Photo ID Amendment

[JonnyB]

Minnesota will have a public vote on amending the state Constitution to add the requirement for a photo ID when voting. The rhetoric is hot on both sides, of course.

This morning, it - and the marriage amendment - came up in a conversation with a very left-leaning cow-orker. He asked my opinion on the ID amendment, which I support. He, being a hard-core Democrat is dead-set against it. Why? Because, of course, poor people who may not have a driver's license might be caused hardship by having to purchase the state ID. It costs $17.25 every four years; $6 less for those 65+ years of age.

The conversation, as is often the case, went off on several tangents and eventually died out. I looked up the cost after the fact and emailed it to him. I followed up with "If the ID was issued at no cost, would you still be opposed to it?" His answer: "Yes."

I responded that his argument had just collapsed, and that it was never about the poor people at all. He had already left for the weekend, so hasn't yet replied. He'll change the subject or ignore me entirely, though; that's his standard technique when hit in the face by reality.

I also asked if he'd change his mind if I could provide him with ten proven cases of ineligible voters. He wouldn't agree to that. I said I'd change my position if he could show me 10 people who couldn't afford the state ID. His mind is made up - stop trying to confuse him with facts!

If the ID is required to exercise a right, then, in my opinion, the state should provide said ID to anyone requesting it. Driving is considered a priveledge, so charging for the license makes (only minimal) sense. (Minimal in that I already passed the test, proving I was capable of safe operation, when I was 16. Paying to renew the plastic every 4 years is unreasonable. It's purely a  tax but they won't admit it.)

jb

[brimic]

That argument against ID is the main one used in WI against it. The argument does fall on its face when facts are involved.
WI has been plagued by disgusting shenanigans from the left since we passed voter ID.
To get an ID (state pays for it), you need a birth certificate in my state. The ACLU found one old lady who refused to order a new BC in order to get a state ID to vote and filed a suit. Her/ACLU's claim was that paying $20 for a BC was a 'poll tax' despite the fact that the first BC issued to a person is free. No surprise, entitlements always trump responsibilities to the welfare class.
Lawsuits have been shopped around to leftist Dane County judges. The latest was an injunction against the ID law ruling by a judge who signed a petition to recall Walker- right before our recall election!
In one of our districts bordering Illinois (there have been anecdotal stories of loaded Illionois buses showingup to certain polling sites) , there was rampant voter fraud during this election- there were hundreds of new voters registered but none of them signed the voter rolls book when they voted as required by state law.

Good luck on getting your voter ID law in place, you'll need it.

[Nick1911]

Identification absolutely should be required for voting.   Ask if ID should be required to buy a firearm; and that's a guaranteed right as well. It would take a... special... kind of cognitive dissonance to agree with one but not the other.

[longeyes]

The Left will not be happy until NON-minorities, the allegedly unrightful owners of America (ask Obama), are all summarily disqualified.  Now that would be JUST suffrage, you see.

Don't expect rational argument from zealots.  Waste of time.

[HankB]

Minnesota?

Didn't it require dozens of precincts to turn in vote totals that exceeded the number of votes cast in order to put Al Franken in the Senate?

Move along, nothing to see, no fraud problem here.

[French G.]

I'm only scared because the issue could get conflated enough to end us up with a mandatory national voter ID card with biometrics, RFID and whatever else mark of the beast crap you can think up.

Beyond that, I'm sure voter fraud is happening. Plenty of under-reported claims last cycle of voters bussed into places etc. We have valid state IDs, use them. Yes, provide them at no cost if needed to avoid the BS poll tax charge. Funny, pretty sure you need an ID to get food stamps. I know that I had to produce my milittary ID and passport for I-9 to get a job. If you have no other need for an ID, probably not a producing member I'm guessing.

[longeyes]

I give suffrage one more election.  You can't have elections with an electorate that is both stupid and larcenous.

[AJ Dual]

Pretty much.

All Leftist resistance to Voter ID it is really just rooted in fears that unless Acorn-like organizations and sympathetic liberal city officials can continue to engage in ballot stuffing, that they'll lose more elections.

And when they make the claim that "Wide scale vote fraud just isn't happening", the "evidence" for this is always the dearth of actual prosecutions for it on the part of large urban area DA's or mid-level DOJ officials below the POTUS appointee level who tend to all lean Left as well..  

