Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral) Hero Supreme Court decides it's not the end of the world if you have to show ID to vote in Arizona   (azcentral.com) divider line
142
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

591 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Oct 2006 at 7:42 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



142 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
MorrisBird
2006-10-21 6:40:30 PM  
Submitter is an asshat, and Arizona should be ashamed.
 
Nerdlinger
2006-10-21 6:42:52 PM  
They did no such thing. They said that the court of appeals made a procedural error.
There was no judgement on whether having to show ID is good or bad.
 
capecodcarl
2006-10-21 6:58:38 PM  
MorrisBird: Submitter is an asshat, and Arizona should be ashamed.

Why would you not support a law that required you to prove your identity before being allowed to vote? If we are to take elections seriously we must ensure that the people voting are legitimate citizens with a right to vote in that election.
 
mattharvest
2006-10-21 7:06:30 PM  
Arizona should be proud that they're trying to keep illegal immigrants and non-citizens from voting.

If you expect to be able to go to a voting booth and say "I'm and I want to vote for ", you'd better have proof of the first part.

I find it amazing that there are people who think you shouldn't need to identify yourself as a citizen in order to invoke a right that attaches only to citizens.
 
Abagadro
2006-10-21 7:06:47 PM  
Over-voting by impostors is not a big problem in elections. It simply isn't. I defy anyone to prove otherwise. In GA they had a big fight about this in court and the side fighting for ID was able to produce one case where someone thought it had happened.

ID laws are just a voter suppression technique.
 
TheChaz
2006-10-21 7:12:27 PM  
Some farker put this very well last night. If Arizona makes getting a photo ID free then this can pass the smell test, otherwise, you're attempting to supress the poor from voting, and yes $10 is too much to pay for an ID when you can't feed your family.
 
zn0k
2006-10-21 7:24:10 PM  
ID laws are in place in pretty much every other western country.

of course, IDs are usually free there, too. mainly because other countries tend to have national IDs you're more or less required to carry.
 
d3ik
2006-10-21 7:27:47 PM  
Abagadro

It's not an issue of over-voting. It's an issue of illegal immigrants voting when they have no right to. I grew up in Arizona. I lived there for almost 20 years. Illegal immigration is a huge problem there and this is a provision to curb the influence that illegal immigrant vote has over elected officials.

And before anyone says "Illegal immigrants don't vote"... when I was 16 I worked at Fazoli's (fast food italian place) in Tempe. There were a few illegal immigrants that worked in the kitchen. I talked to them occasionally and they: didn't pay taxes, had no moral dilemma about going to the hospital when they got sick (and not paying), all of their children were enrolled in school (even though they didn't speak English) and to top it off one day they were talking about how their entire family was going to go vote against a politicians that was campaigning on the platform of cracking down on illegal immigration because "that would hurt their family".

Ya know what hurts my family? People leeching off of my tax dollars. I have absolutely no problem with immigrants as long as they go through the process legally.

There is a tight rope to walk with asking people for ID. We don't want to turn into a "papers, please" society (more so) but for anyone who hasn't lived in a border state please take my word for it. Arizona needs a law like this.
 
Nerdlinger
2006-10-21 7:38:30 PM  
d3ik: And before anyone says "Illegal immigrants don't vote"...

Well, I was going to say that they shouldn't be on the rolls to vote in the first place. Every place I've ever voted I had to provide my name and address which they verified against a list of registered voters.
 
Weaver95
2006-10-21 7:42:06 PM  
Good. this is one of the few instances where I think we SHOULD have some sort of mandatory ID check in place. And each and every last one of you diebold conspiracy wackjobs better be supporting mandatory photo ID's for voters.
 
Nerdlinger
2006-10-21 7:46:42 PM  
Weaver95: Good. this is one of the few instances where I think we SHOULD have some sort of mandatory ID check in place. And each and every last one of you diebold conspiracy wackjobs better be supporting mandatory photo ID's for voters.

I have no beef with it. So long as the government provides them to you for free.
 
Opiate of the Lasses
2006-10-21 7:49:01 PM  
Lots of seemingly good laws are stuck down for their pernicious agendas and horrible effects. As someone said, if the ID cards were free, and there was a good way to make sure every adult with voting rights had easy acess to getting them then this would be cool.

