Skip to main content

U.S. Senate Democrats decry voter photo ID bill


Fri Sep 22, 5:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Friday said legislation that would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections was little more than a poll tax and urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to stop the bill.

The measure, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week largely along party lines, would require voters to present at the polls a photo identification that also proves citizenship for federal elections beginning in 2010.

Republicans said proof of citizenship is needed to crack down on voter fraud and ensure illegal immigrants do not vote in U.S. elections.

Democrats said there is no evidence of widespread abuse and that the cost and effort required to get such a document would discourage poor voters, the elderly and people with disabilities.

"Worst of all, this bill recalls a dark era in our nation when individuals were required to pay a poll tax to cast their ballot and has been termed a 21st century poll tax," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and three other Democrats wrote in a letter to Frist, a Tennessee Republican.

Democrats said the only identification that would meet that requirement is a passport, which costs $97 to obtain. Only about 25 percent of Americans have passports.

Democrats fear Republicans will attach the photo identification measure to a domestic security spending bill the House and Senate could vote on next week.

They say such a move would be politically motivated to draw Democratic opposition to the homeland security bill that otherwise would easily pass just weeks ahead of the November 7 congressional elections.

If the identification measure were enacted it would likely face legal challenges. Recently judges in Missouri and Georgia ruled unconstitutional state laws requiring voter photo identification.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060922/pl_nm/usa_immigrati...NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I am not sure about this, this can lead to a lot of funny business, but is it really a hassel???---Sweetwuzzy

These kinds of 'devices' have been a part of keeping us out of the voting booth for centuries.

They have to be view with great suspicion.

Currently, the only document required to have access to the voting booth is a registration card.

Who gets 'caught' in this 'net'?

Ostencibly the goal here is to prevent the illegal residents from getting into the voting booth.

What happened to law enforcement?

Start arresting the people who hire illegal residents and the problem begins to shrink immediately.

That sounds like a start, and it can be implemented without legislation.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
I am not sure about this, this can lead to a lot of funny business, but is it really a hassel???---Sweetwuzzy

These kinds of 'devices' have been a part of keeping us out of the voting booth for centuries.

They have to be view with great suspicion.

Currently, the only document required to have access to the voting booth is a registration card.

Who gets 'caught' in this 'net'?

Ostencibly the goal here is to prevent the illegal residents from getting into the voting booth.

What happened to law enforcement?

Start arresting the people who hire illegal residents and the problem begins to shrink immediately.

That sounds like a start, and it can be implemented without legislation.


PEACE

Jim Chester



Now that you have said that, how can an illegal immigrant fake a voters registration card???

If everyone is really concerned about illegals voting(which I doubt illegals are going to do) why not put their energy into making sure only U.S. citizens are the ones registring??
quote:
These kinds of 'devices' have been a part of keeping us out of the voting booth for centuries.


Who is US?

We "Black folks" have only had the "right to vote" since the 15th Amendment was adopted.

Where as previously RACIST WHITE FOLKS help a shot gun up to the face of Medgar Evers and told him to REGISTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL...........sadly in 2006 the same "intimidation" is felt by "poor and minority" folks who get CARDED. What have we come to as a people?

Then as I listen to the commentary from White Liberals and Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive Fundamentalist I have learned that the presence of MELANIN causes one to be less inclined to be able to get a government id that is NOW FREE.

PLEASE STOP PUTTING ON THE CLOAK OF VICTIMIZATION AND INCOMPETENCE FOR SHORT TERM POLITICAL GAIN.
quote:
Then as I listen to the commentary from White Liberals and Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive Fundamentalist I have learned that the presence of MELANIN causes one to be less inclined to be able to get a government id that is NOW FREE.


quote:
The measure, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week largely along party lines, would require voters to present at the polls a photo identification [I]that also proves citizenship [/I]for federal elections beginning in 2010.


I challenge anyone on this board to produce any photo ID that proves citizenship.

In fact, I can only think of two documents that prove citizenship ... A passport and a Birth Certificate ..., neither of which I have readily available, and neither of which are/were free
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
Aside from a passport, can't people just bring their drivers liscense as proof of U.S. citizenship????

I am not sure about this, this can lead to a lot of funny business, but is it really a hassel???


I'm with you on this one, sweetwuzzy! My first thought is is this really a big deal. But, the more I think about it, funny business is what this really must be about.

