Wednesday, September 10, 2008

I Support Voter ID Requirements

Via McClatchy:

State elections officials will resume enforcement of a controversial state law that requires Floridians to have their identification match up with a state or federal database in order to register to vote...

Voting rights activists, who had unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the law, blasted the decision, saying it allows the state to rely on what they consider error-prone databases in the month before voter registration ends on Oct. 6...

The law, passed by the Republican-led legislature in 2005, requires Floridians registering to vote to supply a drivers license number or the last four digits of their social security number. Proponents of the law say it was needed to prevent voter fraud.


That doesn't sound so draconian to me. And if, like me, you believe in "the sanctity of the voting booth", then this seems like a reasonable requirement. In no way can this be considered disenfranchising.

I can honestly see no reason to oppose this law unless you want unauthorized people to vote. In other words, you would want to ensure people have the opportunity to commit a felony.

13 comments:

Ellen K said...

You have to show ID to cash a check, to get your mail at the post office and for countless other things. Why is it such a big deal to show valid ID in order to vote. Unless, of course, you aren't entitled to a legal ID because you aren't here legally. And THAT is the problem that the DNC doesn't want to admit.

neko said...

Now if we could only require that they show the ability to properly punch a hole into a piece of paper with a wooden stick.

pseudotsuga said...

The DNC clearly wants EVERY vote to count, so that nobody who votes will be disfranchised. The problem is, of course, that many of those votes are from people who do NOT have the franchise/right to vote, not to mention all the fake registrations (that means you, ACORN) and the fraudulent vote problems that the Democrats project upon the Republicans.

neko said...

Actually, no. The Democrats only want every vote for a Democrat counted. Why do you think Gore only wanted recounts done it the three most Democrat heavy counties during the 2000 Florida recounts?

KimJ said...

Just as I would rather have a guilty man go free than an innocent man imprisoned, I would rather have an illegitimate voter vote than a legitimate voter be unable to vote.

Darren said...

I can imagine no legitimate reason we'd ever have to make that choice, though, KimJ.

angryimmigrant said...

The system should have the accuracy on par with an ATM machine or better. Yes, sometimes people are denied access to their own money, and sometimes people get access to money that isn't theirs, but those are both scenarios to -avoid-, not prolong. There is no legitimate party in an ATM transaction that doesn't benefit from requiring an ID, only illegitimate ones.

A person's -vote- should be anonymous, not the person himself.

Ellen K said...

Are you serious Kimj? What if you take that illegitimate voter to exponential numbers? And what if, since they aren't bound by any American law, they were PAID by an outside source to vote? At that point, the voters-the REAL voters-no longer have any say and anyone with a big bankroll, like maybe George Soros, could create a false election.

KimJ said...

The problem is, Darren, we've already had to make that choice. I tried to find a completely non-partisan, non-biased description of some of the problems that Florida residents with names similar to felons had in the 2000 elections. The WAPost was the best I could come up with: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30

For those of us with driver's licenses, we think it's fairly easy to get an ID. I went to college in a state where I was not a legal resident that required you to get a state ID to purchase liquor. After I turned 21 I went to get that ID. The registrar gave me a bit of a hard time -- got mad when I called it a "liquor ID" instead of a "non-resident ID" (they had changed the name some three years earlier), and at one point threatened to not accept my transcription from the college DOWN THE STREET because it didn't have the proper seal on it. He may have just been giving me a hard time in the way townies have given "gownies" for years. But were I an elderly black woman, who had used public transportation all my life and never had a driver's license (and used cash -- not everyone has checks/debit cards), I can imagine finding all of these regulations quite overwhelming. Without a support system, I might just give up trying to get the ID to vote.

If you have to have a voter ID law, I believe it was Georgia(?) that funded mobile ID units that went *to* people who needed IDs. To me, that would be the only fair way to do it and the only way I would support it.

Darren said...

Helping such people, legal people, get ID's sounds like the ideal job for someone in the community. I wonder if there's anyone in the community who could organize such an undertaking?

Ellen K said...

Kimj sort of conveniently left out the numerous votes that were cast by military personnel from overseas that were also not counted thanks to the benevolence of Al Gore et al.

KimJ said...

Ellen: Source? If that did happen, I'll be mad as hell.

Anonymous said...

I'm all in favor of not requiring ID.
The people that run my voting precinct are blind as bats, and so all I have to do is look at their roster, and give a name that hasn't been signed to yet. I can do this as many times as I like.

But I don't -- because that would be wrong. I get one vote, like every legal citizen does. What sort of person can't get ID? show me that person, and then let's get a program started to help them obtain it. If they can't do it in time, we have a provisional ballot system.

The ONLY reason a person would support not showing ID at the polling place (since ID is not tied to the actual vote, including closed primaries) would be if they supported those unable to obtain ID voting. I'm guessing that that mix runs about 99-1 illegal or felon to legitimate concern.

Dan