The outcry in the US over requiring someone to show an ID to vote is one of the most bizarre things to come out of that country. And, to make it even more unusual, it's coming from the left, the very people who used to love issuing IDs, numbers, and whose intellectual and ideological predecessors set up most of those schemes.
Practically, as much as the anarchist in me doesn't like that, you cannot have a mass society without strong, trusted IDs so this is a lost cause. Get used to them.
Voter ID laws are simply the latest play in a long history of attempts to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. They have no other practical purpose. There is no mass vote fraud occurring in the US. It's another red herring, like terrorism.
But that whole argument depends on the status quo in the US: many poor don't have ID cards already.
If you shift your view to the situation in other countries, it's easily answered: (almost) everyone has an ID card, so it cannot be used to disenfranchise minorities.
Issue ID cards to everyone and your problem should go away.
That's not going to happen, and many of the people who will make sure it doesn't happen are the same people who want voter ID laws in order to disenfranchise their political opponents.
You're not just looking for a change in the status quo, you're looking for a fundamental realignment of American politics. Good luck with that.
those least likely to have a government-issued photo ID fall into one of four categories: the elderly, minorities, the poor and young adults aged 18 to 24. The Brennan Center estimates that 18 percent of all seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have picture IDs.
"Don't have one" and "can't get one" are two entirely different things. How many of them don't have one simply because they have not needed one before and will just go get one (like most people) now that they'll have a need for one? As a fairly poor college student without a car in a new state (Arizona), I managed to locate a bus schedule and a DMV and make my way to the DMV and get a state ID. And I did it without internet. I'm no genius. I have confidence that a lot of people can do it too.
Side Note: In California, ID cards are $27. Or $8 if you meet income requirements from a public assistance program. Or free if you are 62 or older.
Yes, nearly everyone can get one if sufficiently motivated.
I think the issue is that people seem to be pushing for this sort of thing to place obstacles in the path of specific types of voters because they don't like how they vote. No one has identified a problem with how current voter registration and voting works that the govt ID requirement solves, as far as I am aware.
I don't disagree that CA is not the US. But neither is Indiana. What is your point? That I was wrong about California's fees? Or that I was wrong about how easy it was to get an ID in California? Or that in Indiana it is harder and more expensive to get an ID than in California?
No, millions do not. And even those that do often have to contend with issues like name changes from marriage, or just forgetting to renew them (you usually get reminders in the mail, but we're talking about people who may not even have a fixed address).
Even where IDs can be gotten "free", the states with voter ID requirements are also the states likely to demand proof of identity and citizenship that are difficult or impossible for many citizens to meet.
> And even those that do often have to contend with issues like name changes from marriage, or just forgetting to renew them (you usually get reminders in the mail, but we're talking about people who may not even have a fixed address).
Don't we all have to contend with those things? Do minorities and the poor get some sort of free pass on these sorts of obligations?
EDIT: added the parent's parenthetical comment since they felt it was important. I don't want to come off as misquoting or quoting out of context.
Clever, cutting off the parenthetical. Also clever attempting to derail. Actually, no, pretty pathetic attempt at derailing.
Absolutely no one should be subject to these requirements, poor, minority, white, or rich. The fact that they disenfranchise some people is one of the reasons why.
Pathetic attempt at derailing? Not really. You talked about the millions that don't have an ID. I don't dispute that. But then you talked about all the people that DO have an ID but have to content with keeping it up to date. As if that is some burden unique to minorities and the poor. That is what I dispute. No derailment needed from me. You took it there. Your parenthetical was just you're way to justify why they get a free pass on the things others don't. It was opinion that I didn't feel needed to be quoted. But sure if you want to include it, fine. I disagree with that. You don't need to get a reminder in the mail because the ID itself very clearly states when it needs to be renewed. Rich or poor, black or white... no free passes for being forgetful.
Also, are you saying that nobody should have to keep their ID info up to date? Like no one should have to get their ID changed when they get married or move. And that no one should have to remember to get it renewed. I'm confused by that part.
None of it should be a prerequisite for voting. I don't know what debate you think is happening here, but it's not the one you seem eager to have. This is about the reasons against requiring IDs for voting and only for voting. It has nothing to do with any of the other reasons you might have ID, nor is it an argument about what the requirements should be for having a valid ID. It is only about requiring ID for voting. That is all.