Sure you get rid of the illegal immigrants, but this is nothing but a poor people vote suppression. I live in Cali, and maybe for us border states they're willing to discourage hundreds of poor Americans so maybe thousands of illegal immigrants can't vote. It's probably practical, but still unconstitutional. Find a better way that isn't so...eg my earlier suggestion


/who votes doesn't matter anyways
//it's who counts the votes
 
vegetable raygun
2006-10-21 7:50:24 PM  
How about DNA samples? It's just a q-tip swab to the cheek, not at all invasive.
 
Comrade438
2006-10-21 7:54:21 PM  
Why do you hate zombies and illegals, Arizona? Why do you hate America?
 
Abagadro
2006-10-21 8:02:23 PM  
Once again, over-voting (which is people voting who aren't entitled to) not the other kind (i.e. voting for more than one candidate on a ballot) is not a big problem. Sorry, but I think your little annecdote is likely quite embellished and (even if it isn't) the registration mechanisms in place prevent it from happening just fine. Don't believe me? Go to a precinct you know you are not registered at and try to vote.
 
Descartes
2006-10-21 8:06:01 PM  
The Supreme Court made the right decision.

Maybe it's not that big a problem, but it's one problem that will be solved.
 
birdboy2000
2006-10-21 8:06:46 PM  
Sure, it's fine.

IF the state provides the necessary ID free of charge to all citizens.

/A poll tax by any other name...
 
Descartes
2006-10-21 8:07:56 PM  
birdboy2000: IF the state provides the necessary ID free of charge to all citizens.


I agree with you there.
Every state law I've seen has included free ID for voters who don't have a driver's license.
 
Nerdlinger
2006-10-21 8:12:16 PM  
Descartes: The Supreme Court made the right decision.

Perhaps. I'd have to assume they know procedural issues better than I do.
Again, they made no ruling on the constitutionality of the law.
 
Abagadro
2006-10-21 8:16:46 PM  
Descartes: Maybe it's not that big a problem, but it's one problem that will be solved.


Likely at the cost of disenfranchising people who are entitled to vote. When the cost exceeds the benefit, it is bad policy.
 
h to the 'ojo
2006-10-21 8:20:25 PM  
I have voted in Arizona. Five times. In one day. When I was passing through on vacation.
 
Descartes
2006-10-21 8:22:46 PM  
Abagadro: Likely at the cost of disenfranchising people who are entitled to vote.


If voters would be disenfranchised, the SC wouldn't let the law stand.
Nice try though, play again sometime!
 
DogLee
2006-10-21 8:24:30 PM  
Anyone that says this is going to cause poor people not to vote is full of BS. How can you not have a Drivers License? If you dont drive most states offer an ID that can be used.
 
Abagadro
2006-10-21 8:26:06 PM  
Descartes: If voters would be disenfranchised, the SC wouldn't let the law stand.
Nice try though, play again sometime!


That is completely false. Maybe you should RTFA. It wasn't a substantive decision. It was procedural based on the standards for issuing a pre-trial injunction.

Placing impediments to voting always increases the rate at which those who are entitled to vote are denied the ability to vote. Someone forgets their ID or can't get one in time or can't take the day off of work to go get one, etc. etc. etc. Voting hurdles are always unintentionally overinclusive in practice.
 
DogLee
2006-10-21 8:33:39 PM  
Abagadro
Placing impediments to voting always increases the rate at which those who are entitled to vote are denied the ability to vote. Someone forgets their ID or can't get one in time or can't take the day off of work to go get one, etc. etc. etc. Voting hurdles are always unintentionally overinclusive in practice.
BS. Try those excuses when a cop stops you and asks for you license.
 
Descartes
2006-10-21 8:35:46 PM  
Abagadro: Placing impediments to voting always increases the rate at which those who are entitled to vote are denied the ability to vote. Someone forgets their ID or can't get one in time or can't take the day off of work to go get one, etc. etc. etc. Voting hurdles are always unintentionally overinclusive in practice.


*sigh*

Registering to vote is an impediment by your standard.
Having to go to the polling place is an impediment.
Snow on election day is an impediment.
Standing in line is an impediment.
EVERYTHING is an impediment when you get to it.

*sigh*

If you can go to the trouble of voting, you can go to the trouble of meeting a minor standard to help prevent fraud. And if you are driving to the election place and you don't have your license on you then you are probably too stupid to vote anyways.

As long as the State provides a free ID that is acceptable or has other means of proof other than a driver's license, I have no problem with this law.
 
Abagadro
2006-10-21 8:36:38 PM  
DogLee: BS. Try those excuses when a cop stops you and asks for you license.

There is a clear difference between driving and voting so those two circumstances are in no way equivalent.
 
