No Voter ID Needed
Today is primary election day in Illinois. Voting is taking place in Democratic and Republican primaries for Governor, Attorney General, U.S. Congress, and all major County offices.
I went to vote this morning. On entering the polling place I am greeted and given a form to fill out, right next to where the election judges are seated behind a table. The form has spaces for name, address, age, and then your signature.
After completing the form you give it to the election judge and she compares it to the information on her laptop, including matching my signature today to my signature I made when I registered to vote years ago.
On her confirmation that they match, I am good to go.
This system is all we need, anywhere in the country. When followed conscientiously, it would eliminate all in person voter fraud.
The only issue is people who cannot sign their name for whatever reason, and separate verification procedures can be set up for them.
Easy peasey.
It's pretty easy to forge a signature good enough to fool a election judge that barely looks at it, not so easy to forge a face.
I personally know a guy that has five voter registration cards all under different names, yup he's a Democrat and he does vote five times in every election that matters to him.
uh, no.
Yeah right, and Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Elvis and I have drinks together every News Years Eve. If you know of someone fraudulently voting, turn them in, that will take care of the .02% of actual voter fraud that's been found.
I agree. Considering the penalty for voter fraud no one is going to take the chance of spending the next 25 years in prison for voting in 5 elections. I call bullshit on this one.
A) LOL. Is your name perchance Kris Kobach? How's your legal case going in Kansas? Have you proven even one case of in-person voter fraud yet out of the millions you claimed to exist?
.
B) The moronic and obviously false scenario you describe would actually be voter REGISTRATION fraud, not in-person voter fraud. It simply doesn't happen but if it did the error wouldn't be at the polling place but during the voter registration and verification process.
I have reported him four times to date nothing has been done to stop him, perhaps that's because this city is run by Democrats and votes over 85% Democrat in all elections.
It should work the same way on absentee military ballots, where you need a witness etc in addition to all the mundane requirements of that form. Let's use the "easy peasy" approach you're so fond of for the military as well and lets have those ballots counted first.
There is only one thing on this thread that is really pertinent.
Photo ID is not necessary to eliminate in person voter fraud.
Given that, why is photo ID being pushed for the past few years? To try and disenfranchise presumed Democratic voters.
To establish positive identification.
The real question is why liberals fight it with all their will?
Signature matching is positive identification.
No, somebody working at a polling station is not a handwriting expert. ID is what is needed and the new technology coming out for credit cards (the chip) is going to go on all drivers licenses eventually. With the new chip, you don't have to sign the back of the card anymore - Know why? Because signatures never prevented fraud.
The real question is why are Republicans specifically targeting minorities they know are less likely to have certain forms of ID? Why are they so eager to purge voter rolls of people who have already established their citizenry but happened to have moved in the last two years? Why do Republicans believe that poor and minority Americans shouldn't have a voice or a vote? Why are Republicans targeting early voting and Sunday voting when they know that is the most likely time poor and minority voters vote? Narrowing voting times and adding specific types of ID's that the poor and minority voter is less likely to have has nothing to do with wanting to establish "positive identification."
A day after the Shelby v Holder decision which repealed certain sections of the voting rights act, why did Republican lawmakers in North Carolina announce plans for an election law that, the federal appeals court has since found, restricted voting and registration in several ways, “all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”?
"The court said that in crafting the law, the Republican-controlled general assembly requested and received data on voters’ use of various voting practices by race. It found that African American voters in North Carolina are more likely to vote early, use same-day voter registration and straight-ticket voting. They were also disproportionately less likely to have an ID, more likely to cast a provisional ballot and take advantage of pre-registration."
"Then, the court, said, lawmakers restricted all of these voting options, and further narrowed the list of acceptable voter IDs. “… [W]ith race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.”
“Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision , they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist,” the court said.
Why do Republicans fight poor and minority votes with all their will?
GOOD GOD ! You don't have to be a handwriting expert to match signatures. Are you fricking serious?
It would be just as likely that someone will look at a photo id and say, "ok that's you" (when it isn't) , as someone would ok signatures that don't match.