This is why I say you're derailing: You're not talking about voter ID, you're just talking about ID in general.
Then why do so many people argue about how it is hard for minorities and the poor to get an ID? If that is not what this is about then it has no place in the argument against requiring an ID to vote. Your original comment was almost entirely about how hard it is for those people to get an ID. So again... no derailment from me. You brought it up.
The difficulty of getting an ID is a reason not to require the ID for voting.
If you want to make getting an ID easier, good for you. I don't believe for a moment you will succeed, because IDs are used for things other than voting, where their requirements may actually be necessary.
The set of necessary requirements for voting may overlap with, but is not identical to the set of necessary requirements for state ID. Unless and until they are identical, requiring the ID for voting is a violation of rights.
This will be my last reply to you, because if you still don't understand, you're either never going to, or you already understand all too well and are deliberately derailing.
Wait. You can't tell me that the difficulty of getting an ID is a reason not to require the ID for voting right after you told me this is not an argument about what the requirements should be for having a valid ID. If one of your reasons for not requiring ID to vote is that they are difficult to get then you pretty much are required to let people argue they are not difficult to get. Otherwise you have presented an argument which you will not let people attempt to refute. I don't think it works that way.
A state ID isn't much more than a standardized document that says the state has identified you and can vouch for your identity. If one of the requirements to vote is to be identified, it seems reasonable that the state takes care of that identification in a standardized way.
They may not have photo IDs that satisfy the new rules. If you don't drive, then until recently you likely didn't have a gov't issued photo ID. Perhaps a school or work issued ID, but that isn't sufficient. You used to be able to present things like lease/electric bill to show residence + birth certificate to show citizenship.
> The outcry in the US over requiring someone to show an ID to vote is one of the most bizarre things to come out of that country.
There's a specific historical reason for it related to practices tied to Jim Crow (and the fact that the groups backing Voter ID now mostly have no evidence of actual problems that it solves, and are often tied to other make-voting-less-convenient-and-with-more-excuses-for-outright-denial policies.)
> And, to make it even more unusual, it's coming from the left, the very people who used to love issuing IDs, numbers, and whose intellectual and ideological predecessors set up most of those schemes.
The reason its coming from what passes for "the left" (center-right instead of far right) in America is discussed above, but I don't think that this description of "the left" -- either what passes for left in America or the Left more generally -- is particularly accurate.
> Practically, as much as the anarchist in me doesn't like that, you cannot have a mass society without strong, trusted IDs so this is a lost cause.
We've had mass societies for a long time without strong, trusted IDs.
The American left is opposed to voter ID because it's a vote suppression scheme -- not all eligible voters have IDs or have access to obtain them. The voter ID bills have gone hand-in-hand with restrictions on early voting and same-day voter registration, which makes the intention clear. On the other hand, I have yet to see one of these bills accompanied by legislation intended to help people without IDs get them.
I have yet to see one of these bills accompanied by legislation intended to help people without IDs get them.
I have just googled it and, apparently, it's a constitutional requirement to issue IDs at no cost if they're required to vote. Arkansas for example is waiting with the implementation of their voting ID law precisely for that reason.
The new law won't take effect until January or when funding is available for the state to provide free photo IDs required under the law, whichever is later.
I invite you to try and get one of those free IDs, which are often accompanied by a demand for documentation that, again, the underprivileged are likely to have trouble getting, if it even exists. This is assuming the DMV office doesn't play dumb and deny any knowledge of their obligations.
There is a distinction between constitutional requirements and what happens in practice. I don't know where you're from, maybe there is stricter enforcement of rights there, but here in the US, on the ground, rights are regularly violated with impunity by local officials.
My father in law was denied an ID when he moved to a different state. He is a US citizen of Pakistani origin, and the DMV staff refused to issue him a drivers' license because they were convinced that the was not a US citizen. He showed them his US passport. They claimed it was fake. He showed them his drivers license from his home state. They rejected it. He showed them his veterans card identifying him as a retired US Air Force officer. They laughed.
