SCOTUS: AZ Voters Must Show ID To Vote November 7th

Yesterday the US Supreme Court vacated a Lower 9th Circuit court Decision that had blocked Arizona's new voter law (better known as Proposition 200) and stated that AZ can require that anyone who desires to vote must show proof of US Citizenship as well as a Photo I.D. on November 7th. However, in the unsigned ruling the US Supreme Court made it very clear they were not ruling on the constitutionality issue of the law, that is expected to take place in December according to some sources. Earlier this year several groups filed lawsuits that claimed the new law (Prop 200) disenfranchised poor, minority and the elderly, voters.



I do not know the laws for most areas but proof of citizenship has always been required anywhere I have ever voted. I also know that the vast majority of individuals in the US over the age of 18 carry some form of State Photo I.D. It might be a Driver License or State I.D. simply because many businesses now require some form of Photo I.D. for one reason or another i.e., to buy Beer, to get certain prescriptions filled, to get served alcohol and or buy tobacco products. Hell, you cannot even cash a check without showing a DL anymore; we all know that as fact.

None of us want to see voter fraud either, so what better way then to require proof of citizenship and a Photo I.D.?

Now can anyone give me a valid reason why so many are making such a big deal out requiring a photo I.D. to vote?

And please do not give me the they are too poor bit because we already know that most have either a state photo I.D. or DL for the reasons stated above.


Related News Links:
wcbstv.com
www.kvoa.com
www.earthtimes.org

[edit on 10/21/2006 by shots]

[edit on 10/22/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

This seems like a no brainer to me...you need an ID to buy liquor & cigarettes, drive, and many other reasons; here the vary sanctity of our democracy is at stake. The fact that the Supreme Court stepped in right before the election to allow Arizona to enforce the law before it could come up with a full written opinion is a sure sign that the law will be upheld mostly if not fully intact. They probably just are trying to come up with a consensus legal opinion not some 5-4 ruling.

Ill answer a question with a question. Why make a law if you already need proof to vote? If you need some sort of ID before, why make a new law? If you have never met anyone that was able to vote without some sort of ID, then why was this needed?

edit:

proof of citizenship has always been required anywhere I have ever voted.

Im addressing that statement. Either they didnt have a law that required any ID to vote (pretty unbelievable in this time and age), or their is some other reason. WHY was this law made, and who is it effecting that it wasn't effecting before. If you were already required to be a registered voter, and register needs ID, why is this law needed? What is it changing from before?

[edit on 21-10-2006 by grimreaper797]

You don't need an ID in New York (at least the city), you just have to tell them your name and sign next it in a book so no one votes twice.

But if you know your neighbor's name and they died or recently moved or something, I'm sure you could go in easily and vote twice.

And it varies from State to state, I'm sure but usually you just need show an ID once when you first register if at all and that ID (like many drivers' licenses) don't prove your citizenship as some states issue drivers' license without needing that.

[edit on 10/21/2006 by djohnsto77]

You don't need an ID in New York (at least the city), you just have to tell them your name and sign next it in a book so no one votes twice.

But if you know your neighbor's name and they died or recently moved or something, I'm sure you could go in easily and vote twice.

I'm going to look that up right now. If thats true then thats pretty shocking considering how easily corruptable that is. I can understand why birth certificate or something of proof would be needed if this were the case. I just wasn't aware such a lack of protection for our elections were happening now.

even a small card that ceritifies you registered to vote would be fine. Just a card that says "I am a registered voter" and has your name on it.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by grimreaper797]

But if you know your neighbor's name and they died or recently moved or something, I'm sure you could go in easily and vote twice.

Odd you should mention that DJ, the last presidential election when I went to vote I gave one girl my name and she gave the girl next to her a number and the other one asked Paul (not real Name) or shots and I said what; Paul has been dead for five years, what is his name still doing on the List? Needless to say I had to take a death certificate for my father to prove he was dead in so his name could be removed from the list. Now had we not been required to show our IDs I could very easily have walked in later in the day and voted again. That kind of stuff truly needs to end.

[edit on 10/21/2006 by shots]

Now can anyone give me a valid reason why so many are making such a big deal out requiring a photo I.D. to vote?

