PDA

View Full Version : Missouri to Mandate Photo ID for Voters


Bob Dole
06-05-2006, 11:34 AM
Bob Dole doesn't hang out in here much, so this may have been discussed already.

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, in a letter to Governor Matt Blunt (http://www.sos.mo.gov/img/05-31-06_Gov_Blunt_letter.pdf), has requested a special session of the state Legislature to fund a new requirement -- outlined in Senate Bill 1014 (http://www.senate.mo.gov/06info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=83706) -- that citizens must present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote.

According to Carnahan's letter, the governor has indicated he will sign SB 1014 into law, thereby disenfranchising as many as 170,000 legitimate voters who do not possess such photo identification.

Carnahan estimates the costs of implementation at state and local levels will be about $6 million.

banyon
06-05-2006, 11:41 AM
It is my view that this is unconstitutional unless the state picks up the cost for the ID's. It would amount to an unallowed poll tax prohibited by the 24th Amendment.

Apart from that issue, it might be a good idea to prevent voter fraud, though undoubtedly it affects Dems more than Repubs, since they are the ones that are most likely to not get off their a**es and follow the procedures.

Logical
06-05-2006, 11:45 AM
Seems like a good idea to me. I wish CA would adopt that idea.

Logical
06-05-2006, 11:46 AM
It is my view that this is unconstitutional unless the state picks up the cost for the ID's. It would amount to an unallowed poll tax prohibited by the 24th Amendment.

Apart from that issue, it might be a good idea to prevent voter fraud, though undoubtedly it affects Dems more than Repubs, since they are the ones that are most likely to not get off their a**es and follow the procedures.

Interesting point.

Bob Dole
06-05-2006, 11:47 AM
It is my view that this is unconstitutional unless the state picks up the cost for the ID's. It would amount to an unallowed poll tax prohibited by the 24th Amendment.

Apart from that issue, it might be a good idea to prevent voter fraud, though undoubtedly it affects Dems more than Repubs, since they are the ones that are most likely to not get off their a**es and follow the procedures.

From one of the links:

The act allows for issuing non-driver's licenses with photographic images to fulfill the identification requirement. The state of Missouri shall pay all the legally required fees for applicants for non-driver's licenses.

alpha_omega
06-05-2006, 11:51 AM
Sounds like a good idea...i have always used my Photo ID instead of the little paper voting card.

banyon
06-05-2006, 12:07 PM
From one of the links:

Banyon apologizes to Bob Dole for not reading thoroughly.

I guess this would purely be a 14th/15th amendment question about whether the procedures amount to an undue burden on the right to vote. I'm not sure that they do. But the issue is a lot less cut-and-dry than if it were a poll tax issue. Dems will make that argument I'm sure, but In this day and age of almost everyone having photo ID, it doesn't seem undue to me.

redbrian
06-05-2006, 12:28 PM
At lot of folks and groups are pissing and moaning about this.

They all claim it is going to “disenfranchise” (is this not one of the most overused political buzz words), to many of the underclass (read yellow dog democrats).

The claim is total bull crap, the cost of a State ID is minimal and the Ids are good for life unless you move.

If these folks can make it to the polls to vote they can make it to one of many locations to get a State ID, and while they are out there get a friggen Bank account. I do not understand how these people expect to operate effectively in the modern world without either (sorry just a pet peeve).

Bob Dole
06-05-2006, 12:33 PM
At lot of folks and groups are pissing and moaning about this.

They all claim it is going to “disenfranchise” (is this not one of the most overused political buzz words), to many of the underclass (read yellow dog democrats).

The claim is total bull crap, the cost of a State ID is minimal and the Ids are good for life unless you move.

If these folks can make it to the polls to vote they can make it to one of many locations to get a State ID, and while they are out there get a friggen Bank account. I do not understand how these people expect to operate effectively in the modern world without either (sorry just a pet peeve).

The state should probably hire some people and equip mobile ID units to travel around to peoples homes and make housecall IDs.

redbrian
06-05-2006, 12:37 PM
The state should probably hire some people and equip mobile ID units to travel around to peoples homes and make housecall IDs.

That has been one of the ideas floated out there; personally I think that’s a little burdensome to the tax payers.

