Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ability to Vote Being Limited in 40 States

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 1, 2011, 11:25 a.m. EST by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Please pay attention to this effort by Republicans in 40 states who are trying (and in some cases succeeding) to limit access to voting by requiring photo id's, making registration less convenient, etc. Some of the OWS folks may feel voting is a waste of time, but I sure would hate to see it go away.

46 Comments

46 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Democracydriven (658) 10 years ago

I wouldn't vote for a Republican for dog catcher. The last thing I want is another GOP puppet/president.

Now that I got that off my chest,

I have to say that I think anybody that is voting in our elections should have a valid photo ID. Allowing people to vote without knowing for sure who they are is just foolish. It’s a two way street as far as the results. Somebody could go in and vote in several precincts under different names.

All one need is a counterfeit registrar papers and they could vote all day long

Voting is too important to allow opportunities for illegal voting to take place

I am sure there is plenty that I don’t know about the process. Please enlighten me if I am overlooking a safeguard that would prevent unauthorized voters from voting

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

Voter Fraud Policy Brief: Policy Brief on the Truth About “Voter Fraud” The Brennen Center for Justice http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

Every apportionment cycle results in greater suppression of American voters. This has been true my whole sixty years.

There is one solution.

Advocate for UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

The only exceptions being for people convicted of 1. treason or 2. voter fraud.

Pennsylvania's constitution has a universal suffrage provision but it is ignored by the legislature. It still is good as a model.

"Elections shall be free and equal; and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage." Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

[-] 2 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 10 years ago

You see a problem with requiring an ID to vote to prove you have the right to? This helps keep people from voting twice you know, and keeps non-US citizens from voting, such as students here on Visas, which citizens of other countries don't have the right to choose who will represent US citizens. They have their own countries to vote in. We can't go vote in their countries either.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

How do we get absentee ballots to show picture ID? Absentee ballot fraud is the most prevalent form of voter fraud there is. Not registration fraud which is what ID's are about.

Absentee ballots still source of election fraud http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/27/2288192/absentee-ballots-still-source.html

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 10 years ago

So what ? Shouldn't we have SOME way of ensuring the people voting are actual citizens of the region in which they're voting ?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

See aahpat, below.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 10 years ago

There is no need for reference. Nobody will ever convince me that people walking into the polling station need to prove they are, in fact, the person listed on the rolls of registered voters. Without this, anyone could walk in and cast a vote in someone else's name. Why on earth do people have a problem with this ?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

Texas’s Own Data Reveal Discriminatory Impact of ID Law

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/texass_own_data_reveals_discriminatory_impact_of_voter_id_law/

"On May 27, 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed into law Senate Bill 14, which requires that voters show government-issued photo identification at the polls in order to cast a ballot. Because Texas is a “covered” jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Department of Justice must “preclear” Senate Bill 14 before the law can take effect. In other words, Texas must demonstrate that the law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a retrogressive effect on minority voters. After Texas’s initial submission urging the Department of Justice to preclear Senate Bill 14, the Justice Department requested more information from the state, including data – broken down by race - detailing the number of registered voters without ID. The data that Texas provided in response to the Department of Justice’s request clearly demonstrates that Senate Bill 14 has a harmful and discriminatory impact on Latino voters."

[-] 1 points by marxism (7) 10 years ago

You have to have a photo ID to get your welfare money and food stamps so what's the problem?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

"Proof of Identity" is not always a photo id.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

the bastards!

hey ho

hey ho!

the repelican party has got to go

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

Voter ID is 1. a solution without a problem and 2. an inequity.

There is no evidence that there is large scale voter fraud perpetrated by ineligible people.

No equivalent ID is required of the one group where voter fraud is often found to be higher than anywhere else, absentee and mail-in ballot voters.

When the right-wing can come up with a Constitutional method for requiring ID from people who send in ballots from outside the area or country they can then also require ID's from local voters.

[-] 1 points by OWSWhat (66) 10 years ago

I think that having an identification is a good idea and it will cut down on some of the fraud. As we all know there is fraud on both sides, Dem & Rep. Members of congress look out for their selves and they do not really care about us "well except for when it is election time for them, then they all seem to care"

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 10 years ago

I already show ID when I vote, what's the big deal? You're right though OWS doesn't seem interested in making changes by voting anyhow.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 10 years ago

Why should we when the whole system is rigged anyways? I have more important things to focus on than the same old shit every leap year. The fact that I stood in line for two hours only to be turned down because I wasn't 'eligible' to vote in the state I was in, in 2008, proves this.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 10 years ago

What happened? You move and forget to register? If you don't want to vote or think it's a waste of time, ok fine. I still think people can change things if we get good people to run and vote. I'll demonstrate and boycott and do other things too, but I believe getting enough people to vote will get us change.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 10 years ago

I was in the military during the time. I wanted to vote somewhere outside from the military base i had just been stationed at, because frankly I didn't trust the anonymity of my vote in their hands. It's a really long story, but... Apparently, I didn't do my homework and didn't get my chance to vote. But this time around I'm definitely going to make my vote heard...lawl.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 10 years ago

Yeah anything absentee or through the military gets complicated. The point though is should we have to prove we are who we say we are when we go to vote? It seems obvious that yes we should.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 10 years ago

it makes sense to me.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 10 years ago

Voting should require a little thought and effort, I don't see a problem with identifying yourself.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 10 years ago

Dang. I have a lot of photo IDs. I think a lot of people have a lot of photo IDs. The thing is, you don't need a photo ID to get a photo ID. Isn't that ironic?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Don't worry, it's just Republicans attempting to prolong the Bush tax cuts to the rich.

http://costoftaxcuts.com/

Much of it backed and promoted by Heritage and ALEC.

Why they want to continue their slash and burn of the middle class is beyond me.

The cuts are adding up.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 10 years ago

Wait a minute...isn't it the Democrats that claim Repulicans are back woods hillbillys? If you are required to show ID, the hillbillys will not be able to vote.


Inconvenient? How much of an effort SHOULD people make to vote? How about making a LITTLE effort!!

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 10 years ago

Who the hell doesn't have a photo I.D.?

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

People who cannot afford a photo id; they don't drive. My main point is we have not had these restrictions in place before and there has been no reported voter fraud. It is "fixing" a problem that doesn't exist. When there is no valid reason to change something, then I mistrust the motives for changing it.

[-] 2 points by kingscrosssection (314) 10 years ago

Would it be a large jump to assume that people that can't buy a $15 drivers license would also be under educated and could not make an informed decision anyways and would not aid in the choosing of leaders?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

Hmmm, my 84 year old mother in law has no driver's license. Now why would it be assumed she is under educated because she no longer has the desire or need to drive? Why would it be assumed that she would have to purchase a drivers license when she no longer drives?

My grandmother never had a drivers license, she voted for the last time 5 months before her death.

Recently there was an elderly woman who was denied the vote because she could not produce a marriage license, she had survived two husbands, she had photo ID, she had a birth certificate, she had her SS ID, she had a recent bill sent to her address, she had a rent receipt...what does a marriage license have to do with voting? A women who had voted in every election, on every issue for 60 years with no issues, suddenly can not even register to vote?

The above isn't a story, it's factual, it only takes a few minutes to look it up.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

No larger a jump than to assume that overeducated rich people think they know how to choose a leader because they are rich and educated. Just because people are not educated does not mean they are stupid. Just because they are educated does not mean they are smart.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 10 years ago

I know several ranch hands that are whip smart but admit they know nothing about politics.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ilovecars (36) 10 years ago

the poor tend to vote democratic, and a high percentage don't have photo id's- It was ordered from the Republican party. "think" people its only for voting- nothing else! doesn't that cause you to wonder, what its real motive is?

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

Others have made the point: if republicans are trying to fix something that isn't broken, they presumably do have a political motive for doing so. It seems like someone is making every effort in their power to return this country to the way the imagine it was in the 50's.

[-] 1 points by ilovecars (36) 10 years ago

we are in a war against this repressive corrupt government. our position is the non violent resistance model- that model dictates that we do not defend. any law they try to pass- we ignore it.
we do not respond to them- its them that we make respond to us. our battle plan was- tested in battle by Gandhi- refined by MLK and made unbeatable by Dr. Gene Sharp training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 10 years ago

I'm still hung up on the idea that there is no separate entity that is Government...there are people in positions of government that are corrupt. If you replace the people, you change the government. The timing of this movement is too good to pass up ... right at the beginning of an election ... it seems we should at least give one quick pass at changing every single elected official to someone from the movement.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 10 years ago

Why not a photo ID to vote? It lessens fraud. You can a get a photo ID for free.
I have to show a photo ID to change cable equipment.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

Actually, a photo ID from the state, which makes it 'official' has a cost. It varies from state to state. There is a cost attached to passports also, passports are considered 'official' ID.

To obtain a photo ID that is considered 'official' one must present a birth certificate, often there is cost associated in obtaining one's birth certificate.

These things are true in many states and localities.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 10 years ago

You are correct on both counts about cost. It equates to a new form of poll tax which is prohibited. I dont mind requiring an ID, but I think a state issued photo ID should be free, as should obtaining a copy of a birth certificate if having the ID will be required to vote.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

States and counties have debts too and this is one way they pay for those debts...I do believe though that certain low income segments of our society should be allowed either reduced prices for such ID or free, depending on need.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 10 years ago

If it isnt free then it is a poll tax. If they dont want to pay for it, they should rely on the same forms of ID that have been acceptable in the past. This is a major complaint of the right: the federal government creating rules that states have to pick up the tab for, yet they want to create a law that puts a new burden on the people. It is hypocritical, but forgiven because it suits their agenda of inhibiting voters who tend to vote for their opponents. I have a state ID in the form of a drivers license that I pay for so I can drive, so it is not a fee for voting, but an ID that is just for the purpose of voting would be a poll tax which is unconstitutional.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

Oh I agree with that, however, there are other uses for a picture ID than driving or voting.

The best solution for the vote question is to remove the ID requirement and insert SS # and/or a current bill or rent receipt. Pretty much what we were doing before.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 10 years ago

S.C. does it for you for free at the DMV. They will even take you there Most states will do the same.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

Let's see, what states have I lived in that charged for picture IDs? Hmmm...

  1. I've lived in 12 states and they all charged for a nondriving picture ID, the adjacent states did also, so that makes around 36 states that I personally know of that do charge for picture IDs.

The prices have ranged from as little as 50 cents (in the 70's) to $12.00 within the last three years.

Since I have not lived on or near the southeastern seaboard I can not attest to what the standards are in those states.

Please note I did not attest to 'most states' charging, but rather many states.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 10 years ago

If photo ID to vote passes, the cost, if any would be low.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

As it has been pointed out it would still amount to a poll tax under a different name.

Too much of the American public is already disenfranchised when it comes to the vote, making it more difficult in any fashion would further disenfranchise that portion of the public, and would further push the apathetic into apathy.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 10 years ago

Most adults have a drivers license. You can prove where you live by producing a gas/electric bill or a phone bill. Anything with your address on it. photo ID reduces fraud. Are you "for" fraud?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

When one points out the pros, someone then must point out the cons.

The claims of fraud in voting according to many sources have been over stated, given the apathy of the American voter over all, it's easy to believe that is true.

Why is it whenever anyone argues the other side there are accusations?

Awfully hard to debate when it's all one sided.

[Removed]