Unless you practiced my signature hundreds of times, or had a copy of it in front of you, (which you would not be allowed to do in front of an election judge), you are not going to be able to duplicate my signature. And who is going to practice and practice and practice an individual signature in order to steal ONE VOTE?
There is no end to right wing unreasonableness.
Over the decades since I first registered to vote, my signature has changed. A volunteer at any of the voting locations throughout my life would never have had the skills of a graphologist to verify that my signature at age 18 is the same as now.
Many studies have been done about this. No one's signature or penmanship remains the same throughout one's lifetime and should not be used as "positive identification".
Example:
If the signatures match, it most certainly is positive identification.
If they don't , then some other form of id may be needed.
What you want to do is tell someone whose signature matches their signature on the voter registration filed with the state that they cant vote unless they have a photo. That is absurd.
In a perfect world with perfect people, yes.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
I never said that, so please do not twist what I succinctly stated in comment 1.3.7 .
What I am agreeing with you about is that , if the signatures don't match it doesn't necessarily mean they were made by two different people. In such a case the voter could then produce photo id or whatever is agreed upon.
BUT, if they do match the person votes with no further rigmarole.
Photo ID laws are not necessary to prevent in person voter fraud. Thats all there is to it.
Actually Vic, whether each voter in Chicago can be positively identified or not doesn't really matter. The people counting the votes and programming the computers are all part of the machine anyway, so the result if going to be what the machine wants it to be, no matter who does or does not actually vote.
This process sounds like the voter has already been ID'd, and that all subsequent trips to the polls are subject to verification. So that's really not a "no ID" situation.
If a person is not in the system, they would be subject to having their identity verified, correct?
If so, I have no problem with this.
You must provide proper ID when you register to vote. That is not good enough for many "red" states.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
"You must provide a PHOTO ID when you register to vote"
You must provide a photo ID when purchasing tobacco and alcohol. You must provide a photo ID when appling for food stamps, HUD, and all goverment social benefits. Yet the same people that are able to provide a ID for what they want can't provide one when they vote......amazing!
So, buying tobacco or alcohol is protected by the Constitution? Does the Constitution say that all citizens have the right to vote, but only with proper ID?
Do you want to create a Constitutional amendment making it a requirement?
Plus, having an ID means nothing, if you aren't carrying it around with you. So maybe we should also have local police check you periodically to make sure that you are carrying your now Constitutional mandated photo ID at all times.
Can't vote with a school ID, even a college one. And did you have to pay for your daughter to get one?
The schools usually give the ID's. My 3 girls all have one from their schools
It's not that they don't have or can't get, it's the normal rallying cry of the left that it is a poll tax or any other argument revolving around not allowing these folks to vote.
As to not having a birth certificate, how do these folks get an SSAN? How do they ever cash a check, open a bank account, drive a car, apply for any kind of anything from the government (every agency requires proof of identification).
Where I live (rural) I sometimes recognize the people at my polling place, sometimes not. As to them verifying my signature? What training do they receive in this? They look and say 'good enough'.
I hear the retort, well, there's no proof of voter fraud. How does one determine that without visiting each and every voter that cast a ballot to ask them if they did, since there are no ID requirments?
Any misuse of a signature system could also exist in a photo id system.
Both systems require looking at something and confirming it is authentic.
Signature comparison is regularly used in court for purposes of identification and authentication. Someone cannot just 'copy' a signature , it would take extensive practice to even come close to duplicating a signature to the extent that the differences would not be visible to anyone. One fraudulent vote is simply not worth the time it would take to achieve it.
Lazy or corrupt poll workers could just as easily pass a fraudulent photo id through as a fraudulent signature.
If you daughter moves to Texas to go to college she'll find that her college photo ID won't be accepted as a legitimate ID to vote........but her gun license will be.
That's the excuse anyway. The real reason is that the GOP fears that college students and educated people in general are more likely to vote for a Dem, and they're correct in that fear. If they were really concerned just about the provenance of an ID they'd simply set a standard for which a valid ID for voting can be based, regardless of what institution issues it.
