• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photo ID to vote?

Photo ID to vote?


  • Total voters
    92
While the intention is to prevent fraud and that is worthy ... it is unconstitutional to require a photo ID.

Our constitution protects our citizens right to vote. Requiring an ID puts a burden on the elderly, those in poverty and the disabled.


I vote no.
 
Last edited:
While the intention is to prevent fraud and that is worthy ... it is unconstitutional to require a photo ID.

Actually no, it's not.

"The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
" - http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

Our constitution protects our citizens right to vote. Requiring an ID puts a burden on the elderly, those in poverty and the disabled.

So far not one person has posted anything credible to say this would be a burden.
 
Last edited:
Actually no, it's not.

"The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
" - Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



So far not one person has posted anything credible to say this would be a burden.

Actually Back in 2006 the Republicans passed a similar law that was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court found it un-constitutional to require photo IDs to vote. The cost of obtaining document is just too much money for some and an unnecessary burden.
 
Actually Back in 2006 the Republicans passed a similar law that was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court found it un-constitutional to require photo IDs to vote. The cost of obtaining document is just too much money for some and an unnecessary burden.

Link please?
 
Just how many homeless people are going to take the time to register and vote? I don't know about you but I've never seen a homeless person even attempt to vote.

Edit: One more thing...last I knew in order to vote in an area you have to show proof of residence at the time that you get your voter registration. So it looks like the homeless already miss out.

Link
Link

A homeless person is allowed to use a shelter's address to register to vote.
 
Actually Back in 2006 the Republicans passed a similar law that was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court found it un-constitutional to require photo IDs to vote. The cost of obtaining document is just too much money for some and an unnecessary burden.

You mean this one...

The state Supreme Court threw out a challenge to the state’s voter identification law, but sidestepped a decision on the law’s validity when it ruled that the plaintiff did not have legal standing to challenge it. The court’s unanimous opinion reversed a decision made in September by Judge T. Jackson Bedford of the Fulton County Superior Court, who ruled that the voter identification law was unconstitutional and an undue burden on voters. After that ruling, the State Election Board decided not to require voters to show a photo ID to cast a ballot in the November elections. A federal challenge to the law is pending. - Georgia: Court Rejects Challenge to Voter ID Law - New York Times

Now again I ask if they can get ID to buy cigarettes, alcohol and get local, state and federal aid, what is the problem with ID's to vote?

On a side note...

The Indiana Supreme Court said Wednesday that the photo ID requirement was not a "substantive voter qualification."It cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in a federal court challenge by the state Democratic Party to the Indiana law that said a photo ID is required to enter federal buildings and board planes and voting was equally important."The voter ID law's requirement that an in-person voter present a government-issued photo identification card containing an expiration date is merely regulatory in nature," Dickson wrote. - Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, you should be required to prove you're a legal U.S. citizen in order to vote.
 
I'm still scratching my head on this thread.

And I would have considered voter registration as a harder thing to go through than a damn photo ID.
 
Then it should be easier to catch more of them correct? First off, voter fraud is a felony as well as presenting a fake ID and then if the ID was based on an actual person then that is an additional identity theft charge so basically we wouldn't have to worry about that person doing it again for around 25 years.
Without the ID requirement, the person is still committing two felonies, if not more, so I don't see your point.
 
Since another Presidential election is coming up, how about this topic again?

Should people have to show their photo ID in order to vote in US presidential elections? Why or why not?

No...no one should be limited to vote by not having a certin form of identification.

I'd support photo ID if it was incorporated with the registration process and provided.

Edit: I would like to point out....they have voter registration information at the polling place...why exactly couldn't they print out pictures as well?
 
Some will no doubt start using fake ID's. But how many? All of them? Or just the ones that can afford it? Getting 1 fake ID is not cheap...getting thousands? Hmm....

In 2002, the Bush administration made cracking down on voter fraud a top priority. Five years later, the effort had yielded 86 convictions. About 30 convictions were linked to vote-buying schemes in races for small offices like sheriff or judge. Only 26 were attributable to individual voters, and most of those were misunderstandings about voter eligibility, such as felons who voted without knowing it was illegal. The prosecutions provided little evidence of organized fraud.