It sounds like the DMV staff you encountered were bigots. I would report them. Get the local media involved. Offer to wait while they call the police since having a fake passport is a crime.
And of course they were bigots. That's the point: there are a lot of bigots in the US.
He thought it wasn't worth the effort to report them, and frankly, I kind of agree. Who wants to spend years fighting in court, maybe having to spend their own hard earned money, and maybe having to deal with the bigots' friends on the police force harassing them? Especially after they just started working a new job?
Report them? To whom? Follow the chain up and you're likely to find a Republican governor and legislature who think the DMV staff were doing exactly what they were supposed to.
If the local media even covered it, I'd expect their angle to be the suspicious brown guy who was prevented from infiltrating our political system by heroic DMV staff.
Would it be fair to conclude that any setup that requires ID is a suppression scheme? I.e., if ID is required for travel - is it a travel rights suppression scheme? If the ID is required for real estate ownership - that is a real estate ownership suppression scheme? If the ID is required to own a firearm - is it a firearm ownership suppression scheme?
Note I'm not asking if IDs were used in the past to suppress votes - I'm sure there were cases where that happened. What you're claiming is that ID requirement and voter suppression is the same, which is much stronger claim. So what I am asking is this ID requirement that makes it suppression or how one can distinguish suppression ones from non-suppression ones?
> Would it be fair to conclude that any setup that requires ID is a suppression scheme?
It would be fair to conclude that any proposal which increases the burden of doing a thing is intended to prevent and/or discourage some group of people from doing that thing.
If there is no strong evidence that there some significant problem with people who are wrongfully be doing that thing that the particular scheme is well-designed to solve, it is pretty fair to suspect that the intent is to prevent/discourage people who are rightfully doing it, and, whether or not this is the intent, and whether or not there is a real problem in evidence that it might solve, it is reasonable to question whether any effect, even incidental, of preventing/discouraging people who are not wrongfully engaging in the targetted act is a substantial enough negative side effect to reject the proposal.
> What you're claiming is that ID requirement and voter suppression is the same
I think there is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that the actual concrete voter ID proposals that are actually being made are either intended as or draw a significant portion of their support from people who view them as voter suppression schemes, and that, intent aside, their primary effect would be as mechanisms for voter suppression.
The set of people who do not have and/or will have trouble getting IDs has little if any overlap with the set of people who travel by air, purchase real estate, or lawfully purchase firearms.
I wasn't asking about which sets of people overlap or not. I was asking what makes ID requirement be identical with suppression - is it ID requirement itself or something else? If it is something else - what exactly it is? Is it where set of people is relevant - it is OK to ask some people to show the papers but not the others? Which people should be exempt and which should not be?
We know that voter id requirements are based in voter suppression because those requirements are targeted to preventing an attack that is economically infeasible and they don't even effectively mitigate the attack.
Look at my other comments in this thread for the details, but in brief, the cost of using voter impersonation fraud is extremely high, the probability that authorities will detect it is also high, and the penalties for breaking the law in this way are very serious. What's more, bypassing the ID requirement is trivial for criminals, in the same way that bored teenagers can purchase alcohol whenever they want because forging ID cards is easy.
Note also that IDs are actually not required for flying in the US. Flying without an ID is annoying and time consuming, but definitely doable (I've done it).
Most voter ID proposal I've read also make voting without ID annoying and time consuming, but doable. This is taken as a clear evidence the goal is voter suppression. Thus I am asking, why the same thing with flying is not considered movement rights suppression?
I don't see how without ID checks cost and detection probability of voter fraud is high. You just get a list of guys who are dead or in jail or otherwise aren't going to show up (shouldn't be that hard to do), and pay somebody some small sum to show up at the polling place and vote as the name on the list. Where's the high cost in that?
What I am claiming is that the current batch of voter ID schemes are part of an organized vote suppression effort by the American right wing under the pretense of preventing fraud.
I would be willing to believe that the programs were being adopted in good faith if there was any evidence of widespread voter fraud and if the programs included aggressive efforts to ensure that every eligible voter has access to a free ID.