Apparently my state doesn't deliberately try to disenfranchise college students like yours so clearly does.
.
By the way one of the forms of "ID" my state does not accept is a gun license, although hunting licenses can be used as proof of residence when you register to vote. There's a clear difference between our states in their values here.
That would be an aspect of voter registration, not ID at the polls. You obviously don't understand the difference.
Perhaps, but "most" isn't the issue is it? If even one person is disenfranchised by the law we have a problem Houston.
and if one not eligible votes, the problem is just as big, right?
when i went to college I wanted to vote in my home county and did, absentee ballot was easy. I cared about election at home not in college city.
I did skip class one election day and said I went home to vote and nobody questioned that
It was free...
I am just saying that a school photo ID is not acceptable as an ID to register to vote.
That very rarely happens unlike voter disenfranchisement which is quite common. Here in WI the courts estimated that for the 2014 election as many as 300K eligible voters could have been denied the right to vote due to our new voter ID law which the GOP passed. As a result the courts blocked the law until changes were made.
But you can't register or vote with just college photo ID, though you should be able to.
The real reason? Did you pull that out of your crystal ball? You must be privvy to sources within the GOP to know all this insider information. Or you could just be assuming this, based on your personal beliefs.
You are not answering his question.
Is it just as bad if ONE ineligible person votes, as if ONE person is denied a vote.
Is one somehow better or worse than the other?
If so, which one?
What's ridiculous is the allusion that most college kids don't already have a valid drivers license. The gold standard for ID in most states.
I was a registrar in the 70's. I registered my father and checked his ID before doing so because I took my job seriously.
Since when is a college/university photo ID card proof of US citizenship and LEGAL age eligibility to vote? Some US citizen students are only 16 or 17 (or younger) and in college. AND ... DACA and other illegals also have college IDs. None of them, whether citizen or illegal, have a LEGAL right to vote.
Sorry but the courts have proved that claim to be a total lie. That's largely why your side has lost a number of these voter ID cases.
.
What's happened is the GOP in certain red states has passed laws which have ID requirements which some citizens cannot meet. These laws disproportionately affect the poor, the elderly and racial minorities. And some Republicans have freely admitted that was the intent. So the courts have struck down or blocked these laws numerous times in a number of states including yours which lost in court 5 times in a row.....and which was only reinstated in September pending appeal in the 5th Circuit. Funny that you didn't know that given that your side kept losing and the courts clearly stated why you lost.
It does sound like Republicans are threatened by equal rights. It must be tough to learn to cope with living on a level playing field.....that's probably why you folks always oppose things which improve access to the ballot box because you know that the more people vote the worse it is for the GOP.
Somehow I'm not surprised to see you spin this that way. On the other hand, why are Dems so afraid of having a level playing field where everyone is required to provide proof of identity to vote, like most other countries? and that silly argument that people don't have IDs is a strawman. In this day and age, it is simply not credible.
The courts seem worried about it, that's probably why they so often rule against the GOP's attempts to restrict access to the voting booth.
As far as which issue is more of a problem it's clear that disenfranchisement is the overwhelmingly greater problem. Ineligible voting and in-person voter fraud are very rare events despite claims made by folks like you.
In some cases yes. The law either made it impossible or unconstitutionally burdensome to meet the ID requirement. That's why the courts have blocked so many of these GOP-passed laws because even one disenfranchised voter is too many.
Also note that in a number of cases the courts also found that the design and the intent of these laws was racist. Same thing with the GOP-passed district gerrymandering.
That's not the issue. It's whether a particular law passes constitutional muster and many of these GOP-passed laws have not, at least not in their original form.
In other words while it's permissible for a state to have a voter ID requirement it must make the hurdles to get that ID low enough so that all eligible citizens can obtain that ID. But instead the GOP plays games by closing DMVs in non-white districts, charging for ID, requiring birth certificates for elderly voters who never were issued one, purging voter registration rolls through "caging", etc.
That just ain't so. You can register to vote without ID, but you can't actually vote without one of these forms of ID:
Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS.
Texas personal identification card issued by DPS.