There are groups that want to stuff the ballot box, harder to do with an ID.

Roper

From what I can tell, the objections come primarily from those with roots in the Clinton-Gore camp, and the continuing belief that the only reason the Democratic party keeps losing elections is because not enough people are voting. Ever since Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act, aka Motor Voter, voter fraud has shown a marked increase.

www.cato.org...

In the short time since Election 2000, we have seen startling new evidence of the disorder of registration rolls in several states. In Indiana, for example, the Indianapolis Star looked closely at the rolls. They concluded that tens of thousands of people appear on the voter rolls more than once, that more than 300 dead people were registered, and that three convicted killers and two convicted child molesters were on the rolls. In general, experts believe one in five names on the rolls in Indiana do not belong there. A recent study in Georgia found more than 15,000 dead people on active voting rolls statewide. Alaska, according to Federal Election Commission, had 502,968 names on its voter rolls in 1998. The census estimates only 437,000 people of voting age were living in the state that year. Similar studies in other states would no doubt return similar data.

Obviously this testimony contains some hypotheticals, but if you read the entire statement I think the facts are clear. This act undermined the ability of states to reliably and strictly enforce voter registration. It's about time for common sense to prevail.

Mr. Chairman, judged by its purposes, the National Voter Registration Act should be judged a failure. The Act has brought about a substantial increase in the number of registered voters. However, that increase has been bought at a high price. Specifically, the Act has made it difficult if not impossible to maintain clean registration rolls, a major purpose of the law. Moreover, the inaccuracy in the rolls caused by the Act has thrown into doubt the integrity of our electoral system. Finally, the Act has also failed to achieve its other purpose of increasing voter turnout. In sum, the National Voter Registration Act has provided few of its promised benefits and imposed significant costs on the nation. For that reason, "Motor Voter" seems ripe for reform.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by apc]

Originally posted by apc
Ever since Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act, aka Motor Voter, voter fraud has shown a marked increase.

Exactly.

A months ago I saw a British journalist on TV who said she showed her British Passport and Drivers' license to get a drivers' license in the state she moved to work for the BBC or whatever and was quite surprised to get something in the mail a few weeks later telling her she was automatically registered to vote, told her where to go, gave her whatever documentation she needed, and said something like "See you in November!"

It's the same here in Wisconsin. You register once, and from then on all you have to do is state your name and you can vote. They cross you off next to your address. In Milwaukee there are many cases of people going to vote and being told they have already voted because someone used their name. Now that's being disenfranchised. We've had plenty of voter fraud here over the last eight years. Both parties say the other is responsible. The Democrats fight tooth and nail to stop laws requiring a photo ID. The Governor, Jim Doyle, uses the elderly as his reason to prevent such a law. He states it is too difficult for them to get ID. Trots his own mother out there as proof.

It's funny, because my elderly mother has an ID which wasn't hard to get. She lived with us for four years and then moved to assisted living. For three years, every time my wife and I voted after she no longer lived with us, her name would be in the voters list under our address. Someone could have come in and voted under her name no questions asked. We told them every time, and it only took three elections to get her name removed.

Wisconsin elections are very screwed up. An ID law would help quite a bit, IMHO.

back in'90-'97 the AZ voter proof & procedures were lax enough so it wasn't a ordeal to register
and there were voter polls not more than 10minutes away in any direction
(that's in Phoenix & burbs in my experience)...

At that time, i thought the SC system was antiquated compared to AZ

the "current" Identification requirement, which involves proving in some way
your American citizenship, may not be for just keeping undocumented
aliens or felons from voting.
The requirement for new/current photo-Identification could be more concerned with
a proxy census and getting the newer 'swipeable' photo-IDs into circulation...
+ collecting all the seeming unimportant info you are required to volunteer , so an ID can be issued to You.

There is another angle into getting the masses to volunteer data mining information,
and that is "conditioning" the population...
then there is also the angle that the feds or state agencies are 'creating' a need
for counterfiet IDs to be produced and distributed...
and these (state/fed) covert operations are actually busy tracking those supply sources,
but remaining at a discreet distance- - to see what other operations &
networks these providers are connected with (i.e. drugs, people smuggling, guns,
terrorist cells, money laundering, etc etc)

originally posted by shots
Now can anyone give me a valid reason why so many are making such a big deal out requiring a photo I.D. to vote?