I don't believe this bill directed at illegal residents. This seems more like an assault on the masses and the poor for some reason. There are more people for whom a $100 fee of any type would be a financial burden (especially right now) than not. I believe a passport is good for 10 years, so although it evens out to $10 a year, it's still a $100 pop in one lump sum. While a photo ID averages about $20 for five or six years.

Also, since you need a birth certificate to get a passport or a driver's licence or ID, why is the state ID not good enough? Confused The number of people with passports is already about to rise starting next year because Congress passed a bill that we (citizens) will need a passport to cross our borders into Canada and Mexico.

I dunno. sck There must be money in it somewhere for somebody. Or perhaps it's part of the plan to erode even more of our privacy and civil liberties ... along the line of a national DNA registry. Maybe it is a "poll tax" kinda thing? 19 Whatever it is, I don't trust it.
I agree this legislation is not directed at the illegal immigrant population; rather, it is simply an assault on the franchise of the poor - which disproportionately happen to be people of color.

The money comes in with the maintenance of the status quo. [Political] Change will only come when those that currently feel shut out of the process come out and vote in mass. Anything that makes voting more difficult will dissuade a number of persons [that already feel that their vote doesn't count in the first place] from voting.

It same effect would occur if [as in the 2000/2004 Ohio election] the number and/or locations of polling places were to be limited.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I don't believe this bill directed at illegal residents. This seems more like an assault on the masses and the poor for some reason. There are more people for whom a $100 fee of any type would be a financial burden (especially right now) than not.


EXCUSE ME.

First the NATIONAL COMMISSION that had Jimmy Carter and James Baker at the helm ADOPTED THE STANDARD OF PHOTO ID BEING PRESENTED AT THE VOTING BOOTH.

Second THE STATES in which this has been a conflict OFFER FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PHOTO IDS to those who need one.

THIRD some of the 9/11 Hijackers (that is if you don't believe Dick Gregory's tale that Bush did it) OBTAINED ID'S by SWEARING via a signed affidavit that they are who they say they are.

WHY LOOK AT 2006 where there is NO STANDARD? Look at a 5 or 10 year plan in which people without ID can PROGRESSIVELY be provided with ID and thus it will be a RARE EXCEPTION one day where a person has no government issued photo ID.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HYDROGEN FILLING STATIONS IN 2006 should we stop all research and future production of hydrogen cars OR SHOULD BE ADAPT?
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I don't believe this bill directed at illegal residents. This seems more like an assault on the masses and the poor for some reason. There are more people for whom a $100 fee of any type would be a financial burden (especially right now) than not.




EXCUSE ME.

First the NATIONAL COMMISSION that had Jimmy Carter and James Baker at the helm ADOPTED THE STANDARD OF PHOTO ID BEING PRESENTED AT THE VOTING BOOTH.

Second THE STATES in which this has been a conflict OFFER FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PHOTO IDS to those who need one.

THIRD some of the 9/11 Hijackers (that is if you don't believe Dick Gregory's tale that Bush did it) OBTAINED ID'S by SWEARING via a signed affidavit that they are who they say they are.

WHY LOOK AT 2006 where there is NO STANDARD? Look at a 5 or 10 year plan in which people without ID can PROGRESSIVELY be provided with ID and thus it will be a RARE EXCEPTION one day where a person has no government issued photo ID.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HYDROGEN FILLING STATIONS IN 2006 should we stop all research and future production of hydrogen cars OR SHOULD BE ADAPT?



Good points...
American Elections and the Grand Old Tradition of Disenfranchisement


By ADAM COHEN
Published: October 8, 2006


The House of Representatives struck a major blow against democracy last month. It passed a bill that would deny the vote to anyone who shows up at the polls without a government-issued photo ID. The bill's requirements are so onerous and inflexible that they could prevent millions of eligible voters without driver's licenses "” who are disproportionately poor, minority or elderly "” from casting a ballot.

With that vote Congress joined a growing number of states that are erecting new barriers to voting. Republican-dominated legislatures and election officials have adopted absurdly difficult registration rules. They have removed eligible voters from the rolls with Katherine Harris-style purges, and required voters to buy ID cards to vote, a modern form of poll tax.