All three require a certified copy of your birth certificate.
I didn't write this little article in order to poll everyone on whether they like photo ID laws.
I wrote it to tell you all know that I know they are not necessary. I vote every time without showing an ID, and I am quite sure the poll judge can determine , very accurately, whether I am the person I say I am by comparing my signatures from today and when I registered to vote.
Case closed.
I myself would question why anyone would want fraudulently cast a vote in the first place. I believe in the last National election there was a 43-45% turnout (which is pathetic in itself), tough enough to get folks to turn out let alone go through the BS of scamming the system, in my opinion.
Vote fraud in Illinois already stole one Presidential election. Democrats have to ensure it can steal another if necessary.
Sounds like a case for a National identity card here (papers please).
I myself believe that any voter fraud that may occur is minimal at best (who wants to stand in line more than once). Having said that I really do not see why supplying an ID (I have to) is such a monumental problem. As others have pointed out it is almost impossible to cash a check, rent a car, blah, blah without one these days.
The easiest solution would be to incorporate it into our social security registration (your number doesn't matter it's already out there) automatically registering voters right from jump street.
But wouldn't conservative loons like the John Birch Society vehemently object? That was one of their big issues 50 years ago, and absolute objection to any form of national ID especially one based on your SS number......because the evil gubermint can track you and read your mind or something.
If you don't need photo ID to vote then you don't need photo ID to buy alcohol, tobacco or firearms. It's that simple if you don't require photo ID to vote which is very important why do you have to show it for other things?
From what I've been reading in a lot of the comments here as to not needing id, I shouldn't have any trouble voting in the USA myself. Can I apply by email?
Hey, if an avowed anti-Semite and Holocaust denier is the Republican candidate for Congress in Illinois, they need all the votes they can fake and create (sounds to me easy to do in the USA) to prevent his getting a seat in government.
Are you registered to vote in one of the 50 US States Buzz? If not, you cannot vote.
You need proof of your identity to register.
The exception to that is California. Hell, they even have an illegal alien in their state government now.
I can swear under oath that I was born in Ontario (which is absolutely true and probably as good evidence of eligibility as any other Californian voter) - I'll bet a lot of American voters can register to vote with less than that.
So, why not use that same proof to verify your identity to vote? Obviously you must have it to register......
Every American citizen should be REQUIRED to vote; it should be illegal to NOT vote.
I agree, but I also think that every one should be required to serve their country similar to what they do in Israel.
I don't feel it's silly at all. Many Americans have forgotten or simply don't understand the individual responsibility we have to ensure our Country remains free and our democracy is not attacked. It's clear many aren't capable of placing country above all else. If we all served our country in some way it would promote a sense of pride and responsibility to ensure that we are not attacked from outside or within.
Not all my comments can be silly Apollo.
Serving your country in some manner should be a reqquirment as opposed to the open gift of citizenship with no strings or understandign of the responsibilities that go with citizenship. We once had a vibrant peace corps along with the military draft. For the people that need help here in the U.S., there is a lot we could do in the name of national service for them. Houses, food, medical care, etc.
Many countires have mandatory military service. Not saying we should, but there should be a requirment to do something for your fellow citizens.
I agree, citizenship should be earned and not given away. I've always been a proponent to reviewing and revising our immigration policy. Of course, you and I probably have a different definition of what "earned" means ($$$$ -vs- hard working) but we probably also have a different idea of what you should do with it if you're privileged enough to be born into it.
Who knows if we have a different idea or not. I've always been comfortable with a people earning their citizenship through military service. Be a part of the country, not just squatting here. I also believe in hard work-it shouldn't be citizenship for sale to the highest bidderr, if that's what you were talking about.
That's the law in Australia.
Hell No, But "None of the Above" should be a choice and if none won, the office must stay vacant for the entire term
Well, that's just the beauty of free choice IMO. People are free to vote or not. Forcing folks to do things like vote kinda defeats the purpose of free choice don't you think?
Besides, i'm a firm believer that everyone isn't qualified to vote. If one doesn't take at least a modicum of interest in what or who they are voting for their vote is basically worthless to anyone but the partisans shilling for it.
