Amazon.com Widgets
  • It will cut down on voter fraud.

    Most people have some form of photo i.D. Anyway and it is not that hard to obtain. Without photo identification, the integrity of elections are compromised. Photo i.D. Is needed to drive, buy alcohol, and rent an apartment. This would not be a burden on less fortunate individuals, as opponents of photo i.D. Might claim. If the poor can manage to obtain beer, they should be able to provide identification at elections.

  • This will clean voter fraud and ensure voting eligibility

    People need a photo I.D to travel on a commercial jet, get a job, buy alcohol, tobacco, apply for entitlement programs, buy a car, buy a house, etc... So why can't you have a photo I.D when voting? Interesting how the media has turned this issue into a racial thing when in reality its not.

  • Yes, voting is a right and...

    Voting is a right. It is your right to cast one vote in the elections held by the country you are a citizen of. By showing ID you prove you have a right to vote in THIS country and it is easier to ensure that you only cast a single vote. Yes ID should be required.

  • Up to the states

    If the states would like to enact a voter ID I think it should be allowed. The media is sensationalizing it to be about race when it is not. Please keep in mind the media does things to divide in conquer, they are billion-dollar corporations telling you what to think. I mean wake the hell up people...

  • With certain conditions.

    Since voter fraud is an issue, albeit a small and fairly insignificant one, I would not be opposed to a voter ID requirement as long as there is no possibility the law could be exploited for ulterior motives. ID's would need to be free, and easy to procure for all people regardless of circumstances. If these conditions were not met by the state, my opinion would be different.

  • Alcohol Purchases, Driving, Air Travel, Bank Account Creation, Sanctioned Jobs, Apartment Leases, etc.

    All the above require a photo ID/card to participate in, lacking one is rather detrimental to any kind of standard of living, and requiring an ID card to check for in personal voting status is not a stretch in the slightest.

    While arguments can be made that particular states have too long of a wait to obtain a State ID (I don't know the process of obtaining an ID in every state), the idea of State ID's requirement for voting is not something radical or extraordinary, having tougher requirement to purchase alcohol than to vote is more perplexing than anything else.

    Voter Fraud is also a reality, deniers of such have an agenda or are ignorant. Though an ID requirement would cover voter fraud in highly contested states where only a couple thousand matter, beyond that an ID requirement wouldn't cut voter fraud in large amounts. As most voter fraud occurs with absentee voting or tampering with the machines themselves.

    So while the benefits of an ID requirement in reducing voter fraud are limited, the idea that somebody who is so disconnected from society to never obtain an ID is extremely unrealistic and should raise some eyebrows. Also people who move to other states expecting to immediately jump into a state just before a vote (like somebody becoming becoming a Californian just to vote on a particular law then leaving), probably have a time barrier to prevent state vote jumping from becoming a real phenomena.

  • There is no evidence of voter fraud!

    The only time we have heard of voter fraud was when a crazy nut Republican tried to do so to test the system. He miserably failed and was later arrested: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/21/shocker-republicans-account-for-most-cases-of-u-s-voter-fraud/ This proves that the GOP's intentions are not to prevent voter fraud, but to prevent certain groups from exercising their right to vote.

  • Preventing voter fraud, or denying the right to vote?

    The whole argument that people need a separate ID to vote is insane because most people already have state issued IDs. Why can't people just use their state ID or school ID? Both of them are legal identification documents. I don't believe that the Republican Party is doing this to prevent voter fraud, but rather to prevent certain groups from voting.

    Posted by: rko
  • I live in SC.

    We moved here, just in time to deal with it. I have seen first-hand the problems this causes. Both my husband & I had to obtain new birth certificates to satisfy the DMV. Never mind that we were over 50 & these were the ONLY birth certificates we had ever used, i.e. to enroll in school, obtain social security cards, obtain a driver's license, enter college, etc. Never mind that we had been through in-depth security checks, in our professional careers. So, we obtained new copies from the states where we were born. These copies do not come cheap. By the time you pay for the actual copy of your birth certificate, and the suggested over-night delivery, we had spent approximately $100! SC didn't reimburse us, for that expense. It was just part of the joy for living in the Palmetto state. How many people can afford to spend that? In America, we shouldn't have to pay to vote. After losing a court battle, SC and other states can no longer charge a fee for a Photo ID card. But I am sure, in 2012, many Americans living in states with these trumped-up Photo ID rules did not vote. They simply could not afford the expense, or the entire process intimidated them in their old age. That's not democracy in action. That's voter suppression! And it's wrong.

  • Absolutely not, but one should be forced to provide their social security number if they don't have an ID.

    It's redundant to demand people present a photo ID when we can easily use their SSN. It is silly, redundant and IDs are easily falsified.

    We all hear about teenagers and their fake IDs, so why would voting be any more secure, when any criminal with access to a public computer and printer can download something passable.

    And how do we determine what IDs will be accepted and which will not? Student IDs have been denied in states which have implemented the law. Arbitrarily, I might add.

    It's not a good practice, it disenfranchises the most vulnerable voters, and it does nothing to curb voter fraud.

  • No. It is a poll tax in disguise.

    Before the voting rights act of 1965 a poll tax was required in states that enforced the Jim Crow Laws, which many people (mostly the people considered "colored" who were targeted with this tax) were not able to afford and therefore couldn't vote. It is not required to carry or buy a photo ID, so why should you have to have it here? The answer is that it prevents poor people who can't afford the ID from voting because the people who made this law deemed their opinions in elections as insignificant. It is pretty obvious which group of people is being targeted. This law does very little to actually prevent voter fraud because the people who want to commit voter fraud could just create a fake ID. The number of people who commit voter fraud is also very small and isn't even close to being able to rig an entire election. It is just a poll tax in disguise to prevent certain groups from voting which is why in shouldn't be required.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.