Mansfield Republican to sue to try to get his voter-ID question on the ballot

IMHO the whole "show ID for alcohol" thing is complete bullshit as well. What the fuck is wrong with this country when we're so fucking uptight about alcohol like this? Remnants of puritanism. Nobody else in the world has this attitude.

Now that everyone is used to showing and carrying IDs around, people like this guy are wondering why we don't do it for other things too.

Talk about unintended consequences. Or maybe it was intended, after all, these same fucking prohibitionists tend to be haters of freedom too.

A Poll tax?

By East Cambridge
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 4:15pm

C'mon. Do you want to add "literacy test" to that as well, if you're going to wander off into that particular set of weeds? Poll tax my ass.

In fact, one of the means of registration in Massachusetts is applying when renewing your drivers' license (horror, gasp!) at the RMV. Nobody is bitching about that horrible invasion of privacy.

This isn't exactly the Gestapo walking through the train in Great Escape, demanding to "zee the papers!" Presenting some kind of identification at the polls seems like basic common sense to me.

Renewing drivers license

By chicken
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 4:24pm

...costs serious amounts of money and time. I myself avoided doing it for a long time because I don't drive, and I didn't want to stand in a long line either. I ended up taking a bus out to suburban hell to avoid the line at Chinatown.

And registering is an option there, but it is not the only way. I had already registered myself by printing out the form and mailing it in. There are numerous, free, opportunities for doing this.

Despite what Internet trolls may think, being forced to show government issued ID that costs money to obtain is a Poll Tax, and this is an opinion that has been upheld by courts of law. Wisconsin is testing this by offering "free" IDs, we shall see how it turns out. See Kaz's response below for more details. (Thanks Kaz!)

Poll Tax?

By Suldog
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 4:54pm

Why would this effectively be a poll tax?

(Agree with everything else you've said, by the way, but the logic behind it being a poll tax escapes me.)

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

Good question

By Kaz
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:09pm

The logic is that if I am mandated to get a government ID to vote, then I must go to somewhere, say the RMV, and pay a fee for them to produce a government ID for me. That fee is necessary to be paid in order to vote if you are requiring me to obtain that ID just to vote. That is the definition of a poll tax.

States, like Wisconsin, that have instituted a mandatory ID law get around this problem by requiring the RMV to give you the government ID for *free* IF you ask for it to be free.

In fact, the head of the Wisconsin DOT (a Republican appointee, ahem) put out a memo to the DMV telling them NOT to let people know that the IDs are now free if they only check a box asking for it to be free. In other words, come in asking for the free state ID for voting (thus avoiding a poll tax) and they'll gladly make sure you tick the right box on the form. Come in just asking for a state ID and it's "$28, thank you very much" even if you came in only because you discovered you need that ID to be able to vote.

(PS - Yet another Republican, home of the "small government", improvement that not only grows government's role but also costs even more by doing it because now the state has to eat the cost of creating all the new IDs in order to avoid a poll tax legal claim)

Poll Tax

By KellyJMF
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 8:43am

Because you have to pay for the id. If the only reason you have one is to enable you to vote, It's a poll tax. However, if they issued free voter id's at the RMV for those who provided appropriate documentation, that would be better.

Myself, I prefer to put as few hurdles in the way of an interested voter as possible, assuming they are actually eligible to vote.

Good Explanations

By Suldog
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:32am

My assumption was that any such ID would be issued free of charge. If it involved cost to a voter, it would certainly qualify as a poll tax. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

Crux of the biscuit

By John-W
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 10:50am

I think you got right to the throat of the issue here. We don't want barriers to voting. Especially barriers designed to target one specific group of people -- usually poor, which means disproportionately "people of color" or new-comer communities, but also college students. But the reality is old Jim Crow laws had to be strong walls against blacks because there was a strong desire to vote and a willingness to work at it. Today our voting percentages (last Presidential excepted) keep going down. Many people are just really apathetic. The smallest barrier ("you mean I have to go down to the town hall and get a card??") will limit participation.