I know people in my union who have NEVER voted for anyone or anything but what the union tells them to. They simply are too intellectually lazy to think for themselves. The devil could be running for office and they would vote for him if the union told them to.
It's unbelievable really.
Well, think of how many people are so partisan that they'll vote for the candidate with the "proper" letter after their name, regardless of horrible that candidate is. Hell, Ray Moore almost won his last election, despite getting the boot for violating the constitution on two separate occasions. Think of the candidates on both sides of the fence who have gotten re-elected after committing some pretty serious crimes. Most voters care more about their political party than they do our country.
Yep, but not totally. Otherwise Trump would not have won.
i should have known you'd say that, when I deliberately left Clinton and trump out of it, and kept it non partisan. Religious fanatics and political fanatics aren't capable of logic or a rational conversation where they can't get brag about their idolatry.
Sure, keep telling yourself you don’t fit that MO..... precisely
Who tried to have a non-partisan discussion, and who had to interject with a comment about his holy emperor, Trump? Thanks for making my point, though.
It's frustrating isn't it. That's why I dropped off this site for a couple months. I haven't been back that long and I'm already tired of the partisanship.
I've only popped in a few times since NV shut down. It seems that this place has several of the worst of the NV religious/right wing fanatics, who are the most prolific posters, and not nearly enough of the decent religious/right wing people who aren't all about hatred, dominionism/Christian sharia, those who understand that America's place in the world is not going to last long if we go down the path of isolationism. So many articles about how atheists and leftists are evil because of support for .. gasp .. government staying out of our bedrooms as long as it's consenting adults (small government is good, except ... never, it seems, and especially not when they want government to give them the power to legally discriminate - so anti Jesus it's not even funny). So much fighting against equal rights as if it were the 1950s. Backwards people who don't give a shit about people, who have no empathy or souls. C4P (who lives in CA but pretends he's all about the heartland) just posted an article which started with this:
There’s no polite way to say it. Atheists today are the most arrogant, ignorant and dangerous people on earth.
Imagine if I wrote an article in here which made those claims about religious zealots. They'd be screeching about how I was persecuting them, and demanding that Perrie take it down. Even though the facts would support my claims - you cannot fight this kind of ignorance with cult members who claim that knowledge is dangerous, and who want a dictator to tell them what to do and think.
In real life, I avoid ignorant people, zealots, bigots, haters .. so why do I need to subject myself to them in here? There just isn't the critical mass of intelligent, kind, logical people in here yet to provide enough other articles to participate in, or to have a decent discussion with - which includes debate. When you're talking to someone who has no clue what a scientific theory is, or who isn't interested in facts, just propaganda ... I can have a more rational discussion with most eighth graders.
Dear Friend Katrix: It elevates my spirit to see you here again.
All my best to you and yours.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Katrix,
I am sorry you feel that way. But try to look at this from a different POV. NT was designed to give everyone a voice, even if what they are saying is deemed ugly. It is important to know what is out there and not hide from it. Is it not better to put out a positive POV and counter those you disagree with, then to just dismiss it ? I personally like knowing what is out there. Then I know what I have to do.
Please stay, even if it's only for the non-political articles. (everyone gets along better there)
All the best to you, friend Enoch! I don't know if I told you - but I called Mom's priest the other day, and he's going to try to find someone in MD to bring her communion as a shut-in.
I know you don't have problems with those who want to deny equal rights to others, or who hate those who think or act differently - even if those thoughts and actions don't directly impact you, such as two consenting adults marrying someone of another race or gender, and not forcing you to do the same. There's no need to explain. I get it.
I don't think it's different from NV in that regard .. it's just that we don't have a critical mass of people in here yet, who are participating and writing and seeding.
I see people like Old School Marine write complaining meta about how it's all lefties writing rightie-bashing articles ... I'm not seeing those, I see the exact opposite on the front page. But I'm assuming he has a reason for feeling that way, so maybe he's seen stuff that I haven't.