These new voting laws are disturbing, but they should not be surprising. The story of American voting is usually told as one of steady expansion: constitutional amendments extending the franchise to freed slaves, women and 18-year-olds, and Supreme Court rulings and federal laws eliminating voting obstacles for Southern blacks. But racial and religious minorities, women and the poor have historically had to fight not just to get the right to vote, but to stop it from being taken away.

America has a hidden history of disenfranchisement. It has operated, as a Harvard professor, Alexander Keyssar, recounts in his valuable history, "The Right to Vote," on the expected lines of class, race, ethnicity and religion, and often for partisan gain. Right now, we are in another period of what Professor Keyssar calls "backsliding." Minorities and the poor "” and everyone who cares about American democracy "” have to stand up for a principle that should by now be beyond debate: universal suffrage.

Long before the Constitution guaranteed women the right to vote in 1920, some women had already had the franchise and had it taken away. New Jersey, which gave women the vote in its state Constitution in 1776, disenfranchised them in 1807. Pennsylvania, which let blacks vote after the Revolution, took away their right to vote in the 1830's.

Immigrants were another common target of disenfranchisement laws. In 1840, New York "” which, like most states, did not require pre-Election Day registration "” adopted a registration law that applied only to New York City, aimed at the growing Irish Catholic population. The lower classes were another target. In the 1800's, New Jersey adopted "sunset laws" that required the polls to close before factories let out for the day. In the 1800's and early 1900's, many states took the vote away from "paupers."

Disenfranchisement was often motivated by partisan politics. In the South, at the end of Reconstruction, white Democrats pushed through poll taxes and literacy tests to reduce the black Republican vote. In the North, it was Republicans putting up the barriers, like New York's 1921 constitutional amendment imposing a rigorous literacy test, aimed at keeping hundreds of thousands of Yiddish speakers from voting.

Poll taxes and literacy tests are unconstitutional today, but the forces of disenfranchisement have come up with creative new methods. In 2004, the Ohio secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell, ordered election officials to reject any voter registration form that was submitted on less than 80-pound paper. The edict disproportionately hurt poor and minority voters by interfering with registration drives aimed at them.

This year, Florida adopted new rules for voter registration drives that were so onerous "” and carried such draconian punishments for mistakes "” that the League of Women Voters of Florida announced that for the first time in 67 years it would not register voters.

Election officials are still wrongly purging eligible voters from the rolls. Four years after Ms. Harris's error-filled purge of felons, her successor as Florida secretary of state developed another error-filled felon list. She abandoned it only after news media pointed out that, oddly enough, it included 22,000 blacks, a group that votes heavily Democratic, but just 61 Hispanics, a group that tends to vote Republican in Florida. Just last week, a court struck down another error-filled voter roll purge, in Kentucky.

The voter ID laws that have been enacted recently have been set up not to verify voters' identities, but to stop certain groups from voting. Georgia's law "” whose sponsor was quoted in a Justice Department memo as saying that if blacks in her district "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls" "” required people to pay for voter ID cards, until the courts held that to be an illegal poll tax. When it took effect there was not a single office in Atlanta where the cards were for sale.

The current wave of laws began after 2000, when the presidency was decided by just 537 votes. With today's closely divided electorate, there is more strategic value than ever in disenfranchising people who fall into groups likely to support the other party. To a disheartening degree, this new wave is supported almost entirely by Republicans and opposed only by Democrats.

The opposition should be bipartisan. Disenfranchisement undermines not only American democracy, but also the whole idea of America, by illegitimately excluding some people from their rightful place in it.

Abraham Lincoln understood this. In 1859, after Massachusetts Republicans pushed through a requirement that immigrants wait two years after becoming citizens to vote, a group of German-Americans asked Lincoln what he thought of the law "” which mere partisanship should have led him to support. "I am against its adoption in Illinois, or in any other place, where I have a right to oppose it," he responded. "Understanding the spirit of our institutions to aim at the elevation of men, I am opposed to whatever tends to degrade them."
We vote and vote and vote for these MULTI-MILLIONAIRES and THEY won't even raise the minimum rate for workers, then WE complain how poor WE are. THEY purge OUR votes with the DIEBOLD machines, WE have to have an ACT to vote and then THEY still call us MACACAS, MINORITIES and NIGGERS and can't stand the ground we walk on or the air we breathe. Who's NUTS??? (No pun intended with all the jazz that's going on now.)
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I don't believe this bill directed at illegal residents. This seems more like an assault on the masses and the poor for some reason. There are more people for whom a $100 fee of any type would be a financial burden (especially right now) than not.