There's no evidence of widespread terror campaign in US airport and yet TSA grabs my balls each time I fly, and NSA collects my phone calls. There's no evidence of widespread harm from drugs like marijuana and yet thousands of people are jailed for mere possession of it. There's no evidence of gun bans be effective measure of crime control and yet cities like Chicago and Washington insist on it. There's no evidence RIAA and MPAA are seriously hurt by piracy and yet we have DMCA and almost had SOPA. There's no evidence copyright extensions are necessary and yet we have Mickey Mouse protection act[1].
There's no evidence of US being a criminal wasteland and yet you may very well commit three felonies every day[2].
If you really want to go into "show me the data before you make the law", you're waking up way too late. It's not a conspiracy, it's called "federal government".
> There's no evidence of widespread terror campaign in US airport and yet TSA grabs my balls each time I fly, and NSA collects my phone calls.
[...]
> If you really want to go into "show me the data before you make the law", you're waking up way too late.
Campaigns for voter ID laws -- and the opposition to them -- are older than the NSA warrantless surveillance programs or the TSA. Not to mention that the opponents of all three of those things have substantial overlap, so saying that people who oppose one of them have categorically "woken up to late" because the other ones exist (no matter which one you pick) doesn't make a lot of sense, since its not unlikely that the people you are criticizing as late to wake up are also already opponents of whichever the "earlier" outrage is that you are pointing to to make that claim.
I am and have been an opponent of the TSA, NSA wiretaps, drug prohibition, the DMCA, SOPA, copyright extensions, and the criminalization of everyday life from their inception and/or for my entire adult life. I disagree fundamentally on the lack of evidence for gun bans.
You don't get to argue that we're wrong about this being bad just because there are other bad things out there!
That's not my argument. My argument was that saying "there's no evidence of X so nobody could genuinely support measures to combat X" is nonsense - there are plenty of examples of existing laws and regulations purported to combat things that either do not exist or not dangerous or way less dangerous that the laws against them. Still, people support them despite the evidence. So the argument "anybody that supports voter ID must be after voter suppression" makes no sense - there are plenty of people that support voter ID because they think voter fraud is a problem or can be a problem, not because they want to suppress voters.
> not all eligible voters have IDs or have access to obtain them.
Not all eligible voters have IDs that satisfy the new rules. We always had to identify ourselves. My first vote was cast without a driver's license and I used (IIRC) some documents (school registration, student ID, birth certificate, not sure the combination) that satisfied the requirements at the time. I may have used my military dependent ID (a federal gov't issued photo ID). The majority of my classmates probably had driver's licenses, but there was a significant minority in the same boat I was.
> not all eligible voters have IDs or have access to obtain them
In Northern Ireland, a country which traditionally suffered from electoral 'problems', people without ID can now apply for a free Electoral Identity Card as part of the electoral registration process.
A photo is required, but if applying in person then no other identity documents are required to obtain it.
It is useful in that it also gives them a first-step ID to open bank accounts and for domestic travel.
Everyone should have a secure, single identity card in any modern developed nation that can be used for identity verification. One card. Federal and State governments can assign privileges to the card (driving, medicare etc.). Even expand it so the card can be used to verify credit and debit card authenticity etc. That's my dream, but right now we are stuck in firmly in 20th century-modes of thinking about ID.
I'm long past the point of caring about the Government having some database of where I go or who I transact with. They seem to have been able to already figure out how to do it without my permission so let's just make this whole tracking thing transparent now.
Practically speaking, getting an ID in the United States right now is not difficult. Why do we keep excusing people from having a basic mechanism to prove who they say they are? If you cannot handle getting and maintaining an ID maybe one ought not be able to vote because you're just not responsible enough to handle it.
Why do we keep excusing people from having a basic mechanism to prove who they say they are?
Given that bored teenagers in search of beer can easily forge IDs, what makes you think current photo ID cards are an effective certificate for proving identity?
If you cannot handle getting and maintaining an ID maybe one ought not be able to vote because you're just not responsible enough to handle it.
See, this notion right here? This is literally unamerican. Americans get to vote. It doesn't matter if you think they're lazy or smell bad or if they don't demonstrate responsibility to your satisfaction: you don't get to decide which citizens can vote. A lot of people have died so that Americans can vote without your approval.