I agree, but people have to give it some time for NT to find its footing. We are going to release some new tools for people who write, as an incentive to produce original material and look forward to more participation.
He's not wrong. It's been here. The thing is we are all human, and feel the things that matter to us, as individuals, and not so much the other guys pain, since we don't tend to look at it. I do it, too. Sometimes I have to stand back and say, "Is this person right, even if I disagree with them?" Often the answer is yes. The trick is being able to breath and that is the tough part.
Dear Friend Katrix: Good.
That is important.
Your dear mother should be able to remain connected to her religious way of life.
People don't lose their needs, just because they cannot drive to a congregation.
If I can be of any help in this, please let me know by private mail here, or my personal email which you have.
Sometimes a retired clergy person can come visit and administer communion follow Sunday services where they worship.
That allows for connection to important rituals, direct provision of pastoral care, and interpersonal contact.
All three are important.
Good on your for being so attentive to the needs of your dear mother.
Your compassion, caring, warmth, humanity and strong ethical values makes you a beacon of light in a world too often cold, indifferent and dark.
Peace and Abundant Blessings to You and Yours.
Enoch.
I had a great conversation at our local pub the other day. One acquaintance who is a HUGE trump fan .. lots of people with different views .. when you talk in person, it's much better.
Dear Friend Perrie: Looking forward to the new tools for original writers, as we have communicated.
All best wishes for a joyous and meaningful Passover forthcoming to you and yours.
The influenza season, while not over is largely past us.
I am home now.
So is Mrs. E. from her winter in Israel.
Henei mah tov, u'mah nayim shevit mishpachah gam yachad.
Behold, how good and how nice it is to sit together as family.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch (Gearing up for Bedikat Chametz).
we need you here
Thank you, Enoch. I will try to email you over the next few days; if not, feel free to email me to remind me. I did ask her priest but he hasn't followed through, but there must be someone I can call locally to set it up. Mom has lost much of her interest in religion due to her dementia, but she's still very much in the moment and I want to try to keep it as much a part of her life as I can. Even if she doesn't remember it afterwards - that's not the point.
Aw, thank you. It's good to see you here!
Good lord, i make a simple observation (which happens to be 100% true by the way) and you get your knickers in a bunch about it. I suspect this simply has more to do with a hatred for the person mentioned than anything else but once again that's just my opinion, i could be wrong.
I wanted to let this thread stay more laid back, but before it recedes and after reading some of the responses, there is one thing I have to say.
There is NO necessity for "photo id" to prevent in person voter fraud. THERE IS NO NECESSITY. A signature system is more than adequate , and frankly, every thinking person knows that. The question then becomes not why do we need photo id in polling places (because we don't) but , rather, why are some people (Republicans) saying that we do?
It is pretty simple, they knew or have learned that more Democrats than Republicans don't have photo id cards, and have 'weaponized' various state legislatures to pass laws that , from their perspective, will hold down the democratic vote in future elections. A few Republican politicos have even admitted as much.
then why don't we do same thing with buying alcohol, cigarettes and guns? Why show ID to buy car tags? Why show ID to police so they can write you a ticket?
Can't have it both ways
I think everything that can be said about this article has been said, and it will close at the end of tonight, roughly midnight eastern.
Yep, close it John, run and hide like usual.
You are comical. I have never "hid" on a forum and I have been on these things since 2001.
After a day or two these threads are nothing but repetition and insults.
If Perrie wants to monitor it, I'll leave it open for you, but I am not going to be looking at it after today.
No problem, just lock it like usual when things aren’t going your way John.
Hooah!
By the way ..... go Blue!
I don't like to keep going over and over the same ideas a hundred times. We dont need photo ID to prevent in person voter fraud. Nothing you can say for the twentieth time will change that.
Everyone gave their opinions about it.
Okay, keeping telling yourself that John.
Okay, I will leave it open for you. I will not be checking in on it after tonight though. Maybe you will end up talking to yourself, which would be fitting.
Well, apparently some mail in votes have been disqualified because the people comparing the signatures didn't think they matched. This isn't foolproof either.
Corrected link: