I am baffled that some people think that EVERYONE has an I.D. card. That assumption comes from a very privileged place.

(I posted the CBS News article on this. :))

To the people that this affects, buying cold meds would be a luxury, getting on a plane a fairy tale, and opening a bank account a life-long goal (if they trust banks). Just for perspective, here.

However, I too believe that people should have legal photo IDs to vote and have trouble believing that there isn't some sort of assistance program for those who want/need an ID. If someone is motivated to vote, then they should follow the necessary steps. Sometimes rights involve due process.

While I'm sure you didn't mean "due process" in its meaning as legal term of art, it's still pretty ... bad ... to connect that with techniques historically only used to suppress certain voter groups.

I didn't think "proper legal procedure" would much better and couldn't think of a more concise term.

Ditto!

Plus, if folks want to talk about dirty campaign tactics... what about bussing "poor people" to the polling stations in exchange for a vote for a particular candidate? "Aw, how sweet, they gave me free transportation so I could vote, but I have to vote for their candidate." Yeah, because THAT's fair. :rolleyes:

Exactly.

SWTXBelle, do you know how many people in this country cannot afford any type of medication, have never traveled outside of their communities (let alone traveling on an airplane), and were taught that bank accounts were either unattainable or even "bad"?

Discrimination is based on outcome and not intent because intent usually cannot be proven. Something that makes complete sense in theory can have discriminatory outcomes. As has always been the case, there is a combination of policy makers who truly want I.D. to verify who the voter is; and there are policy makers who only want to exclude certain power minority groups that are less likely to have I.D.

There are relatively few assistance programs that effectively reach the poor and disadvantaged (which includes the physically and mentally ill). This process takes yeeeeeeears. States should not make changes and expect the practices to immediately fit the changes. That is attempting after-the-fact solutions and that never works.

If I.D. is supposed to be a requirement of American citizens, and even some rite of American passage as though every American has one from birth, the government needs to do a better job at mandating this. Then it will be true that every documented birth citizen has an I.D.--or should have an I.D.. If the government is not going to do that, it will remain the case that after-the-fact policies regarding I.D.s will be intentionally and unintentionally exclusive.

Cold medicine = arguably not a basic right of American citizenship
Traveling on a plane = arguably not a basic right of American citizenship
Having a bank account = arguably not a basic right of American citizenship

Voting = DEFINITELY a basic right of American citizenship. So, the laws and policies need to be ensure that "everyone" has access to what they need to attain this right, if they want to vote.

There are a lot of dirty campaign tactics. This discussion is not about competing discriminatory practices. There is plenty of discrimination to share.

I hope you realize that dirty campaigning happens on both sides of the aisle and across socioeconomic groups.

ETA: DrPhil beat me to the punch.

What about bussing "old people" (I'm trying to figure out why you put "poor people" in quotes) to the polling stations in exchange for a vote?

What about knowing that certain segments of this country are less likely to have some form of I.D. and proposing that I.D. be required to vote?

Oh...wait....

Yes, there are those who do not, for a variety of reasons, have photo identification. They are a distinct minority ( looking at a variety of sources, estimates seem to range from 11% - 25%) , and if the problem is access to photo id (because of cost, transportation issues, etc.) than those problems should be addressed. I would fully support efforts to insure that all qualified American citizens were able to acquire id. All those community groups who work to register voters would seem to be a good place to start with efforts to get photo identification in the hands of possible voters.

That is really a separate issue from the idea of having to provide id at a polling place. Here's a better example for id opponents - If I wish to register my child for public school, I have to provide a plethora of identification and forms. Public education is a right, but it is a right which comes with requirements to exercise. Voting is a right, but we already have requirements in place to exercise it.

Currently in Texas if you do not have your voter registration card or id you can sign an affidavit at the polling place - it may be that something similar could work for the minority of American citizens who do not have id. I've had to use the affidavit - it took maybe 5 minutes to do.

LOL. That is EXACTLY why I posted it. Don't YOU see the irony? So the liberals can bus folks in to vote to stack the odds for their candidate, but the conservatives can't propose fair voting practice? Riiiiight.

It makes sense to me. "Fine, you want to bus in those people to vote, then make them have an ID to prove their citizenship and prevent fraud."

Can you address this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 2114290) What about bussing "old people" (I'm trying to figure out why you put "poor people" in quotes) to the polling stations in exchange for a vote?

And why is this an issue during an election year? Why wasn't this proposed earlier?

(For the record, estimates are not to be confused with reliable data. The difficulty of assessing and accessing this distinct minority is why there are difficulties in conducting this research and factors such as identification cards.)

The bolded efforts need to be furthered before an I.D. is required in states where policy makers know a segment of the population does not have I.D.

No, it cannot be a separate issue.

It is all part of the same issue: The Right to Vote

Here is what Chicago Public Schools requires:

http://www.cps.edu/schools/enroll_in...checklist.aspx

You can see how a child can be placed in Chicago public school without the primary caregivers having forms of I.D. that would be valid for voting purposes. Public school sytems in areas with disadvantaged populations have searched for ways to address this disadvantaged population which includes accepting documentation that disadvantaged populations are more likely to have access to.


Perhaps this needs to be presented as an alternative.

It probably will not be presented as an alternative because affidavits will take longer than 5 minutes in areas where a lot of people do not have an I.D.

Plus, affidavits may conveniently get "lost" in certain areas that are not accustomed to poor people and other disadvantaged people coming to polling places. That is how it has historically been done in certain areas.

Like I said, this is not a competition. These are ALL practices with discriminatory outcomes.