A 2007 study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University reached a similar conclusion. The vast majority of "fraud" cases, it found, were due to typographical errors in poll books and registration records, bad matches between voter databases (for example, you could be listed as John Smith in one database and John T. Smith in another), and voters registering at new addresses without deleting old registrations. Much of the alleged "voter fraud," it turns out, is just poorly filled out registration cards.

Why would anyone commit voter fraud? - Slate Magazine
So most "voter fraud" is a mistake and there were less than 26 people over 5 years who committed organized voter fraud in federal elections. I'm just going to assume that those who are willing to go to lengths of committing such fraud are willing to pay the $100 and even if they aren't the problem is so ridiculously small that I don't care.
 
So most "voter fraud" is a mistake and there were less than 26 people over 5 years who committed organized voter fraud in federal elections. I'm just going to assume that those who are willing to go to lengths of committing such fraud are willing to pay the $100 and even if they aren't the problem is so ridiculously small that I don't care.

The rubes buy the idea that these laws are to actually stop some form of fraud...the one's making the laws know they are playing a numbers game to disenfranchise those that vote for the other party.
 
Wow TD, you didn't waste anytime moving somewhere far away from the topic of Photo ID's. Good, boy.
I guess the ability to comprehend that if its wrong to demand a photo ID to exercise one right its equally wrong to demand one to exercise another constitutional right is difficult for some
 
I voted no, as the negative effect in disenfranchising voters is greater than any good from addressing a non-existent voter fraud problem.

I have to show a photo ID in Virginia where I live, and I don't see anything wrong with it, what with all the dead people clamoring to vote in recent Presidential elections, not to mention all those illegal aliens being registered to vote by Acorn activists.
 
"Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Occidental College political science Prof. Caroline Heldman endeavored to relieve host Bill O’Reilly of his dogged belief that the infinitesimal rate of voter fraud warrants disenfranchising 5 million people. “You’re harboring the misconception that’s you have lots of people trying to vote [fraudulently]. You face five years in prison and a $10,000 fine if you engage in voter fraud, that’s why almost nobody does it.” Heldman noted that the voter ID bills that are popping up around the country aren’t in response to an actual problem but actually created by the American Legislative Exchange Commission (ALEC) which has written, printed, and pushed an identical voter ID bill in several different states. In fact, “every single one of the five states that recently passed Voter ID legislation had [ALEC] members as co-sponsors of the legislation.” O’Reilly responded, “I’ve never heard of that,” later adding “it doesn’t matter if its common sense.”

It’s anti-democratic, it’s going to demobilize 5 million legally registered voters,” Heldman tried again, citing the Brennan Center, ThinkProgress, and the ACLU’s research. “ThinkProgress, that’s a far left outfit,” O’Reilly said. “I don’t believe that for a second.” To which Heldman replied, “They’re crunching numbers, Bill. Numbers are numbers.”

Justice | ThinkProgress


"
And i posted factual cases of voter fraud with real live people found and convicted. It is real, it happens, and all you care about is hey...as long as its OUR guys committing the fruad (which shockingly enough ALWAYS seems to be the case).
 
And i posted factual cases of voter fraud with real live people found and convicted. It is real, it happens, and all you care about is hey...as long as its OUR guys committing the fruad (which shockingly enough ALWAYS seems to be the case).
Why would that be the case when only 86 people from 2002-2007 have been convicted of committing federal election related crimes? OUR side doesn't benefit from the less than 86 people who were convicted of fraud. Your argument doesn't even make any sense.
 
Why would that be the case when only 86 people from 2002-2007 have been convicted of committing federal election related crimes? OUR side doesn't benefit from the less than 86 people who were convicted of fraud. Your argument doesn't even make any sense.
As in the case in Florida, those people convicted arent committing singular acts of vote fraud. They are casting other peoples ballots for them. The simple act of showing an ID...the same act done by people daily for the most basic of services..thats not much to ask to ensure fair elections. Unless of course you dont WANT fair elections.
 
Why not? We'd stop illegals from voting that way.
 
I replaced mine not long ago...$10 for a filing fee and another $10 for ...well, can't remember now. But $20 bucks is not costly. And it would be a simple matter to get the infirm an ID. Just do what my area does...provide someone from the dmv that can come out to thier home and deal with the necessary work.
There is no reason at all why anyone should have to pay anything in order to vote. Anything should be considered as a poll tax. BTW, I was born in NY and I think it cost me $50 to get my BC in order to get my drivers license rened here in Oregon.

Here in Oregon we have vote by mail - our signatures are matched with our registration forms. It's a great system everyone should have it, in my opinion.
 
So most "voter fraud" is a mistake and there were less than 26 people over 5 years who committed organized voter fraud in federal elections. I'm just going to assume that those who are willing to go to lengths of committing such fraud are willing to pay the $100 and even if they aren't the problem is so ridiculously small that I don't care.

Since Federal elections only happen every 2 years of course it would be low. Just because something is not rampant, does not mean it should be ignored.

No one has given a single realistic reason why showing an ID would be an issue for the poor or elderly? Again they have no problem getting them for local, state and federal aid, so why would it be a problem for voting?
 
As in the case in Florida, those people convicted arent committing singular acts of vote fraud. They are casting other peoples ballots for them. The simple act of showing an ID...the same act done by people daily for the most basic of services..thats not much to ask to ensure fair elections. Unless of course you dont WANT fair elections.
Do you NOT understand what I'm saying? Only 86 people were convicted of voter fraud. That is not even enough people to make an election "unfair" anymore than 86 people being convicted of murder in 5 years would be enough to qualify the country as "violent".
 
Since Federal elections only happen every 2 years of course it would be low. Just because something is not rampant, does not mean it should be ignored.

No one has given a single realistic reason why showing an ID would be an issue for the poor or elderly? Again they have no problem getting them for local, state and federal aid, so why would it be a problem for voting?
I didn't say it should be ignored. I said the problem is exaggerated and inconsequential and usually the fault of mistakes rather than organized fraud.

I already said, I don't care if IDs are required as long as the government ensures that everyone gets an ID. And it's clear that they aren't doing that.
 
Why would that be the case when only 86 people from 2002-2007 have been convicted of committing federal election related crimes? OUR side doesn't benefit from the less than 86 people who were convicted of fraud. Your argument doesn't even make any sense.

We only had 1 presidential election in that time??? And 2 general elections??? How many people did that 86 effect???
 
Since Federal elections only happen every 2 years of course it would be low. Just because something is not rampant, does not mean it should be ignored.

No one has given a single realistic reason why showing an ID would be an issue for the poor or elderly? Again they have no problem getting them for local, state and federal aid, so why would it be a problem for voting?

The point is...to stop those almost non-existent cases of voter fraud...you'd make it so that millions of Americans will have problems voting. This is why those laws are being passed...

Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess documentation proving their citizenship. Citizens earning less than $25,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack ready documentation of their citizenship as those earning more than $25,000.4 Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 12 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $25,000 per year do not have a readily available U.S. passport, naturalization document, or birth certificate

Elderly citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification. Survey results indicate that seniors disproportionately lack photo identification. Eighteen percent of American citizens age 65 and above do not have current government-issued photo ID.9 Using 2005 census estimates, this amounts to more than 6 million senior citizens.

Minority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification. According to the survey, African-American citizens also disproportionately lack photo identification. Twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens.10 Using 2000 census figures, this amounts to more than 5.5 million adult African-American citizens without photo identification. Our survey also indicated that sixteen percent of Hispanic voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, but due to a low sample size, the results did not achieve statistical significance

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf
 
Last edited:
Do you NOT understand what I'm saying? Only 86 people were convicted of voter fraud. That is not even enough people to make an election "unfair" anymore than 86 people being convicted of murder in 5 years would be enough to qualify the country as "violent".
Voting should be a duty...a responsibility. We expect people to take responsibility when they are cashing a check, using a credit card, buying popcord at a theater with a debit card, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, apply for and pick up government assistance, drive a vehicle go to the doctor, get medicine, get entry into bars, clubs, dancehalls, installations, federal buildings...on and on. It is not unrealistic or unreasonable to expect people to show a picture ID when voting. The only people that are opposed to that are people that know fraud is being committed, know who is committing it, and knows who benefits from it. Sure...its very sad that we have vermin that would cheat, lie, commit fraud. Thats tragic but a reality. It happens all across the country. It can be effectively managed with the simple act of showing that same card that every elderly person has and has to show to get services, that every poor person has and has to show to get services. No disenfranchisement. No downside.
 
Back
Top Bottom