Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
It's still effectively a poll tax - it's not so much that the amount itself is overly burdensome, but it does create awkward precedent.
Unrelated to your point, but more for the folks upstream ... comparing voting to driving or buying liquor is somewhere between silly and insane.
|
That's a tenuous argument. I'm not sure there's law going strongly either way. The fee isn't to vote, it's a negligible fee in Texas (not more than $25.00) to get a state-issued ID.
Even if they can't get that, they can still present any of the following:
a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;
a form of identification containing the person's photograph that establishes the person's identity;
a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person's identity;
United States citizenship papers issued to the person;
a United States passport issued to the person;
official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;
a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or
any other form of identification prescribed by the Secretary of State.
So no, there is not necessarily going to be a fee associated with voting. I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned before in this thread, but Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) dealt with this issue and is on-point since voting in Texas is possible by just presenting a utility bill or a government issued check or various other forms of free ID.
Justice Stevens wrote:
Quote:
|
The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.
|
So no, it's not a "poll tax" and it's perfectly permissible. The outrage at this issue is just phony. I can't see any rational reason to be upset about this unless you believe your party will be materially disadvantaged by not being able to commit as much voter fraud.