Churches have always been active in Black communities to get people out there. That is supposed to be neutral and in contrast to when Democrats and Republicans are the sponsors for these voting trips.

Howeverrrrrrrr, churches doing this is not always neutral. The Black Church is predominantly comprised of Democrats to the point where Black Republicans and Black Independents like myself are ostracized in a discussion of politics. I have heard Black pastors talk about politics (specifically supporting candidates and political parties) at the pulpit and the average predominantly Black gathering consists of people who do not want to meet Blacks who are not Democrats. Also, church members sometimes wear Democrat t-shirts (like those hideous Obama t-shirts that Black folks were wearing and NPHCers got for their respective orgs), etc. All of this is done with the assumption that the Blacks who are being brought to the polling stations are Democrats who will be voting Democrat--or, they are Blacks who can be "persuaded to vote Democrat."

Examples of things that happen: Busing students to vote

I am still in favor of organizations getting citizens active in the voting process. It is impossible for humans to be completely impartial and neutral. I simply want people to see these biases and find ways to address these biases.

This is also true of churches whose membership is predominantly white, and sometimes in favor of Republicans.

Exactly, such is one of the roles of religion as an institution.

This is particularly interesting for the Black Church because we are talking about the poor and disenfranchised which is disproportionately Black. The Black Church has always been a driving force (pun intended) in busing Black voters and giving Blacks the resources they could not access outside of the Black community. When people wonder why the average Black person is a Democrat despite the history of Black Republicans, it is not because the average Black person KNOWS that the Democratic party has done so much for the Black community.

I hadn't thought of the alcohol or tobacco purchasing point before, so thank you, MC. To the best of my knowledge, neither alcohol nor tobacco purchases are considered to be unattainable dreams of the lower socio-economic classes. In fact, I believe that those purchases often skew higher amongst those groups. So either 1.) ids can be procured or 2.) there is an illegal trade which needs to be clamped down upon soon.

I'm not sure I follow -- what do "unattainable dreams of the lower socio-economic classes" have to do with the fundamental right to vote?

Well, since that trade has been going on forever, don't expect to see too much effort invested in clamping down on it. Enforcement will likely remain primarily at the user end.

But this argument pretty much side-steps the basic question: Will a photo ID requirement solve or significantly ameliorate this supposedly big problem of voter fraud?

Here's another way to approach the question: By my count, 13 states require a photo ID of some sort to vote. (This includes South Carolina, which currently is precluded by the Voting Rights Act from enforcing its photo ID law.) Again by my count, 16 states have no id requirement, except for first time voters. Is there any evidence that voter fraud is more prevalent or more of a problem in the states that require no ID?

dun dun DUN

And the L&O gavel.

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/IowaC...toIDNeeded.jpg

Shocker.

I'm not surprised that a States Primary caucus would have leaner restrictions on voting but who's the schmuck that wrote this article? LOL

I'm pretty sure TSA won't even let you into the terminal let alone board a plane without showing some form of ID at the security checkpoint.

(blog)

Brad Friedman's bio

What is the reasoning behind primary caucuses having leaner restrictions?

The topic is requiring photo ID (usually a driver's license), not just any form of ID.

What TSA says about photo ID

Of course, what Brad Friedman says in his blog about purchasing cigarettes and alcohol without photo ID (driver's license) is legally inaccurate. However, it may unfortunately be the case that he has rarely if ever been required to show a photo ID (driver's license) when purchasing cigarettes or alcohol. He unfortunately will not be the first American to claim that. (Those of us who look younger than our years and also do not live in areas where smoking and drinking are religious pastimes cannot relate to not being asked for photo IDs for damnneareverything. :))

********

69% of 1,000 Likely Voters Surveyed say photo ID not discriminatory

Legally, those who sell alcohol and tobacco can be held liable for selling to those who are underage. So id may not be "required" by a salesperson, but they are playing the odds if they don't.

Maybe because it's a state level election that is for a political candidate, not necessarily an elected position. Maybe it was bad wording on my part...for example, I can only vote in the general election because I am neither registered as a democrat nor a republican, so in that regard primaries are more restrictive as to whom can participate.

I also wouldn't recommend showing up at the airport without photo ID unless you don't mind showing up 8 hours before your flight leaves or you don't mind missing your flight. I'm not too familiar with TSA but I've seen (a few times) people who've lost their passport detained 5-6 hours upon entering the country while DHS verifies their identity.


ETA- How about we join the rest of the world and get a photo voter registration card?

http://www.marestax.com/credencial.jpg

There are three places that are famous for the dead voters- NYC, Chicago and New Orleans. Do you live in one of those places? As for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, those are the dumbest memes trotted out by republicans every time they want to claim voter fraud. Read recent reports about they recall of Gov Walker in Wisconsin and the claim Mickey Mouse is single handedly trying to recall the governor, too. Easy fix...train your poll workers better, don't disenfranchise every voter without an ID.

Depending on the state it may be more onerous or expensive than in another. In AZ, you can get an ID and not have to renew it for 40 years!:D In Louisiana, for the same cost, you have to renew every four years.

This! If the poll workers can't even stop Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck from voting, how are they going to identify the fake ideas? Highly motivated vote fraud won't be stopped by IDs. We should, though, be concerned about the security of our electronic voting systems which are vulnerable to voting fraud.