I don't think photo ID's are an effective certificate for proving identity. I'd like to see something stronger put into place. I would agree 100% positive identification is likely impossible given current technology but I think we can do a lot better than photo ID.
Felon's are restricted from voting and the constitutionality of it has been upheld. We can absolutely restrict who votes. I strongly disagree that such an idea is "un-American".
I don't think photo ID's are an effective certificate for proving identity.
So why are we even talking about them? Photo IDs are the solution being discussed here, not some theoretical has-yet-to-be-invented technology that is indistinguishable from magic. You wrote why do we keep excusing people from having a basic mechanism to prove who they say they are? in the context of a mechanism that doesn't do that...so what exactly is the point of introducing a very costly "solution" to a non-existent problem that doesn't actually solve anything?
There already is a certain set of barriers to voting, so let's not pretend there isn't. Everyone is free to vote as long as they can handle the barriers. The argument now is how much is too much. Some seem to think proper ID is too much. Others think that is perfectly reasonable. And currently, some form of ID is needed. So the debate goes further as to what is "proper" ID. Is it a state issued ID card? Or is it your water bill?
Are you saying that during the entire time from registering to vote to the point of voting, you never had to identify yourself? I find that odd. How do they even know who you are?
Thanks. I clicked on that. And then the "Massachusetts Mail-in Voter Registration form (PDF) – English" link. In the instructions for that PDF form, #7 says: Federal law requires that you provide your driver’s license number to register to vote. If you do not have a current and valid Massachusetts driver's license, you must provide the last four digits of your social security number. If you have neither, you must write “none” in the box. I'm not sure what they do with the mail in forms that mark "none".
And then I read the questions on that the page you linked to. I found this one interesting: Do I need to attach identification to my voter registration form? The Answer: Yes, if you are registering to vote for the first time in Massachusetts. Because of a federal law, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 passed by Congress, if you registered to vote by mail on or after January 1, 2003, you will be required to show identification when you vote for the first time in a federal election since registering by mail in 2003, or you can send in a copy of your identification with your voter registration form.
Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote, for example: a current and valid driver’s license, photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document showing your name and address.
Am I reading this wrong? Because it pretty much sounds like to me that ID is required. Was there some other info I was supposed to find?
Edit: I found this Federal Voter Registration form interesting: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Regi... If you scroll down beyond the form, it gives a breakdown for each state what is required for Box #6 (which is where the form asks for your ID Number). Seems a lot are asking for ID of some sort. Good info. Thanks for suggesting I do more research.
"Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote, for example: a current and valid driver’s license, photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document showing your name and address."
The outcry is from the left because these laws are always by the right in order to make it more difficult for demographics that vote left to vote. They come from a long line of laws in a similar vein, such as literacy tests full of trick questions, etc.. The general idea is just to make it tough enough to vote that poor people can't.
And, to make it even more unusual, it's coming from the left, the very people who used to love issuing IDs, numbers, and whose intellectual and ideological predecessors set up most of those schemes.
This might sound glib, but it is a big part of the kernel of Constitutional scholarship; Ely's _Democracy and Distrust_ goes into detail about substantive versus procedural due process and how the core of the effort is to "preserve the channels of democracy". In other words, Constitutional Law's most important job is to be a referee, to ensure that the political process isn't abused to lock groups of people out and, in doing so, to preserve injustices.
Restrictions that obstruct the channels of democracy should have an especially high burden of necessity to clear.
Americans lost rights to buy marijuana in 1937. Winning it back by voting turned out not that easy in next 70 or so years.
And, btw, if you try to still use you right to own marijuana, you become a felon, which - surprise! - means you lose rights to vote. See how nicely it works out?
> you become a felon, which - surprise! - means you lose rights to vote
Fortunately not in all states. Some allow you to vote, some allow you to vote after you're released or your sentence (including probation or just incarceration) is complete. [1]
Any electoral fraud that relies on having bunches of people vote multiple times necessarily relies on there being a conspiracy of >100 people in order for it to be effective (this is the only kind of fraud that can be prevented by demanding that voters produce photo ID).
But if a conspiracy is required, then why not address that directly? Offer a $500,000 reward and immunity to any one who provides information about a conspiracy that could have changed the result of an election. Voila: no more "voter fraud".
