babsbunny (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 08:33 AM
Original message
Ohio bill would require photo ID at the polls (here we go.......)
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news...
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 08:19 AM
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A state House panel is considering a bill that would require Ohio voters to show a photo ID before they can cast a ballot.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x722706 You have to consider practicality here. This ID requirement is just unreasonable. When a bus chartered by SEIU, or NEA, or NPR, or AFL/CIO with say, seventy people on board stops at ten Cuyahoga County precincts, each of these people have to vote under ten different names. Well, the union can take care of that, supply each of them with the name for each precinct, and a letter ID. But if you require photos, it makes the job unreasonably expensive and difficult. Especially since a lot of the bus riders will have been recruited off the sidewalk on the morning of Election Day.
Bluerthanblue (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. same thing has been proposed here in NH.
It's a concerted effort-
DUmmy Bluerthanblue means "coordinated" effort, but so what? The smartest person on all the internets didn't know the meaning of "parenteral".
zbdent (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. why is it that, if getting something done (which nominally might be considered a victory for a Dem/Libs) took forever, was fought tooth and nail by Republicans/Cons, was attacked in the media, was considered "rammed down our throats" (by the "liberally-biased media"), since it had Obama's backing ...
and yet, the Republicans have done more damage to this country in their first 100 days of power, and nobody in the "liberally-biased media" calls it what it is ... RAMMING THEIR CRAP DOWN OUR THROATS???
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. Gottah keep poor people away from the polls somehow.
Fail to give them the day off? Check!
Disenfranchise felons? Check!
Abolish Acorn? Check!
Purge the registration lists? Check!
Photo ID requirement? Working on it.
Poll taxes? Literacy tests? Warrant checks? Ending secret ballots? Give us some time.
And the problem here is......?
Scuba (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. Actually the bill is more explicit than that....
...it has to be a picture of a white male in front of property he owns, preferably a McMansion in a gated community.
Sweet! Now that right there is a change I can believe in.
mod mom (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. OSU Election Law Prof: bill about DISENFRANCHISEMENT
Ohio's New Disenfranchisement Bill
Daniel P. Tokaji
Professor of Law; Associate Director, Election Law @ Moritz
Moritz College of Law
In 2004, Ohio became infamous for making it difficult to vote and have one’s vote counted. Much of the criticism was directed at then-Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Remember his directive to reject registration forms on less than 80-pound paper weight?
Now, Ohio House Republicans are attempting to go further than Blackwell ever dared. In an obvious attempt to gain an advantage in the 2012 presidential election, they are attempting to rush through a bill (HB 159) that would make it more difficult for eligible citizens to have their votes counted. Ohio already has a tough voter ID law, but the proposed bill would make the burden on eligible citizens more onerous, requiring that in-person voters present one of four specified forms of government-issued photo identification.
What’s so bad about voter ID? The basic problem is that many eligible citizens don’t have the types of ID that the bill would require. While it’s hard to say exactly how many will be discouraged from voting, we do know that some segments of the population will be especially hard hit – particularly young, elderly, disabled, and minority voters. These groups are much less likely to have the types of ID that Ohio’s new bill would mandate.
That deal about 80-pound paper was specifically written into the law by a democrat legislature decades earlier. Blackwell was sworn to enforce the law. The rest of this whine is the usual liberal garbage of "Disaster! Disaster! Women and minorities hardest hit!"
Beacool (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
7. I don't see the problem.
What's wrong with being asked to present some form of ID when going to vote?
A valid driver's license should suffice. For those who do not drive, most DMVs issue ID cards. Voting is for citizens only, it shouldn't be that hard to prove citizenship.
mod mom (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Did you read the election law commentary saying it disenfranchises voters?
Here is a summary to help you better understand:
1. A Georgia analysis showed that 20% of all people over 60 and 35% over 75 don't have a driver's license;
2. U Wisconsin study in Milwaukee County found that 53% of Af-Am and 57% of Hispanics had no license vs 15% whites. The disparity was worse in the 18-24 age group: 74% Af-Am are without a license as are 66% Hispanic vs. 29% whites.
3. The 2000 census data provides evidence in terms of vehicle ownership in Cleveland and East Cleveland, where 32% of Af-Am households did not have a vehicle. Across the county, ownership of a vehicle is closely related to household income.