Let’s slap a little responsibility on the voter, we don’t drive around and register them to vote.

Bob Dole
06-05-2006, 12:43 PM
That has been one of the ideas floated out there; personally I think that’s a little burdensome to the tax payers.

Let’s slap a little responsibility on the voter, we don’t drive around and register them to vote.

Bob Dole hopes you recognized the sarcasm in Bob Dole's post...

Cochise
06-05-2006, 12:52 PM
In Missouri, the security of the polls is laughable.

For instance, election day 2004, I go into my local polling location. Walk up to the folding tables where 4 women with a combined age of over 500 years are manning the lists. I go to the line for the letter of my last name. When I get to the front, she says something like "What's your name, honey?" So I tell her. Doesn't ask to see ID or a voter card or anything. I mean, I could have went home and changed clothes and come back and voted again all day long, just as long as each time I looked down at her spreadsheet and read off another name to tell her the next time I walked in.

And this wasn't some podunk down like where I voted last time (and the same thing was going on), this was in the city of Kansas City.

And what's more, I thought that a major city might have some kind of voting aparatus that was somewhat up to date, but it was the regular old card where you fill in bubbles with a number 2 pencil.

Everyone should have to show a state ID to vote, no exceptions. Hell, if you want to, set the license bureau up a booth, and anybody who doesn't have a free state photo ID can walk over there and get a temporary one good for one day. Just so that they are checking everyone out.

That was part of the reason why I chuckled at all the election fraud allegations last time around. How can anyone even begin to claim there's more on one side than another? I went to vote in a major US city and I could have voted 100 times that day if I had decided to.

Chief Henry
06-05-2006, 01:37 PM
In Missouri, the security of the polls is laughable.

For instance, election day 2004, I go into my local polling location. Walk up to the folding tables where 4 women with a combined age of over 500 years are manning the lists. I go to the line for the letter of my last name. When I get to the front, she says something like "What's your name, honey?" So I tell her. Doesn't ask to see ID or a voter card or anything. I mean, I could have went home and changed clothes and come back and voted again all day long, just as long as each time I looked down at her spreadsheet and read off another name to tell her the next time I walked in.

And this wasn't some podunk down like where I voted last time (and the same thing was going on), this was in the city of Kansas City.

And what's more, I thought that a major city might have some kind of voting aparatus that was somewhat up to date, but it was the regular old card where you fill in bubbles with a number 2 pencil.

Everyone should have to show a state ID to vote, no exceptions. Hell, if you want to, set the license bureau up a booth, and anybody who doesn't have a free state photo ID can walk over there and get a temporary one good for one day. Just so that they are checking everyone out.

That was part of the reason why I chuckled at all the election fraud allegations last time around. How can anyone even begin to claim there's more on one side than another? I went to vote in a major US city and I could have voted 100 times that day if I had decided to.



Thats how it happens in Iowa too in the smaller towns.

I hope the photo ID catch's on, on election day.

Garcia Bronco
06-05-2006, 03:01 PM
You must show ID to vote in my state...WTF are you guys doing out there?

bkkcoh
06-05-2006, 03:14 PM
You must show ID to vote in my state...WTF are you guys doing out there?


i don't see a problem with having to show photo id before you can vote. Why are the liberals so paranoid about that?????

jettio
06-05-2006, 05:07 PM
At lot of folks and groups are pissing and moaning about this.

They all claim it is going to “disenfranchise” (is this not one of the most overused political buzz words), to many of the underclass (read yellow dog democrats).

The claim is total bull crap, the cost of a State ID is minimal and the Ids are good for life unless you move.

If these folks can make it to the polls to vote they can make it to one of many locations to get a State ID, and while they are out there get a friggen Bank account. I do not understand how these people expect to operate effectively in the modern world without either (sorry just a pet peeve).

You would have to be incredibly naive to think that this bill was passed by republicans and opposed by democrats for any other reason than it is likely to reduce the number of democrat votes in the next few elections.

There is no proof of any problem that this legislation would solve. It is not as if the old ladies at the polling place have photos of the registered voters on their rolls to compare with the photo ID's displayed by the voter. And there is no permanent record of the photo ID or any electronic verification.

