First, there is the straightforward practical concern. As many as 3 million New York City voters do not have a driver’s license. Indeed, 1990 census data showed that less than 50 percent of New York City’s voting age residents had a driver’s license compared with 91 percent of the state’s residents overall.
Also, members of minority groups are far less likely to have a driver’s license than whites; recently naturalized citizens (and new immigrants from Puerto Rico) are also less likely to have a driver’s license.
-- That argument is based on the FALSE presupposition that a drivers license is the only photo ID that is acceptable to use for voting.
Of those 3 million....
- Do none of them drink? - you need a legal photo ID to buy alcohol or enter a bar
- Do none of them smoke? - you need a legal photo ID to purchase cigarettes
- Do none of them gamble in a casino? - most casinos require photo ID for their own protection against minors trying to gamble
- Do none of them have a library card? - The New York Public Library requires a photo ID before you or your child are allowed to obtain a card or use their public computers.
- Do none of have a savings or checking accounts, a mortgage, safety deposit box, etc.? - none of them be done without a legal photo ID
- Do none of them ever fly on a plane? - You are not allowed to board the plane without one, even if you have a ticket in your hand.
- Do none of them have prescriptions? - You can't pick up a prescription or purchase certain over-the-counter medications without a photo ID
- Do none of them have children in day cares? - Many day care centers require the person present a photo ID to pick up their child(ren)
- Do none of them have their taxes done by H&R Block or similar companies? - They won't even begin processing your taxes without a photo ID
- Do none of them rent an apartmentment? - Rental agencies require a valid photo ID before they will consider renting to someone
- Do none of them have post office boxes? - USPS, Fedex, and UPS all require a photo ID to allow someone to rent a box.
- Do none of them rent a hotel or motel room? - A valid photo ID along with a credit card is required to do that, even at a Super 8.
Obviously, the majority of 3 million people you speak of have SOME sort of legal gov't-accepted photo ID.
If not, they would not be able to do any of the things I listed above. And OF COURSE most if not all do more than one of them.
But how? Photo ID, of course.
--
U.S. or foreign national passport
--
U.S. passport card
--
U.S. active military or retired military I.D. card
--
Native American Tribal I.D. card
--
Matrícula Consular de Alta Seguridad (Given by the Mexican Consulate. They give them to illegals who can't use them to vote, but to do just about everything else on the list. But hey, Illegals aren't supposed to be voting anyway,)
--
Official state photo ID. Given through the DVM and is legal identification, but cannot be used to drive.
--
State approved ID, given for free through the courthouse for people who can validate their ID via 3 or more methods: birth certificate. Social Security card, bank statement less than 3 months old. Utility bill less than one month old. Current renter's contract,
--
Legal Immigrant ID. Issued by the State Dept. One of the requirements legal immigrants must agree to in order to get the ID and be allowed to remain in the United States is that they must carry the ID on them AT ALL TIMES.
Guess what? With the exception of the Matricula Consula de Alta Sguridad, a foreign passport and the State Dept. issued legal immigrant ID, every one of those IDs will allow you to vote.
Again, the article's argument has a false premise that people will only use a drivers license to vote.
For many of those potential voters, it may also prove onerous for them to have another valid form of identification handy when they go to the polls. This requirement, then, could depress the voting power of New York City and members of minority groups.
-- First off, it is no more "onerous" (burdensome, troublessome) than it is to carry the ID in order to buy cigarettes or enter a bar. Or any one of the other options I listed that you KNOW many of them do. ID in purse or wallet. Period. That's it. Problem solved.
I hate to break it to people, but having to carry a photo ID does not fall into the category or 'onerous.'
Second off, the United States Supreme Court has already decided that it is NOT an undo burden.
Liberal Justice Stevens, voting in the majority said The law
"is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'"
He also said that it did not put an undo burden on those wishing to vote.
As I said before, if you can't find the time in the nine and a half months before the Nov. elections to get a free gov't approved ID, then not being able to vote is a self-inflicted wound.