And please do not give me the they are too poor bit because we already know that most have either a state photo I.D. or DL for the reasons stated above.

To answer the second part first, cost is not a factor, since states will provide an ID free of charge. The state of Georgia even offered to drive to your home to provide the ID to you.

To answer the first part of your question, some candidates could not get elected if not for the fraudulent "votes".

There is only one answer to the system:

Personal verification,

The voter rolls should have a file with everyones name and S.S. number, then when you arrive to vote, you punch in your number to verify your identity to the election officials. If you fail to vote once, you are removed from the voter rolls and a series of postcards are sent out, if you fail to reregister you remain OFF of the rolls. This could be enhanced by adding the human touch, your thumbprint, which many DMV have.

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
There is only one answer to the system:

Personal verification,

The voter rolls should have a file with everyones name and S.S. number, then when you arrive to vote, you punch in your number to verify your identity to the election officials. If you fail to vote once, you are removed from the voter rolls and a series of postcards are sent out, if you fail to reregister you remain OFF of the rolls. This could be enhanced by adding the human touch, your thumbprint, which many DMV have.

ok how do we plan to pay for that and put it into wide spread use? sure we can all come up with ideas, but is it economical, and can it be done?

Originally posted by jsobecky
To answer the first part of your question, some candidates could not get elected if not for the fraudulent "votes".

jsobecky,
That really is not an answer to the question I asked, but an opinion and one that I agree with.

What I am looking for is a Valid reason or reasons not the trumped up excuses like the poor cannot afford them etc. Honestly I doubt anyone can give one, but I am willing to see what others might think are valid a reason.

Also for clarity the phrase "with your phone number on it anymore;" in the comments section should be removed from the comments section I used it thinking of checks with phone numbers on them by mistake rather then just DL as it should have read.

[edit on 10/22/2006 by shots]

shots

I know, it was just my opinion, and I knew you would call me on it. But the fact is, it is the truth.

The question is, does the requirement to have a valid gov't issued picture ID pass the "reasonable person" test in order to vote? I say it does. Try as I might, I have not been able to come up with any valid reason why such an ID should not be necessary.

Originally posted by jsobecky
shots

I know, it was just my opinion, and I knew you would call me on it.

But the fact is, it is the truth.

The question is, does the requirement to have a valid gov't issued picture ID pass the "reasonable person" test in order to vote? I say it does. Try as I might, I have not been able to come up with any valid reason why such an ID should not be necessary.

alright well if its a New ID how do we decide what does or doesn't go on it, and how do we pay for it if its not something we already have (bith cirtificate, drivers license, etc.).

If I'm not mistaken many states do not have ANY ID requirements for absentee voting, seems to me that those claiming hardship in getting ID could bypass the whole matter by requesting one of those.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
alright well if its a New ID how do we decide what does or doesn't go on it, and how do we pay for it if its not something we already have (bith cirtificate, drivers license, etc.).

I wouldn't want anything more than is necessary to prove the person's ID on it. That would include a photograph and maybe a signature. No biometric data, at this time.

It would be paid for with general revenues. It is necessary, however, to have a gov't issued ID, to minimize fraud, and would require the traditional means of proving one's ID to obtain it.

originally posted by Phoenix
If I'm not mistaken many states do not have ANY ID requirements for absentee voting, seems to me that those claiming hardship in getting ID could bypass the whole matter by requesting one of those.

Yes, you are right, absentee ballots represent the most prevalent instances of voter fraud. This loophole must be addressed also.

Originally posted by jsobecky

I wouldn't want anything more than is necessary to prove the person's ID on it. That would include a photograph and maybe a signature. No biometric data, at this time.

It would be paid for with general revenues. It is necessary, however, to have a gov't issued ID, to minimize fraud, and would require the traditional means of proving one's ID to obtain it.

my main question is, will we spend MORE money making all these new ID's? we are already spending like no tomorrow, are we just going to add this to the spending pot? Taxes going up to pay for this?