Abagadro
2006-10-21 8:41:17 PM  
Descartes: EVERYTHING is an impediment when you get to it.

That is correct if you want to frame it that way (although snow is a rather force majeure circumstance so is somewhat silly to include). So the issue is whether the impediment is justified, both legally and theoretically under a theory of democracy. Voter ID laws generally has two consequences:

1) It makes it harder for people who are entitled to vote to vote. This really can't be argued.

2) It addresses a "problem" that really doesn't exist in any significant form. The marginal benefit of voting by someone who isn't entitled to is so overwhelmingly outweighed by both its inefficacy in changing an electoral outcome and the potential penalty that it simply doesn't happen very much (if at all).

If you balance those two out it doesn't make any sense from a public policy perspective. Your costs outweigh your benefits.
 
DogLee
2006-10-21 8:42:31 PM  
Abagadro: The post above by Descartes said it better than I could. You are a troll anyway.
 
Abagadro
2006-10-21 8:43:34 PM  
I am a troll? Why? Because I disagree with you?
 
rush22
2006-10-21 8:46:21 PM  
Descartes

How is fraud currently prevented in Arizona elections?
 
Descartes
2006-10-21 8:47:03 PM  
Abagadro: 1) It makes it harder for people who are entitled to vote to vote. This really can't be argued.

2) It addresses a "problem" that really doesn't exist in any significant form. The marginal benefit of voting by someone who isn't entitled to is so overwhelmingly outweighed by both its inefficacy in changing an electoral outcome and the potential penalty that it simply doesn't happen very much (if at all).


1) In the vast, vast majority of cases it makes it no more difficult to vote. This really can't be argued.

2) It addresses a problem that is of grave concern to many. The benefit of making sure that votes are cast only by the correct voter outweighs any marginal difficulties imposed by such a system.

If you balance those two out it makes a lot of sense from a public policy prospective.
The benefits sooooooooo outweigh the costs.

/We may as well agree to disagree.
//Have a nice night!
 
Abagadro
2006-10-21 8:52:54 PM  
Descartes: 1) In the vast, vast majority of cases it makes it no more difficult to vote. This really can't be argued.

2) It addresses a problem that is of grave concern to many. The benefit of making sure that votes are cast only by the correct voter outweighs any marginal difficulties imposed by such a system.


There are really two issues with #1. First, we don't define public policy by how it affects "the majority." In fact, just the opposite is the case. Second, in addition to the administrative hurdle, you are also providing a mechanism by which poll workers can use improper discretion. They are in a position demand documentation greater than what is required by the law. This is what happened to a large degree in the South. If we had no history of such shenanigans it would be one thing. Since we do we should be extra vigilant about letting it happen again.

As for #2, public confidence in the electoral process is indeed an important thing to be protected. However, if that confidence is only at stake because of misinformation among the electorate, the proper course of action is not to create a solution without a problem (which has the added bonus of creating even more problems) but instead to educate the public on the reality of the situation.
 
hogans
2006-10-21 8:56:42 PM  
The way the average "citizen" thinks these days, I wouldn't mind seeing voting restricted to landowners again.
 
The Reverend Smith
2006-10-21 8:57:12 PM  
MorrisBird: Arizona should be ashamed.


That's right. Any swingin' dick who walks in the door should be given a ballot, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
 
Quadruplator
2006-10-21 9:12:39 PM  
This is common sense, I have no idea why people are offended. What I think is strange though is that Americans (I think) have to register to vote. What's up with that?
 
Torc
2006-10-21 9:14:10 PM  
Maybe they could just ask Diebold to count the poor votes as 3/5s a person.
 
dustman81
2006-10-21 9:14:53 PM  
In Ohio, we're doing the same thing starting Nov. 7th. I say it's about time. Before then, you could say you were any registered voter, sign their name and take their ballot. Now you actually have to prove who you say you are.

And to those who say "what about those without IDs?", who doesn't have a drivers' license or state ID card if they are over the age of 18. In order to function in society, you have to have one of these two cards or else you couldn't board a plane, write a check, open a bank account, apply for a job or purchase cigarettes or alcohol.

State ID cards are very cheap to get. They're $8 here in Ohio and valid for 4 years. If you can't afford $8, you need to reconsider your priorities.
 
dustman81
2006-10-21 9:17:40 PM  
Quadruplator: What I think is strange though is that Americans (I think) have to register to vote. What's up with that?