I'm completely against this idea for the poll tax reason as well as it being a component of the national identification/database system that the US govt (DHS) is pushing on all fronts (no tinfoil hat needed, just read DHS's own strategic plans). At the same time I'm completely depressed that all it would take would be a process like registering your dog or your car (without a fee) that would derail so many people from voting.

Why is this so terrible?

By Stevil
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:00am

As it is you can still be questioned -but you have to show a utility bill or other form of proof of residency that may not be particularly official and is probably a lot more easily copied than govt ID.

There may be no fraud - but it's easy to see how it could happen. My neighbors moved away and they were still on the voter list over 5 years later even though we reported that they moved almost every election and annually filled out the city census that excluded them from the list of residents. My wife has NEVER used my last name for any legal document in her life - but somehow ended up on the voter list under both her name and my name and it again took years to get her listing under my name removed (and nobody seemed to have any documentation showing how she got on under my name). Anybody could have shown up with forged documents and cast votes under these names with something as simple as an altered address on a utility bill. And that's in one building with 7 units and ten residents - a 70% accuracy rate is not very good for something as important as voting.

I honestly don't think anyone voted under these names - but it seems like it would be pretty easy to pull off if you were so inclined. Not impossible, but a bit harder if you need government ID to do it.

Why Not Safeguard One of Our Most Precious Rights?

By Corky
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:42am

A violation of privacy? An unfair burden on the poor? Puh-lease.

I routinely offer my driver's license when I enter my polling place - even though it's not required.

Voting is the cornerstone of our great republic and a right that should be protected! There may be no voter fraud going on - but wouldn't it be better to be sure?

Red

By anon²
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:58pm

Herring alert

Voter fraud

By John-W
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 10:52am

I think on the previous thread for this topic it was mentioned that many (if not all) the calls of organized voter fraud have typically resulted in little factual evidence, such as the ACORN "scandals," or are a series of anecdotal stories or assumptions that don't hold much water. Maybe there are some gaps in the system that could be exploited, but they have been demonstrated to not have been exploited so far.

At the same time the DIEBOLD scandal and other voting machine issues are documented cases of potential vote tampering and yet it doesn't seem like many people talk about it (especially if they don't want to be accused of having a predilection for tinfoil headgear). Curious how that works...we talk a lot about potential problems and don't address the actual problems...

the little things matter

By DaveA
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 12:02pm

Solving a problem that does not exist makes many people believe the problem does, in fact exist. When we allow those with an agenda to take away these small liberties, we concede ground that becomes impossible to re-take later and becomes part of a series of concessions leading down the path to disempowerment, disengagement, and ultimately loss of freedom.
In this case, examples of the problem that does not exist would be things like:
1) one malevolent person will get to the polls before I do and vote in my place, contrary to my interests. In fact, if I don't vote often, I might never know.
2) a political party will take advantage of known non-voters to bring in legions of surrogates to do #1 above on a massive scale
3) an organized group, while unable to effect a significant change in outcome via voter fraud, could use carefully orchestrated disruptions to invalidate the entire process.
4) a smart and organized group could realize that it's not even necessary to actually do the fraud, but to raise the spectre of fraud and then manipulate new reporting about inherent messiness of voting and inconsistency of procedures to cause certain precincts to be thrown out so that the outcome of a close election can be changed. Sound Familiar? Florida 2000? Ohio 2004?
Voter ID requirements while seeming logical and innocuous in their application, are part of a larger strategy to disenfranchise voters and empower government officials to manipulate the outcome of elections. By perpetuating the cynical and offensive notion that most people cannot be trusted and "it is easy to see how it could happen" --because, of course, people are bad and just looking for a chance to cheat--they create a presumption of ill intent that makes everything else possible.
So, although the possibility that I might have to show my Drivers' License in order to vote may seem a small thing, I think it's something that matters and something we should just say no to.

Voter impersonation fraud is

By anon
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:21am

Voter impersonation fraud is very very very rare. There's almost no documented cases of it occurring. I mean think about it: in order for it to work you'd need to know that someone had not voted or did not intend to vote and be able to get in there ahead of them. That's a lot of work for one vote. Real election fraud doesn't work on one vote it works on the basis of hundreds or thousands.

