Should there be a national law challanging people at the polling places to produce ID before casting a vote ?

Question

The Supreme Court vacated the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today on the Arizona Voter ID Law (Proposition 200, voted on and approved by Arizona voters in 2004). The 9th Circuit had recently enjoined the law without allowing for a finding of fact by the District Court, which is kind of necessary in these cases.

So Arizona's law stands for this election (and probably will stand). The Supreme Court decision noted that the Arizona law does not necessarily result in the turning away of qualified and registered voters because if a voter shows up at a polling place without identification, he or she has five business days to return to a pre-identified site to show proper ID.

Answer 1

It's a state and local matter. Let the 10th amendment prevail in this case.

Answer 2

I think it is completely fair. Democrats are claiming it is a poll tax but it isn't. Most people who are old enough to vote either have a valid drivers license or a photo ID. That is because they work or receive money in some way and must be able to cash their checks. The only ones who would not have these state issued ID would be illegal aliens. The only reason to be against this law would be to allow these people to vote or to have people use multiple identities to vote in multiple locations. Ask the democrats in Chicago how to do this. They have been voting the cemeteries there for a long time.

Answer 3

Absolutely -- given the amount of voter fraud and general shenanigans that occurs in every election, this is one good solid step in combating such fraud.

The only argument against it which carries any weight at all is that of "the poor, minorities, and elderly may be disenfranchised because they are less likely to have and carry ID cards." However:

(1) this is a red herring where the elderly are concerned, most elderly carry MORE identification than normal in order to prove eligibility for social security, receive needed medications, get senior discounts, etc. The counter-argument that they are less likely to have a driver's license is a further red herring, since all states issue non-drivers-license IDENTIFICATION cards that are acceptable legal forms of identification for any situation.

(2) in the case of the poor, this is again a red herring --virtually every state in the union will provide a state-issued photo ID card without cost to low-income individuals if they just fill out the forms requesting one.

(3) in the case of the remaining minority population (not poor or elderly) or anyone else choosing to not have an ID card, this is a lifestyle choice -- they choose to not have ID, so they must also accept the consequences of their choice. Without state-issued photo ID they can't cash a paycheck or unemployment check or social security check or any other kind of check, so it stands to reason that there is a very high likelihood that they either (1) actually DO have such an ID but for some reason prefer a deception stating that they don't, or (B) are involved in illegally cashing checks without ID or are working under the table to avoid paying taxes. In either case they are involving themselves in crimes that would disqualify them from voting -- they should be happy to live in a society where they can get away with such behavior and not have to worry about any consequences greater than being turned away from the polls which choose the representatives of the system they choose to not live within in the first place.

- - - - - - - - - -

No, a far greater concern for voting security than these "must show ID" laws is the use of these infernal and completely non-verifiable electronic voting machines. Without a physical means of verifying each and every vote, these should not be allowed any place at all in the election process. And that is coming from someone who designs and builds electronic equipment for a living -- I am an electrical and software engineer by profession, so one could hardly accuse me of being "technophobic". To the contrary, I understand exactly how easy it is to commit voter fraud on a massive scale with these things, and that leaves me with zero confidence in the results of any election in which they were used. Without full confidence in the election process and the integrity of the outcome, there is no point in holding an election in the first place.

Answer 4

There are malls all across the country that are requiring people to show ID on Friday and Sat. nights (and sends the under 18 crowd home) so why on earth would we not want to show some proof that we are American? I am not one to like the idea of ID's, apocolyptic thing for me, but I feel that it is a necessity to provide proof you are who you say you are to vote on who runs this country!

Answer 5

I believe everyone should show ID but it is up to the states to set the rules not the federal government.

Answer 6

EVERYONE should have to prove they are a US Citizen prior to being allowed to vote. You have to show ID before you buy tobacco or alcohol why shouldn't you show ID before you vote ?

Answer 7

yes, they are already in place---if as in the case you mentioned, the person does not follow through with id-that voting will not count..

Answer 8

Don't even bother voting, because THIS secret and evil group has been in control of everything for far too long!...
http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm

Answer 9

Absolutely. I am in FL & don't want them to steal yet another election.

Answer 10

this is a dumb question with a dumb answer