Second, application of the identification requirement is likely to create a host of problems. An identification requirement will require poll workers to use their discretion and judgment. More discretion and judgment will be required when the voters use a form of identification other than a driver’s license. Unfortunately, poll workers often get the rules wrong. The more complicated the rules, the more likely they will not be applied properly
-- Another specious argument.
When I was a poll worker in 2010 (and sat with my wife who was one in 2008) each and every poll worker was given a 3 or 4 page document with color examples of every single type of acceptable voter ID.
-- That state's drivers license (front and back)
-- That state's legal non-license ID (front and back)
-- Military ID, both active duty and retired (front and back)
-- Tribal Indian IDs (front and back) there were four examples for the four federally recognized tribes
-- American passport (photo page and front cover) and passport card (front and back)
It was stressed that college IDs, work IDs, organization IDs (even Red Cross and VFW) are not allowed as legal ID, even if they are photo IDs.
Must be government issued and approved.
If you can't handle even that much responsibility, you really shouldn't be a poll worker.
– and this set of rules could seem complicated. A study of New York City’s 2001 general election by the New York Public Interest Research Group demonstrated that most poll workers did not know basic rules about where someone should vote if they moved or who could help a disabled person vote. This suggests that poll workers will not be able to apply an identification requirement properly.
-- See previous response.
The integrity of the vote is important enough to ensure the validity of the voter.
The i.d. requirement also creates opportunities for discriminatory treatment. African-Americans have a history of being subjected to special scrutiny at the polling place – as have members of other minority groups and recently naturalized citizens. Stories abounded in Duval County, Florida of African-American voters being asked to show a form of identification – sometimes two – while white voters were allowed to sign in without presenting any i.d. Similarly, a survey conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense Fund found that in the 2001 New York City general election one in six Asian voters was improperly asked to show identification before voting.
-- You miss the obvious point that the new law would actually help eliminate this issue.
These descriminatory practices have nothing to do with the current law we are discussing and if the new law is enforced, every person (regardless of race) that had a legal photo ID would be allowed to vote. Period. These shenanigans would stop.
Most polling stations have multiple workers. If one tries to pull the garbage listed in the article, others can be approached to have it addressed.
Some polling stations have police stationed there. Some have police frequent throughout the day. They are no more than a phone call away.
But again, NONE of that has to do with the voter ID law, although the law itself will go a long way to addressing that issue.
If you show up and want to vote, you present a legal photo ID. Period.
Finally, there is no evidence that such a rule is needed. In even the closest elections, there is rarely any evidence of voter fraud at the polls. And, the experience of states with same-day voter registration suggests that identification is not needed to protect against fraud.
As you can see, not one of these main reasons to not have the requirement for voter ID holds water.
-- I assume you the author is serious and not trying to be clever.
Their argument is immediately negated by one.......simple.......fact:
If you do not check the ID of people who show up to vote and just take their word on it,
you have no way of knowing if they actually had the legal right to vote.
Translation: They have no way of knowing just how frequent voter fraud occurs.
And since it has been documented as occuring, only a dishonest or none-too-bright person would claim that it has only occured when it was caught.
Bush won FL by 537 votes. Voter fraud could have easily changed that outcome.
Less than 200 people spread across the entire state of FL managing to vote just 3 times (large cities have dozens to over a hundred different polling stations to go between) or just 538 people voting illegally JUST ONCE anywhere in the state.........could have changed the course of history.
(And please spare me the "Bush stole the FL election" rant. Time, Newsweek, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times all paid for their own individual recounts after the results were certified and each and every one acknowledged that Bush won.)
To sum up, the US Supreme Court has already determined that there is no undo burden on a person required to present a legal ID in order to vote.
The article presents arguments that hold no water.
Voter fraud DOES happen. Chicago and Daley's sanctioned "vote early, vote often" practices are just one example.
People talk about "disenfranchisement" but they ignore the fact that one of the greatest disenfranchisements is the fact that your vote can be negated by someone who legally has no right to cast a ballot or is casting multiple ballots.
The integrity of the vote is too important to not ensure that only those entitled to vote are the ones voting.
.