Yes, in most states, Americans have to register to vote. This is to ensure that:
1 - They are qualified to vote (US Citizen and over 18)
2 - That they don't go from polling place to polling place and cast multiple votes
 
Nerdlinger
2006-10-21 9:19:35 PM  
dustman81: Before then, you could say you were any registered voter, sign their name and take their ballot. Now you actually have to prove who you say you are.

And how many times has this happened? A rough figure will do...

In order to function in society, you have to have one of these two cards or else you couldn't board a plane, write a check, open a bank account, apply for a job or purchase cigarettes or alcohol.

None of which are constitutionally guaranteed rights.

State ID cards are very cheap to get. They're $8 here in Ohio and valid for 4 years. If you can't afford $8, you need to reconsider your priorities.

They could cost the voter just a penny, and they would still run afoul of previous rulings regarding the constitutionality of poll taxes.
 
Torc
2006-10-21 9:28:21 PM  
dustman81

In Ohio... where if Kenneth Blackwell, the Secretary of State was any more corrupt, you'd hear pizzicato strings and a sinister "mwuh-hah-hah-hah" whenever he entered a room.

...we're doing the same thing starting Nov. 7th. I say it's about time. Before then, you could say you were any registered voter, sign their name and take their ballot, which would then be compared with the signature on record to verify the ballot was valid.

You're outlawing absentee ballots too, right? I mean, those are no more secure than provisional ballots are.
 
Misch [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-10-21 9:28:45 PM  
Descartes: Every state law I've seen has included free ID for voters who don't have a driver's license.


And an easy means to get to the place that issues them?

Case in point, right after the Help America (not) Vote Act passed, Republican county clerk Maggie Brooks made the decision to close the last remaining NYS DMV location in downtown Rochester, a farily strong Democratic area. The nearest DMV office was probably an hours ride away via public transportation. And, since the DMV office are typically open uring the day, you would essentially be disenfranchising the working poor in the city of Rochester.
 
Lehk
2006-10-21 9:30:08 PM  
zn0k: required to carry.

may i see your papers?

dustman81: State ID cards are very cheap to get. They're $8 here in Ohio and valid for 4 years. If you can't afford $8, you need to reconsider your priorities.

if you can't afford $8 every 4 years your judgement is probabl;y bad enough you shouldn't be voting anyways
 
The Reverend Smith
2006-10-21 9:32:20 PM  
Nerdlinger: They could cost the voter just a penny, and they would still run afoul of previous rulings regarding the constitutionality of poll taxes.


Or you could not ask for ID and completely ignore the 26th Amendment.

(Which is an actual amendment and not just a ruling).
 
El_Perro
2006-10-21 9:34:52 PM  
dustman81: And to those who say "what about those without IDs?", who doesn't have a drivers' license or state ID card if they are over the age of 18. In order to function in society, you have to have one of these two cards or else you couldn't board a plane, write a check, open a bank account, apply for a job or purchase cigarettes or alcohol.

You don't have a constitutional right to board a plane, write a check, open a bank account, apply for a job or purchase cigarettes or alcohol. Voting is different.

State ID cards are very cheap to get. They're $8 here in Ohio and valid for 4 years. If you can't afford $8, you need to reconsider your priorities.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
 
El_Perro
2006-10-21 9:37:24 PM  
The Reverend Smith:

Or you could not ask for ID and completely ignore the 26th Amendment.

How would not asking for ID be ignoring the 26th amendment?

(Which is an actual amendment and not just a ruling)

As is the 24th amendment, which abolishes poll taxes.
 
EconAtheist
2006-10-21 9:37:38 PM  
I love how the authoritarian douchebags come out in full force for these threads.
 
Nerdlinger
2006-10-21 9:38:06 PM  
The Reverend Smith: Or you could not ask for ID and completely ignore the 26th Amendment.

Yeah... the age restriction is taken care of when you register to vote. If you were at least 18 then, you will be at least 18 from that point on -- you know, with time being monotonically increasing and all that.
 
Torc
2006-10-21 9:38:52 PM  
The Reverend Smith

Wow, what kind of logic allows you to interpret 'you can't prevent people from voting' to mean 'you can use the lack of immediate documentation to prevent people from voting'
 
Quadruplator
2006-10-21 9:39:12 PM  
dustman81
Thanks for your answer. I'm so used to our slacker-friendly system in Sweden I first couldn't make sense of yours. All we have to do is show up with an ID and they already know if you're allowed to vote or not.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come on, it's $10 a month, just do it.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.