So when we weigh the fact that this measure doesn't really solve a problem and the fact that it puts another hurdle in the way of people exercising their rights then it doesn't seem reasonable at all.

I agree, however

By cycler
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 3:12pm

How many people in our modern society don't actually have a driver's license and/ or a government issued ID?

I'm just curious how many people would actually be unable to vote because they don't have such an ID. While I'm sensitive to the connotations of a "poll tax", wouldn't it be pretty simple to allow people with reduced circumstances to qualify for a reduced fee/ free state ID?

I agree that the charges of widespread voter fraud are ridiculous and generally right wing demonization of the "other" and given the lack of actual evidence, I'm not sure that this problem that really needs a solution.

On the other, I'm not that convinced that it's really an unreasonable request given the need to prove identification in so many other public realms. And I've always thought it was a little bit odd that one doesn't really have to provide any sort of photo identification for such an important process.

A lot of the minority groups

By datadyne007
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 3:30pm

A lot of the minority groups don't because they don't have proper access to DMVs. I was reading about this the other day. Many states have actually MOVED DMVs from Democrat areas (typically urban areas where these minorities are living) to Republican areas that aren't as easy to access (or impossible) via public transit. This moving effort also targets students who might not have government IDs because students in urban areas (and often don't have cars) tend to lean Democrat. This is a Republican effort to disenfranchise Democrats and it is wrong on so many levels. The goal is to silence all of the minorities that won Obama the White House in 2008.

This obviously doesn't apply in Boston, as we have a huge RMV in the middle of the city/Chinatown, but it does in many other locations around the US.

Not to mention...

By anon
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 4:07pm

Even if there weren't specific malice on the part of any party in moving the _MV, minorities and the poor are more likely to have less access to government facilities during regular hours due to having work conflicts and other matters to attend to, and less flexibility to work around them. That's why even if you gave out the government IDs for free, it still wouldn't fix the problem - you would need to operate the _MV 24/7.

For now we have an RMV office in Chinatown...

By Charles Bahne
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:25pm

The Registry has announced plans to close the office in Chinatown when the current lease expires. They have not yet said where the replacement office will be located.

In parts of Massachusetts the current administration has relocated Registry offices to rest areas on the Mass. Turnpike. Not only do you have to have a car to get there, you have to pay a toll on the Pike. Even if you live next to the office, it's impossible to walk there, and you're faced with a very long drive because the next exit is however many miles down the road.

I'd generally agree

By Stevil
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 5:41pm

My main concern would be with a small local election as the most vulnerable which you could probably easily pull off to sway an election that may only be decided by a few dozen votes or less-for example city council or an override vote.

Most importantly I agree with your statement that it's odd that you don't have to provide photo ID for such an important process.

When Georgia instituted a

By anon
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 6:11pm

When Georgia instituted a voter ID law it was estimated that as many as 10% of the black residents of the state could not meet its requirements. Voter ID laws tend to impact people who are already facing hurdles to voting such as the poor and the infirm elderly.

One big problem in modern politics is that a lot of people can't fathom that other people live their lives differently than they do. In the current job market some people have run into hurdles because a lot of job application is done on line now. Which is fine for the majority of Americans who have internet access but which can be problematic for people who don't. You're assuming that because YOU have a valid state issued ID that everyone has one and that getting one is not a big deal. That's not necessarily the case.

And in the end, as I said above, there's no proof that voter impersonation is even a minor problem in elections. So since voter ID laws will make voting harder for SOME people and there's not evidence that voter impersonation (the only type of vote fraud it guards against) is ANY problem, it's unconscionable to enact voter ID laws.

Just two issues of far greater concern wrt election fraud, but which get only a fraction of the attention that voter ID laws do, are the security of electronic voting machines and voter suppression attempts such as caging. Voter suppression efforts in particular have prevented thousands of people from voting. Yet there's no discussion of these things.

It seems, and this is just my opinion, that the voter ID push is nothing but blatant partisan politics. The people who push for voter ID laws are almost all Republicans (and by this I mean the actual sponsors and campaigners, not individuals who might support it). I don't think it's coincidental that the groups which voter ID laws are most likely to disenfranchise, the poor and racial minorities, are ones which traditionally vote heavily in favor Democrats. In general also, Republicans tend to fare better in elections with low turnout and so anything which suppresses the number of people who get to the polls will tend to act in their favor.

Disenfranchised folks

By eeka
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:41pm

often can't get/keep IDs.

A lot of folks with persistent mental illness (or just histories of the world treating them like shit) have been in so many foster homes/psychiatric hospitals/residential programs/benches in parks that they have no idea where their birth certificate is and don't know enough information to get it. Or, they've had IDs but they've lost them/sold them to buy whatever they're obsessively interested in/destroyed them because they were tracking their thoughts.

Or, they know where they were born and their mother's maiden name and all that, but they don't want to divulge their personal info to the same government that has involuntarily committed them multiple times, and you just TRY convincing someone who has schizophrenia that the RMV or the vital statistics office already know when and where they were born, but you have to tell them anyway, even though that's not exactly logical, is it?

One person, who doesn't have major mental illness but attended school maybe through the third grade, told me that he saw a program about how grocery store loyalty cards track what you do, and all the other cards no doubt do it too, and they're probably all in your wallet transmitting to each other what you do all day. He won't get a photo ID.

I, for one, want all of the aforementioned people to be able to vote on whether they'll have healthcare and food and a roof over their heads.

How do they vote now?

By Stevil
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 8:26pm

If they don't pay a utility bill (either homeless, living with parents/children etc.) and they don't have a job - what do they do if their residency is challenged and they have to show such proof?

Government letters

By eeka
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 11:52pm

Letter from any government agency -- SSA, DMH, etc. will work for proving residency.

I've never gotten asked for anything to vote.

I don't think an ID

By anon
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 12:20pm

I don't think an ID requirement is a good idea. But if someone can't remember where their ID is, how can they remember which candidate supports the ideas they believe in?

I'm more concerned with states that don't allow felons to vote. We make the laws, so people convicted of breaking a law certainly need the right to vote for someone who might change a law they consider unfair.

why is this needed?

By anon
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 12:51pm

if there's no fraud, then what's the problem? Our money might be better spent building a net to catch the moon on the off chance it falls back to earth...

a. this is going to cost money-- licensing isn't free.
b. this will disenfranchise some people, particularly elderly and minorities. There is a basic right to vote in the constitution. If people are denied the right to vote because they don't have proper ID, how is that right?

Your argument only works if you [falsely] believe there is massive voter fraud.

Local board could provide a card

By Daan
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 7:20pm

The local voters registration board could provide a card. It would not have a picture. It also could be mailed to the citizen's address printed on the voter's registration form.

No additional funds are required from the voter. Additional funds would be required for the registration board but for something as important as voting tax dollars are a fair source of funding for printing the cards, postage, etc.

The desire of the gentleman from Mansfield for showing identification at the polls would be satisfied.

That's not compliant with

By anon
Mon, 09/12/2011 - 8:45pm

That's not compliant with HAVA.

Back in Missouri...

By FlyingToaster
Tue, 09/13/2011 - 1:16am

... where I grew up (before it was solid Republicant territory), we were issued voting cards when we registered to vote. It was about business-card sized, on heavy card stock, with name, dob, address, ward and precinct. And it didn't cost a dime to get one (thought it certainly cost the county to mail it). Most voter drives used volunteers -- I registered at a local shopping mall -- so it's one clerk in the county Board of Elections entering the information into the rolls and printing up the card from the new entry.

At some point Missouri disconinued this, and now they have an odious VoterID law.

If Massachusetts wants to implement a free voter card, great, but don't make it have anything to do with the RMV. Issue them from town/city hall, like marriage licenses and birth certificates.

Mansfield Republican to sue to try to get his voter-ID question on the ballot

Comments

Support Universal Hub

In other Boston news