If there was any voter fraud before, this legislation does not do much to stop it.

It is not a matter of how burdensome it is, it is a matter of why pass this law without proof of a problem, and without proof that it would solve the supposed problem.

Another example of selfish stupidity.

Cochise
06-05-2006, 05:18 PM
If there was any voter fraud before, this legislation does not do much to stop it.


Ok. Wheras, I could have just said someone else's name and voted, now I would have to show a photo ID that matched the name. And that doesn't do anything?

Talk about obtuse :spock:

redbrian
06-05-2006, 05:50 PM
You would have to be incredibly naive to think that this bill was passed by republicans and opposed by democrats for any other reason than it is likely to reduce the number of democrat votes in the next few elections.

There is no proof of any problem that this legislation would solve. It is not as if the old ladies at the polling place have photos of the registered voters on their rolls to compare with the photo ID's displayed by the voter. And there is no permanent record of the photo ID or any electronic verification.

If there was any voter fraud before, this legislation does not do much to stop it.

It is not a matter of how burdensome it is, it is a matter of why pass this law without proof of a problem, and without proof that it would solve the supposed problem.

Another example of selfish stupidity.

You evidently know nothing about the situation in the city of St. Louis, where voter fraud is rampant. The old party line about voting early and often is not a myth in St. Louis City.

St. Louis if you didn’t know is a two party system, white Democrats and black Democrats.

Jackson County is also known to have a little voter fraud that would be solved by this simple solution (again a Democrat run system).

redbrian
06-05-2006, 05:51 PM
Bob Dole hopes you recognized the sarcasm in Bob Dole's post...

Sorry missed it and sadly it is under consideration.

Baby Lee
06-05-2006, 05:59 PM
You would have to be incredibly naive to think that this bill was passed by republicans and opposed by democrats for any other reason than it is likely to reduce the number of democrat votes in the next few elections.

There is no proof of any problem that this legislation would solve. It is not as if the old ladies at the polling place have photos of the registered voters on their rolls to compare with the photo ID's displayed by the voter. And there is no permanent record of the photo ID or any electronic verification.

If there was any voter fraud before, this legislation does not do much to stop it.

It is not a matter of how burdensome it is, it is a matter of why pass this law without proof of a problem, and without proof that it would solve the supposed problem.

Another example of selfish stupidity.
No, but now the fraudulent voter would have to phony up a photo ID for every time he/she voted.
People still arrive at the polls with their own face intact roughly on the front of their head, no?

penchief
06-05-2006, 06:43 PM
It is my view that this is unconstitutional unless the state picks up the cost for the ID's. It would amount to an unallowed poll tax prohibited by the 24th Amendment.

Apart from that issue, it might be a good idea to prevent voter fraud, though undoubtedly it affects Dems more than Repubs, since they are the ones that are most likely to not get off their a**es and follow the procedures.

I agree 100%. You know, I just crossed the border from the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania to the Southern Tier of Upstate New York and it cost me $42 to get a NY State drivers liscence. I nearly shit my pants. If they require ID cards and they charge for them it should be unconstitutional.

I don't know if anybody read Bobby Kennedy's story in Rolling Stone about the 2004 election but it is clear that when it comes to voting rights this country is trending in the wrong direction. Health care, education, and a political voice should not be restricted as priveleges for the those who can afford those ideals. IMO, they are inalienable rights.

By the way, can I still keep the name "penchief" even if I live in New York? My heart remains in the Alleghany Mountains of Northern PA.

Please, can I?

banyon
06-05-2006, 07:08 PM
I agree 100%. You know, I just crossed the border from the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania to the Southern Tier of Upstate New York and it cost me $42 to get a NY State drivers liscence. I nearly shit my pants. If they require ID cards and they charge for them it should be unconstitutional.

Read Bob Dole's Post. Mizzou is supposed to pay all of the fees. I revised my hasty analysis.

By the way, can I still keep the name "penchief" even if I live in New York? My heart remains in the Alleghany Mountains of Northern PA.

Please, can I?

I never knew it referred to PA. Shouldn't it have been PennChief? I thought it was like "the pen is mightier than the sword" and all that. :)

penchief
06-05-2006, 07:11 PM
Read Bob Dole's Post. Mizzou is supposed to pay all of the fees. I revised my hasty analysis.



I never knew it referred to PA. Shouldn't it have been PennChief? I thought it was like "the pen is mightier than the sword" and all that. :)

Well, I kinda lucked into that because pennchief was already taken. So when I came up with penchief I thought that handle was even better for the reason you stated. You were right to perceive it the way you did but I have to confess it didn't occur to me until I was initially denied.

DanT
06-05-2006, 07:44 PM
Here's an interesting article from www.vdare.com

Why Is Mexico’s Voter Registration System Better Than Ours? (http://www.vdare.com/awall/voter_registration.htm)

banyon
06-05-2006, 09:05 PM
Here's an interesting article from www.vdare.com

Why Is Mexico’s Voter Registration System Better Than Ours? (http://www.vdare.com/awall/voter_registration.htm)

Interesting article. We probably ought to implement some of the Mexican reforms. I think the photo ID rollbook is a great idea. Same with the thumb dye. Hey if it's good enough for the Iraqis, right?

Of course it doesn't address many of the voter fraud problems alleged by the other side. The Congressional Republicans have opposed the idea of a verifiable paper trail/receipt process for some time now. I don't think I've ever heard a great defense of why they aren't needed.

Listen to some of the lame -a** excuses proferred by the Distinguished Representatives of our Republic:

But Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, suggested that attaching printers to existing DREs could cause equipment problems on Election Day. "I'm leery of attaching [a printer] on the side," he said. "It seems we're adding a level of complexity."

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), the committee's ranking Democrat, objected because a paper-only verification system couldn't be used by the blind and some other people with disabilities.

"By insisting on paper, you're denying people who cannot read because they cannot see," Dodd said during a hearing attended by several people with disabilities. "I would vehemently oppose any legislation that excludes the ability of those people to have the right to the same thing that those who can read have."

jettio
06-05-2006, 09:11 PM
Ok. Wheras, I could have just said someone else's name and voted, now I would have to show a photo ID that matched the name. And that doesn't do anything?

Talk about obtuse :spock:

Maybe you ought to know a little something about something before you post about it.

A registered voter had to show some proof of identity, including non-photo form including the voter registration card sent to their address or a utility bill with their name and address on it.

jettio
06-05-2006, 09:17 PM
No, but now the fraudulent voter would have to phony up a photo ID for every time he/she voted.
People still arrive at the polls with their own face intact roughly on the front of their head, no?

If there was voter fraud before, someone would have to have created a false document before. It seems unlikely that one person could vote several times at the same polling place without the poll workers being lazy or complicit.

This law is based on false assumptions and a deliberate attempt to gain a short term election advantage.

jettio
06-05-2006, 09:28 PM
You evidently know nothing about the situation in the city of St. Louis, where voter fraud is rampant. The old party line about voting early and often is not a myth in St. Louis City.

St. Louis if you didn’t know is a two party system, white Democrats and black Democrats.

Jackson County is also known to have a little voter fraud that would be solved by this simple solution (again a Democrat run system).

How does this simple solution solve your problem?

patteeu
06-06-2006, 07:18 AM
Read Bob Dole's Post. Mizzou is supposed to pay all of the fees. I revised my hasty analysis.



I never knew it referred to PA. Shouldn't it have been PennChief? I thought it was like "the pen is mightier than the sword" and all that. :)

I thought it was from "penitentiary." I picture penchief as a big guy with bulging muscles from years of lifting weights in the prison yard who educated himself in the prison library. When he was released, he decided to put all that education to use by fighting to right all the system's wrongs that force people like him and his homies to fall into a life of crime and end up in prison.

banyon
06-06-2006, 09:15 AM
Maybe you ought to know a little something about something before you post about it.

A registered voter had to show some proof of identity, including non-photo form including the voter registration card sent to their address or a utility bill with their name and address on it.

So you agree that this is a step to make things more difficult for perpetrators of voter fraud?

It should be easier to switch a name on a non-photo ID than a photo one, correct?

When I was in college, I worked at a liquor store, spotting fake photo ID's is pretty easy for the most part, unless they are elaborately done.