- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
do all the libs (yes everyone voting no is a well known lefty) oppose having to show an ID to buy a gun as well?
"As a libertarian, I tend to look at cost before I look at benefits. In 2008, the Supreme Court looked at state imposed voter ID in Indiana in the case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that voter ID was constitutional as long as the state offered the identification cards free of charge. Otherwise, voter identification cards qualify as a poll tax. If the Mississippi voter ID initiative passes in November, the physical printing and distribution of a new form of identification as well as the implementation of the new policy will end up costing the state one and a half million dollars a year. Are the benefits worth the cost?
Studies have shown that states that require photo identification in elections have little to no significant difference in voter turnout or fraud. “In [a] 2008 survey, three out of 2,564 respondents said that they tried to vote but were not allowed because of voter ID, a fraction of a percent.”[1] The only claim by either side that has any relevance is that some groups may not receive equal treatment by poll workers when asked for identification. “In the 2008 Super Tuesday primary states, 53% of whites were asked to show photo ID, compared with 58% of Hispanics and a staggering 73% of African Americans.”[2] The above data should be a warning for Mississippians to rethink their support of voter identification when they go to the polls this Tuesday. More unnecessary spending and possible discrimination at the polls makes voter identification contain more negative policy implications than positive. This is why I am voting NO on Initiative 27."
Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter