd Tuesday of November to vote. You can register at ANY voting booth, if you do not have ID your ID will be setup there as well for FREE.
The US abolished poll taxes in 1964. Since then, any action that places a financial burden on a potential voter is likely unconstitutional.
At the end of the day, the latest batch of ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem. Voter fraud at the polling station is rare in the US - existing protections work well enough that any contrary example is usually national news.
> Most voter fraud allegations turn out to be something other than fraud. A review of news stories
over a recent two year period found that reports of voter fraud were most often limited to
local races and individual acts and fell into three categories: unsubstantiated or false claims by
the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.
Tellingly, the first hit in your search is for an article where the loser of a close race is making unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud.
However, here are the first ten articles when I load that page:
0: Loser of KY governor's race "raises concerns" that there is voter fraud but has not yet submitted concrete proof to anyone (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-rai...)
1: A politician's wife is convicted of actual voting fraud; involving absentee ballots (which notably, voter ID laws don't really address, re: the topic a few replies up): https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/...
2: Another article about item 1: https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/jury-finds...
3: A legal case relating to publicity of voter information, because the plaintiff wants to investigate for voter fraud: https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2019/11/does-the-m...
4: An article about voter roll irregularities in Florida; the most interesting bits being some incorrect registrations (which do not necessarily indicate "fraud" as we'd commonly call it, though it may be illegal), and a few hundred cases of people who do seem to have cast multiple or irregular ballots (some from an unmentioned time period, and some from recent elections): https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-ne-palm-vot...
5: A CalTech team analyses a different set of voter data and finds no fraud: https://www.cnet.com/news/new-algorithms-go-fraud-hunting-in...
6: An article in which the convicted politician's wife in article (1) complains that it is a witch hunt: https://www.abqjournal.com/1388391/laura-seeds-alleges-voter...
7: A letter to the editor alleging that according to the Heritage Fund, there is no widespread voter fraud problem: https://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/letters-to-the-ed...
8: An article about the convicted politician's wife in (1), this from before the case was decided: https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/jurors-wei...
9: An article about students in North Carolina who will be unable to use their student IDs to vote: https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2019/11/07/as...
Your link to a news search doesn't support your assertion that there are examples all over the place.
It's so blatant in CA that almost 20% of counties have more registered voters than people even eligible to vote at all.
"Judicial Watch was founded in 1994 by the anti-Clinton conspiracy theorist and prolific litigator Larry Klayman and during the 2016 election, it regularly pushed misinformation about Hillary Clinton. The organization and its president, Tom Fitton, have become shills of President Trump since he took office, and Fitton regularly appears on Fox to defend Trump."
Maybe try using a reputable source next time.
Voter ID laws are intended solely to make it harder to vote by requiring a specific ID (driver's license or state issued ID) to vote. They won't accept your passport, a lease, a library card, or any other vetted and validated way of verifying who you are.
This is intended to suppress participation by people who are unlikely to have a current license or state issued ID which is disproportionately people who don't own cars (poor, young, and/or urban) or people who have to move a lot. If your ID isn't your current address or at least within the precinct, once again, you're barred from voting. It's meant to privilege property owners (less likely to have their address change frequently) at their expense of people with less stable residential situations and it undermines the premise behind universal franchise.
See here: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1361
That, incidentally, is another voter suppression strategy to make the lines so long that people are forced to choose between being late for work/appointments or getting to vote. And this has a fun additive effect with other voter suppression strategies. If the lines are long because the precincts are too few and under-staffed, you can make the lines EVEN LONGER by making the poll workers review IDs, explain to each person what is and isn't a valid ID, have to explain the provisional ballot process because they don't pass some arbitrary rule, and so on and so forth.
This would make lines a less-issue because you can vote anytime you want.
You need your voter registration card
or some other way to identify yourself
Mind boggling until you read about the ongoing history of voter suppression in the US.
Because there is no evidence of a problem that it would solve and because it has consistently been deliberately engineered as a system of disenfranchisement of eligible voters and the people pushing it (even recently) keep getting caught openly touting its benefits in that direction when they think only their political allies are listening, as well as being the same people pushing other techniques designed to disenfranchise the same people they try to use voter ID to disenfranchise. Its kind of a "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, can't get fooled again" situation, to borrow the wise words of former President George W. Bush.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St... A North Carolina law was overturned as "its provisions deliberately target African-Americans with almost surgical precision … in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls."
> Take an oath and have an elector who knows the voter vouch for them (both of whom must make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as the voter. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.
IOW, voter ID is not required in Canada.
Realistically, in the short term the law is going to be "whatever the government wants it to be until the Supreme Court sets a precedent".
The republicans shouldn't be so worried.
Canada makes it easy to get ID, we don't de-fund our government offices to make it difficult to get registered. You can renew your driver's license online now, so we invest in programs to make it easier to get and keep your ID.
From this page though, it seems like people actually do think voter ID itself is controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_St...
There was even a Supreme Court case in the US about whether it was constitutional for a state to implement one: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election/u-s-to...
I was referring to the latter - you’re allowed to show up to vote in Canada with your passport, for example.
Yes, exactly. And that should be done before we require those IDs in order to vote.
So the "we're a republic, not a democracy" line from people who want to argue for not letting people vote makes absolutely no sense.
The old distinction between a republic and a democracy was elected representatives passing laws versus the citizens voting directly on laws themselves.
The U.S. is of course, a hybrid and has some republican elements and some democratic elements, but in the classical sense, at the Federal level, it is more of a republic than a democracy.
Citizens voted. The question is who gets to be a citizen, but once you are acknowledged as a member of the citizenry then you were entitled to have a say in the governance.
>The old distinction between a republic and a democracy was elected representatives passing laws versus the citizens voting directly on laws themselves.
This is straight up wrong. Read any of the classics from Aristotle's Constitution of Athens to Plato's Republic. Republicanism is representation of the popular will by a gentry or elite and democracy is literally rule by the people through drawing of lots.
It's just so transparent when people make these tenuous arguments to justify disenfranchizing people who will be impacted by laws from having a say in those laws. This is the last refuge of people who want to enable tyranny and oppression.
"Constitutional Republic" and democracy are orthogonal rather than mutually exclusive descriptions. All "Constitutional Republic" means is that it isn't a monarchy and that it has some fundamental governing law. Being a (direct or indirect/representative) democracy is perfectly compatible with that. The foundational concept of government by consent of the governed and of government--as it would be elegantly described somewhat later--"of the people, by the people, and for the people" embraced by the founders is exactly that of representative democracy. The actual specific form written into the Constitution both clearly intends something very much like representative democracy while not quite being one.
> and furthermore the men who founded this nation and established the government thereof rather despised democracy as tyranny of the ignorant masses.
They despised both direct and unconstrained democracy, but while the pragmatic compromise of the Constitution clearly fell short of this, many of them certainly embraced in principle limited government by consent of the masses expressed through a combination of equal suffrage in approval of a basic law and equal suffrage in electing representatives to the government under that law, or, in the language of modern political science, Constitutionally-limited representative democracy.
This is an important issue, if it’s contentious then who is contending it? Am I missing something?