How does vote fraud necessarily rely on a conspiracy? In many states, knowing someone's name and address is sufficient to vote as that person as long as they've previously registered. Any individual can show up at the polling place multiple times and vote as someone else and it would be very difficult to prove they'd done so.
Most polling places are staffed by locals and will often recognize someone trying to commit fraud. If the person who you are trying to impersonate also votes, it will also trigger an event. Worst case you show up to vote after someone has already voted, you trigger this event and get busted.
Theoretically the only people you could safely impersonate would be dead and un-likely to be known to the pollster. Even if you found that, how many times could you vote? You'd risk someone recognizing you the second time, so you'd have to try and visit multiple polling places.
The most likely place for fraud to occur would be after the vote takes place: either in the counting system, or tampering with the votes. There is not much chance of changing enough votes simple by showing up and casting a physical ballot, unless you have a high enough number of people doing it (and somehow not getting caught and triggering an investigation).
Let's say I show up at the polling place and try to vote in someone else's name. If they've already voted, then I'm in deep trouble. In fact, my polling place often has a police officer hanging out on election day. If they haven't voted but come to vote after me, they're in deep trouble. Either way, there's going to be a big stink and a police report. Moreover, I can't vote more than once in the same precinct: I need to go elsewhere lest I'm recognized, and in most of the US, elsewhere is actually quite far away.
It really doesn't make sense spending money to prevent attacks that are completely economically infeasible.
Besides, let's say we require ID for voting. Now, everyone who illegally voted before can continue illegally voting: all they have to do is get some fake IDs, which any bored teenager looking for beer can do.
Every place I've been to vote, the election workers had a printed list of people who could vote and would highlight their names once they voted. It's in plain view and it would be easy to read the names and find one to use while waiting in line to get your ballet.
Sure, you could maybe read a name...and then you have to show up later in front of the same election worker who checked you in earlier. Don't you think they'd recognize you?
When I vote, I have to make eye contact and speak with four different poll workers. The odds that I could vote several times without any of them noticing are very low. The odds that a bunch of people could each vote many times over without any of the poll workers noticing are zero.
And what happens when someone whom you voted as shows up to vote? I mean, if this is going to happen on a large enough scale to affect the outcome of an election, that event has to happen many times. Which means poll workers and police are going to record many cases of voter fraud.
So, can you show me an election in the US where that has happened? Even just one?
Or is this a fantasy?
The point is that if each fraudulent voter has to go to multiple polling stations, that dramatically increases the cost and raises the likelihood of detection. In order to scale that attack up to be practical, you'd need buses full of fraudulent voters going from one station to the next.
Because you need a large enough number to actually make a difference. 1 person going from place to place voting over and over could only get a certain number of votes in over a few weeks.
Could one person put 200 votes in if they really worked at it? Maybe, but realistically 200 votes just won't do it. You basically need a conspiracy.
I think the most common type of fraud that occurs is voting by people who are not eligible to do so (e.g., because they’re not US citizens). I don’t know on what scale this occurs, but I believe there have been documented instances. A lot of it is probably politically motivated (trying to make it easier vs. harder for lower-income, likely Democratic, voters to register), but the fear of a small number of non-citizens voting based on an immigration issue, for example, and thereby affecting the result of a close election seems at least plausible.
That isn't fixed by voter ID schemes, though. For an ineligible person to register to vote is voter registration fraud, and you do have to prove your eligibility to register.
Voter ID schemes only prevent people voting under other voters' names, and that kind of fraud appears to be extremely rare.
> For an ineligible person to register to vote is voter registration fraud, and you do have to prove your eligibility to register.
For fairly weak (and appropriately so) definitions of prove, in most cases. It would be more accurate in most jurisdictions, AFAIK, to say you must assert a set of facts which, if true, would make you eligible to vote in order to register.
1) that in the US, an electricity bill is sufficient for voting ID purposes (WTF)
or 2) that the US don't have mandatory ID cards. Even our new German ID cards only cost €20 apiece, and if you're too poor you can get benefits. Hello, ID fraud.