All these people will find it exceptionally difficult to vote. This bill is worse than a poll tax, it is an effective bar to hundreds of thousands.
I already liked this bill. Now I love it.
Beacool (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. How do these people cash a check without an ID?
Please, it's not that big of a deal to obtain an ID and the cost is low.
RC (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Maybe you need to get out in the real world for a while.
To cash a pay check, you need a job. With unemployment rates up to 50% in some places, it is kinda hard to be spending money for a photo ID. And that is that is the idea.
One of the few flaws in our near-perfect constitutional system is allowing deadbeats to vote.
Beacool (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. OK, maybe I live a sheltered life.
But I've had some form of ID my entire life. As a child I've had a birth certificate and a passport. As an adult I've also had a driver's license since I was 19. I don't get how someone born in this country doesn't have some form of ID that proves who they are, with one caveat, I can understand someone who is homeless or has lost everything in a fire or natural disaster not having an ID.
Snoutport (942 posts) Wed Mar-23-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. me too...but, it does make sense...you can't vote unless you pay for a license
can't afford a license? then you can't vote.
csziggy (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. But the US Constitution does not require an ID
So how do these strict "Constitutionalists" justify requiring a picture ID to vote?
In fact my 9th grade Civics teachers taught us that one of the major advantages of the US over the Soviet Union was that US citizens did not have to carry ID just to walk around or to vote.
Forget about homeless people - without proof of place of residence, they cannot get either a driver's license or an ID card, so they are disenfranchised already. And students, whose living quarters are a dorm room more than six months a year, are being disenfranchised. Any other citizen who lives in a location more than six months a year is allowed to register to vote, why are students a special category?
Many of these battles are ones I thought had been won decades ago but the GOP is wasting time and money bringing them back for another round.
Did anyone learn in civics class that we had an advantage over the Soviets because we don't need an ID to vote? I didn't have the advantages of forced busing or unionized civics teachers, or maybe I just slept through that part. All I really remember about civics is that i always got an A without cracking the book.
11 Bravo (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
59. Well, princess, here's how it works in some parts of the District of Columbia.
There are scores of check-cashing establishments who will, for any where from 10%-20% of the value of the check, cash a payroll check. No ID required. Sound fair to you?
That's so you can cash stolen checks, and split the take with the check-cashing crook.
badtoworse (600 posts) Wed Mar-23-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
35. I'm all for anything that would help reduce voter fraud
The answer to your issues is to make it easier to get an ID Card rather than leave the system vulnerable to fraud. I worry about fraud with electronic voting, but I also worry that people can vote multiple times and that ineligible people are voting.
csziggy (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Name some actual voter fraud cases that have been proved in court
Just a few, please. I see the GOP talking points trotting this out every time we protest restrictive procedures for limiting voters, but I have yet to see a real voter fraud case proven in court. Plenty of allegations, no convictions. So if you know of any convictions, please, PLEASE post a link to the case. I want to see how they got away with it.
Hard to prove when you have no ID requirement.
badtoworse (600 posts) Wed Mar-23-11 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #38
58. Diebold was never convicted.
But it's taken for granted here that they rigged the voting machines. We need the process to be sqeaky clean so there is not even the appearance of wrongdoing. The fact that it is not prosecuted means nothing. The claims are usually brought by the losing side and it is not in the winner's interest to pursue it. Isn't that what happened with Diebold?
It drives them crazy that they can't figure out how Rove and Diebold managed to pull it off! And it has to be doubly frustrating to realize that they were only ten lousy dollars away from blowing the top off the whole scheme.
Obamanaut (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
42. My MIL lives in a nursing home, is 95, has not driven in 25 years, has no
license - but has a photo id card issued by the state many years ago.
Not driving does not keep one from having an ID that meets the requirement.
Mail-in ballots are available to people without vehicles. Prior to the last election, applications for such were sent to registered voters well in advance of the election.
All these difficulties are not really difficult at all.
DUmmy Obamanaut was one of the ringleaders of the swarm of "bullies" who drove know-it-all nadin out of the DUmp. Hmmmm.....better keep an eye on him.
