Voter I. D.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
can someone explain the debate about showing an I.D. to vote? i don't understand why you have to show an I.D. to write a check, to rent a video, to make a transaction at a bank, to get a drink, and to travel, but you don't need to show one to vote? thanks.

[CatherineM]

In Florida during the last presidential election, they were turning away people without ID only in poorer, ie, black areas. Poor people often don't have ID because they don't drive, and state ID's are $20. Up here, I was surprised that no ID's were required for my husband to vote. I don't think it is an unreasonable demand to have ID, but they need to make it available to those who can't afford the other. The lines were about 2 hours long where I was, and if you had forgotten your ID, you just didn't want to wait again. I saw them letting little old ladies vote who had forgotten theirs ahead of me, but I was in a much wealthier neighborhood than where people were being turned away. I use the bank, rent videos, etc., and the last time I was asked for my ID, outside of the airport, was when I was buying brake fluid 3 years ago.

[Autumn Dusk]

I live in New England and I'm constantly pulling out my ID. Maybe because of my age, and becuase I use the bus and train, and use my check card alot but I need my ID.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1515108' date='Apr 30 2008, 12:14 PM']+J.M.J.+
can someone explain the debate about showing an I.D. to vote? i don't understand why you have to show an I.D. to write a check, to rent a video, to make a transaction at a bank, to get a drink, and to travel, but you don't need to show one to vote? thanks.[/quote]

I think Catherine summed up the argument. The right to vote is a constitutional right, the state can't infringe on it (though courts have ruled the right to travel is also a constitutional right). If the state is doing something that infringes on the right to vote, it better be a really, really good reason. The Court is trying to avoid any quasi-sense of a poll tax. The poorest of the poor of US citizens need to be able to vote. If ID's cannot be obtained by these people, the state has effectively restricted their fundamental right.

Now, again the state can restrict that right, if it has a 'compelling state interest'. Typically this is very hard for the state to prove, and typically the state loses on these types of cases. Yet in this one, the State showed that voter fraud was a real problem and the court bought it. Also, there was some issue of standing, because the plaintiffs were simply asserting a 'possible' problem. Its possible that someone can't afford an ID and can't vote. But the Court doesn't rule on possibilities; you have to have a real problem at the current time.

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1515207' date='Apr 30 2008, 04:11 PM']I think Catherine summed up the argument. The right to vote is a constitutional right, the state can't infringe on it (though courts have ruled the right to travel is also a constitutional right). If the state is doing something that infringes on the right to vote, it better be a really, really good reason. The Court is trying to avoid any quasi-sense of a poll tax. The poorest of the poor of US citizens need to be able to vote. If ID's cannot be obtained by these people, the state has effectively restricted their fundamental right.

Now, again the state can restrict that right, if it has a 'compelling state interest'. Typically this is very hard for the state to prove, and typically the state loses on these types of cases. Yet in this one, the State showed that voter fraud was a real problem and the court bought it. Also, there was some issue of standing, because the plaintiffs were simply asserting a 'possible' problem. Its possible that someone can't afford an ID and can't vote. But the Court doesn't rule on possibilities; you have to have a real problem at the current time.[/quote]

Exactly. Using the rational basis test, the Supreme Court ruled that the state's requirement of showing some form of identification to vote in order to deter fraudulant voting was a compelling enough interest to be allowed, particularly because the people who had the potential to be discriminated (poor people) are not a suspect class. That being said, I think that state IDs should be free and that you should have to show them in order to vote. This is a very basic thing. There have been incidents in past elections where illegal immigrants and other non-registered voters headed to the polls and voted. Oddly enough, these people were voting for Democratic candidates, and it seems that it is the Democrats (and the A.C.L.U.) are the ones opposed to this requirement.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1515221' date='Apr 30 2008, 02:20 PM']Exactly. Using the rational basis test, the Supreme Court ruled that the state's requirement of showing some form of identification to vote in order to deter fraudulant voting was a compelling enough interest to be allowed, particularly because the people who had the potential to be discriminated (poor people) are not a suspect class. That being said, I think that state IDs should be free and that you should have to show them in order to vote. This is a very basic thing. There have been incidents in past elections where illegal immigrants and other non-registered voters headed to the polls and voted. Oddly enough, these people were voting for Democratic candidates, and it seems that it is the Democrats (and the A.C.L.U.) are the ones opposed to this requirement.[/quote]

Just to be clear, voting rights are a fundamental right which means it would have been a strict scrutiny analysis.

I don't know how the argument was brought, maybe it was a discrimination case? In which case there would be a rational basis test since wealth is not a suspect class.

But I'm guessing here, I would bet they brought it under voting rights.

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1515230' date='Apr 30 2008, 04:29 PM']Just to be clear, voting rights are a fundamental right which means it would have been a strict scrutiny analysis.

I don't know how the argument was brought, maybe it was a discrimination case? In which case there would be a rational basis test since wealth is not a suspect class.

But I'm guessing here, I would bet they brought it under voting rights.[/quote]

That's a good question. Considering the discrimination would be made based on economic status, I would think it would be rational basis but you're right, it depends on the position of the petitioner. Any idea what the case was so I can look it up on Westlaw?

[CatherineM]

The other issue we had in the last election was that Florida doesn't allow convicted felons to vote until they go through a process to have their civil rights restored. Even those who have gone through the process were excluded because they didn't bring the right paperwork with them, and it would have taken more than that day to get it from the government. They lost their chance to vote. Some people, again only in the poorer districts, were turned away simply because their name was the same or similar to someone on the felon roll. There was no way to contest or appeal before the election was over with. There were lawsuits over that because the only people being turned away were black voters.

[kujo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1515300' date='Apr 30 2008, 05:46 PM']The other issue we had in the last election was that Florida doesn't allow convicted felons to vote until they go through a process to have their civil rights restored. Even those who have gone through the process were excluded because they didn't bring the right paperwork with them, and it would have taken more than that day to get it from the government. They lost their chance to vote. Some people, again only in the poorer districts, were turned away simply because their name was the same or similar to someone on the felon roll. There was no way to contest or appeal before the election was over with. There were lawsuits over that because the only people being turned away were black voters.[/quote]

Sounds like the people who claim that laws against crack cocaine are racist because they primarily affect African Americans.

Sorry...these convicts have served their time, been repatriated and need to be responsible enough to bring their paper work.

[CatherineM]

That wouldn't have been an option for those turned away just because they had a similar name to a felon. Some of the ones turned away had gone through the process 20 years ago, had led good law-abiding lives ever since, paid taxes and voted all those years only to have them turn them away this time. There are only 10 states that don't automatically allow felons to vote once they have served their sentence.

[kujo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1515324' date='Apr 30 2008, 06:13 PM']That wouldn't have been an option for those turned away just because they had a similar name to a felon. Some of the ones turned away had gone through the process 20 years ago, had led good law-abiding lives ever since, paid taxes and voted all those years only to have them turn them away this time. There are only 10 states that don't automatically allow felons to vote once they have served their sentence.[/quote]

In the cases of mistaken identity, there's nothing to be done but make sure the voter people have better resources at the poll stations. For those who just didn't bring their paperwork, that smells of elderberries but they should've brought it. Needless to say, I live in Florida, so I know how screwed up it all is down here.

[CatherineM]

Yeah, to this day I wonder if my vote was one of the hanging chad ones that got thrown out.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1515108' date='Apr 30 2008, 01:14 PM']+J.M.J.+
can someone explain the debate about showing an I.D. to vote? i don't understand why you have to show an I.D. to write a check, to rent a video, to make a transaction at a bank, to get a drink, and to travel, but you don't need to show one to vote? thanks.[/quote]
You should have to. Dead people vote, folks.