EXCUSE ME.

First the NATIONAL COMMISSION that had Jimmy Carter and James Baker at the helm ADOPTED THE STANDARD OF PHOTO ID BEING PRESENTED AT THE VOTING BOOTH.

Second THE STATES in which this has been a conflict OFFER FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PHOTO IDS to those who need one.

THIRD some of the 9/11 Hijackers (that is if you don't believe Dick Gregory's tale that Bush did it) OBTAINED ID'S by SWEARING via a signed affidavit that they are who they say they are.

WHY LOOK AT 2006 where there is NO STANDARD? Look at a 5 or 10 year plan in which people without ID can PROGRESSIVELY be provided with ID and thus it will be a RARE EXCEPTION one day where a person has no government issued photo ID.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HYDROGEN FILLING STATIONS IN 2006 should we stop all research and future production of hydrogen cars OR SHOULD BE ADAPT?


What does any of that have to do with illegal residents? Confused
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:

What does any of that have to do with illegal residents? Confused


Of course, the bill itself doesn't have anything to do with undocumented immigrants either, except to use them as a boogie man to help ensure passage.

So far as I know, there hasn't been any documented abuse of voting privilages by undocumented folks, but there has indeed been very real, repeated, and extensively documented abuse of the voting rights of citizens, of which this very bill is destined to become a part, should it actually pass.

It's a case of making up a non-existent problem to pave the way for the creation of further very real problems down the line.
For anyone who thinks "What's the fuss?" consider this

quote:

Letters on Voter ID Confuse Ga. Voters
ATLANTA (AP) - Tens of thousands of Georgia voters recently received letters telling them they must show a photo ID to cast a ballot Nov. 7 - a message some fear will create confusion on Election Day, since a judge recently struck down the requirement. The State Board of Elections mailed more than 300,000 of the letters - about 20,000 of them after the judge issued his ruling Sept. 19.


By the way, these Georgia Laws have been struck down now by several courts. This was only the latest.

If it's no hassle why the hell do some peopple feel it necessary to misrepresent the facts????
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
For anyone who thinks "What's the fuss?" consider this

quote:

Letters on Voter ID Confuse Ga. Voters
ATLANTA (AP) - Tens of thousands of Georgia voters recently received letters telling them they must show a photo ID to cast a ballot Nov. 7 - a message some fear will create confusion on Election Day, since a judge recently struck down the requirement. The State Board of Elections mailed more than 300,000 of the letters - about 20,000 of them after the judge issued his ruling Sept. 19.


By the way, these Georgia Laws have been struck down now by several courts. This was only the latest.

If it's no hassle why the hell do some peopple feel it necessary to misrepresent the facts????


You know, that is just pitifful!! Mad It's so brazen. And the actual State Board at that??? Eek

They do it because they know they can and can get away with it. I agree, HB ... if it's no big deal, then why go through all the effort?
New voter registration laws leave thousands off the rolls
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON "” Some of this year's elections could be decided by those who can't vote.
VOTING FRAUD: Report refutes fraud at poll sites

Across the country, new laws restricting who can register and vote have reduced the number of people who are eligible. Some of those laws have been blocked in court. Even so, critics say, the damage has been done:

"¢In Arizona, about 21,000 voter registration applications were rejected because of inadequate proof of citizenship, required under a 2004 law. Most who were affected lacked up-to-date driver's licenses, birth certificates or passports.

A federal appellate court blocked enforcement of the law "” which also requires voters to show ID at the polls "” last week, four days before the registration deadline. "We're looking at an enormous disparate impact on people of color," says Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network.

"¢In Florida, a law setting up new requirements for independent groups that register voters prompted the League of Women Voters to suspend registration drives for five months until a court intervened. In that period, the league could have registered thousands of people, The registration deadline is Tuesday. "You've just got to assume it's going to have an impact," says Dianne Wheatley-Giliotti, the league's state president.

"¢In Ohio, a law that made paid workers liable for the validity of the registrations they collect caused several groups to stop signing up voters for two months this summer. By the time courts intervened, the opportunity had been lost for thousands of registrations.

The group ACORN, which advocates for low-income families, wanted to sign up 138,000 Ohioans this year; now it will settle for 100,000. "Those were really the critical months," head organizer Katy Gall says. "In past years, we've met or exceeded our goals."

Advocates of registration and photo identification laws say they are needed to prevent fraud. They say the rules apply to all potential voters, regardless of race, ethnicity, income or ideology. "This is a matter of voter confidence, whether or not the fraud is real or perceived," says Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, whose state has one of the nation's strictest ID requirements.

Laws tightening the rules on registrations also have been passed in Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico and Washington. Laws imposing photo ID requirements at the polls were passed in Georgia and Missouri, but courts have intervened.

Paul DeGregorio, chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, says the laws should not discourage citizens from voting. Far worse, he says, would be for states to ignore problems that cause Americans to distrust the process.

Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law disagrees. "All of them will have an impact in suppressing votes," she says. "Even when courts have overturned them, they have ongoing impact."
quote:
Originally posted by Norland:
We vote and vote and vote for these MULTI-MILLIONAIRES and THEY won't even raise the minimum rate for workers, then WE complain how poor WE are. THEY purge OUR votes with the DIEBOLD machines, WE have to have an ACT to vote and then THEY still call us MACACAS, MINORITIES and NIGGERS and can't stand the ground we walk on or the air we breathe. Who's NUTS??? (No pun intended with all the jazz that's going on now.)


here here!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I have been wondering if this might have anything to do with the future plan of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants? In that way, a simple DL would not suffice as a way of showing citizenship (as I suppose it does now).


My Drivers License doesn't show my country of citizenship. Just took it out of my wallet and checked it. I don't have my wife's here, but I assume that hers doesn't show her country of citizenship, either.

Both of our passports indicate our country of citizenship, however. Passports are good for that. Drivers licenses are good for ensuring road safety.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Maybe I'm telling on myself ... but I didn't have a drivers license until I was 27. I didn't have a passport until a few years after that.


When I was 17, I would regularly alter the year of my birth to make myself 18 so that I could get into bars. That was before licenses were laminated in plastic.

I suppose that I could have used the altered drivers license to vote, also.
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
My Drivers License doesn't show my country of citizenship. Just took it out of my wallet and checked it. I don't have my wife's here, but I assume that hers doesn't show her country of citizenship, either.

Both of our passports indicate our country of citizenship, however. Passports are good for that. Drivers licenses are good for ensuring road safety.


Understood, RM! But, right now, it takes a birth certificate to get a driver's license, which does show country of citizenship. I'm not sure what a naturalized citizen has to show, but they get to have one, too ... as are others who are allowed to be in this country legally for whatever reason (marriage, visa, etc.)

However, only the U.S. citizen gets to vote. This is why a simple DL would not be good enough identification to show at the polls. The fact that the powers-that-be want to give DLs away to any/everybody would make the DL even less "official" for anything important. But, right now, it does serve a specific purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:

The fact that the powers-that-be want to give DLs away to any/everybody would make the DL even less "official" for anything important. But, right now, it does serve a specific purpose.



I don't know anybody who suggests that drivers licenses be given to everybody.

They do have a definite purpose, which is to insure that the person carrying it has read the drivers manual, read the rules of the road, and has taken and passed the test.

They should not be given out to just anybody, but rather should be restricted to those who have met these requirements.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Okay, ricardomath ...

You give a license to people who are supposed to be here legally ... then you give one to people who aren't supposed to be here, and are here illegally .... so who's left?? Confused


People who haven't read the manual, are unfamiliar with the rules of the road and driving habits and customs, who haven't taken the test, and who are a real life-and-death hazard on the roads.

In some countries (Colombia, for example), things like street lights, lane markings, and stop signs are mainly for decoration. It makes some sense from a safety standpoint to make some attempt to try to inform people that those things are not put there solely for decoration here.
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Maybe I'm telling on myself ... but I didn't have a drivers license until I was 27. I didn't have a passport until a few years after that.


But did you not drive before you were 27? Razz


ssssshhhhhhhh..............



Actually ... I really did not know how to drive before the age of 27 ... So I did not drive before age 27. Frown
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
People who haven't read the manual, are unfamiliar with the rules of the road and driving habits and customs, who haven't taken the test, and who are a real life-and-death hazard on the roads.


That would describe 75% of the people here in Texas! Razz


Fortunately for me, I never get outside the Houston Airport when I visit Texas...

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×