Not being required to have an ID card is something we Americans find to be an important freedom. Many (myself included) feel that requiring people to have an ID card is a slippery slope towards requiring people to show that ID card on demand. The idea of an authority figure being able to 'ask for your papers' is a scary one for us.
As the article said, voter fraud is NOT really a problem. No one has ever been able to demonstrate that people illegally voting or voting more than once has happened enough to ever change an election. We want to make it as easy to vote as possible to encourage everyone to vote.
I think it's important to regularly point these issues out, because even though many of "us" intellectually know about them, it's still hard to emotionally grasp for "us", how ID cards could be a slippery slope, why freedom of speech should trump everything else, no matter what, or why home schooling should be allowed at all.
Cultures differ wildly, and it's hard to really accept that the other guy might have a valid point of view.
IIRC his claims were not about individuals committing voter fraud, but fraud in the procedure of processing the votes. Which voter ID laws do nothing to help with.
An electricity bill /and/ being registered in your district. It is not like you can take an electricity bill to any poll location and vote.
20 Euros might not seem like much but if you are making minimum wage it can be significant. And what if you lose your ID? Or you don't have access to the documentation to get an ID right away? Or you are a college student and your residence is with your parents?
The fact is that voter fraud is not a big problem. Disenfranchising voters, however, is a problem. There are even 2000 page tomes on exactly how to go about it.
Well, just spot checking Wisconsin (because that is the first state to come up when I googled 'election day voter registration' requires a valid driver's license for same day registration.
Some people are a little squeamish about Germany's mandatory ID cards. I don't blame them really, I think we could all do with a better way of preventing electoral fraud without requiring people to hold state-issued IDs.
I'm both a German and US citizen, have lived back and forth between the two countries my entire life, and vote in both countries. Germany is definitely far ahead in the mechanics of democracy: ballot design, voter education, voter id, single set of coherent rules across the nation, etc. That's the benefit of having a great reset of the country a mere 70 years ago (or 23 years ago, depending on where in Germany).
You usually register at the town's "citizen's office", where you can also pay for your garbage disposal, get parking passes, apply for your driver's license, have the lost+found, and so on.
Registering at the police station is something from the sixties or seventies, I think. "Police" back then had a lot more duties that are now located in other administrative offices.
But "police" is a complicated term in Germany, anyway. Legally it's not just "the guys who chase criminals".
Elsewhere it's even stranger: To me "Polizei" sounds like a friendly civilian force for order, while "Miliz" sounds paramilitary and dangerous. To Russians it seems to be different.
I don't know if it differs from state to state or even possibly county to county, but I got my first ID (in Florida), recently and it was 36 dollars and some change, so not to far off
IIRC, most states that have instituted voter id laws have made the cost of an ID free. Also, expired drivers licenses work as identification (for the elderly who have ceased driving).
SSN weren't designed as unique identifying numbers - in fact, until 1972 the cards explicitly said it should not be used as such. It is also way too short to be unique ID within imaginable timeframe. The fact that it is used as such is because americans have no choice - no other common ID to use. Some use name + birthdate instead, but that's even worse.
The ID requirement for renting a car or staying in a hotel is not designed to prevent people from renting cars or staying in hotels. It is to protect the rental company or the hotel from actual risks.
The recent ID laws for voting in the US are designed solely to prevent people from voting. The ID requirement are designed to require procedures and documentation that is hardest for poor people and minorities--coincidentally people who tend to not vote for the party that is pushing voter ID laws.
The proponents state it is to reduce voter fraud, but fraud based on exploiting a lack of ID requirements is close to if not nonexistent in the US.
None of those things are fundamental rights of citizenship like voting.
> It's amazing how that's accepted as normal but somehow outrageous when voting is involved.
It is, poll tax issue aside, a method which presumes ineligibility and puts the burden on the citizen to prove their eligibility (which most state ID schemes, given their documentation requirements, would be as voting prerequisites even if the costs were waived.)
Another data point that suggests that voter fraud is a real problem: The New York City Department of Investigation reported that their undercover agents were able to obtain fraudulent ballots with a 97% success rate. It's likely that fraud is happening and we just aren't aware of it:
Practically, as much as the anarchist in me doesn't like that, you cannot have a mass society without strong, trusted IDs so this is a lost cause. Get used to them.