The voters the other side in the debate is continually purported to be trying to "suppress" already all has photo ID for welfare benefits, SSI, food stamps, or needs them for rent applications, or at the check cashing store.

The Left has worked hard, ever since the 1950's/60's to set themselves up with institutional advantages in the electoral process. (Vote fraud, Democrat tax-money campaign advantages through .gov union donations... etc.) I can't speak as to the rest of country, but only just now has the Right in WI woken up to this and has started to work to dismantle them.

And frankly, being my un-PC bastard self, I AM willing to admit I'd like to see a little "voter suppression" going on, among those who don't have any "skin in the game". (i.e. Does not hold a mortgage, clear title to their primary residence, or is a net tax consumer rather than contributor...) However, rather than see it be done through any sort of draconian .gov action, it would be the inertia and laziness of these people "suppressing themselves", and getting rid of "motor voter" registrations, same-day poll registrations, and have registrations, once again properly located at City Hall or County Courthouse close, x number of weeks before an election.

[RoadKingLarry]

I give suffrage one more election.  You can't have elections with an electorate that is both stupid and larcenous.

Hey, even Iranians and Cubans get to vote.

[Jamisjockey]

I give suffrage one more election.  You can't have elections with an electorate that is both stupid and larcenous.

I don't think you give the kleptocracy enough credit to limp along skimming from the till.

[Perd Hapley]

The voters the other side in the debate is continually purported to be trying to "suppress" already all has photo ID for welfare benefits, SSI, food stamps, or needs them for rent applications, or at the check cashing store.

The Left has worked hard, ever since the 1950's/60's to set themselves up with institutional advantages in the electoral process. (Vote fraud, Democrat tax-money campaign advantages through .gov union donations... etc.) I can't speak as to the rest of country, but only just now has the Right in WI woken up to this and has started to work to dismantle them.

And frankly, being my un-PC bastard self, I AM willing to admit I'd like to see a little "voter suppression" going on, among those who don't have any "skin in the game". (i.e. Does not hold a mortgage, clear title to their primary residence, or is a net tax consumer rather than contributor...) However, rather than see it be done through any sort of draconian .gov action, it would be the inertia and laziness of these people "suppressing themselves", and getting rid of "motor voter" registrations, same-day poll registrations, and have registrations, once again properly located at City Hall or County Courthouse close, x number of weeks before an election.

I have this crazy idea that the real voter suppression happens when legitimate votes are cancelled out by the illegitimate.

But that's probably racist.

[cosine]

From Borepatch's blog:

1. I had to show ID.  I approve - if elections are so important that disenfranchising people is a horrible, no good, very bad election policy, then it seems that letting people vote who are not entitled to (i.e. fraud) is by definition disenfranchising people who have a legitimate right to vote.  In other words, by its own logic, allowing voter fraud is a horrible, no good, very bad election policy.

Back when Voter ID was first being discussed in Wisconsin I thought about it for a little while and came to the same conclusion myself.

[Tallpine]

Who in this modern world does not already have some sort of ID just to exist 

Barring some mountain man living back in the wilds of Idaho, who is not going to vote anyway 

[MicroBalrog]

Who in this modern world does not already have some sort of ID just to exist 

This does seem to be a problem.

[De Selby]

What we need is a national ID that carries RFID verification of your identity, and then to require that in order to exercise any of the rights of an American citizen - sure, it might give a bad government all sorts of unanticipated powers, but if it stops illegals from voting and buying stuff it'll be worth it!

[grampster]

Voter ID is just another example of how our education system has failed our youth.  Instead of being taught how to reason, they are indoctrinated with leftist ideals at worst or never taught how to reason at best.  That is pretty easy to do with children who have never been civilized by a family unit.

Presenting facts should cause reasonable people to at least consider changing their mind about a thing.  Rarely do you see this on the left because a good deal of leftists do not believe that "facts" actually exist.  Leftist thought revolves around situational ethics where nothing is immutable.  My experience has shown me that folks who lean right tend to think things through and make decisions based on facts. 

[Ron]

What we need is a national ID that carries RFID verification of your identity, and then to require that in order to exercise any of the rights of an American citizen - sure, it might give a bad government all sorts of unanticipated powers, but if it stops illegals from voting and buying stuff it'll be worth it!

Try exercising property rights without some form of ID.

Try getting a job without some form of proper ID.

Try using the most common forms of conveyance (cars and planes) without proper ID.

Try and exercise your legal rights in the court system without having some way of proving you are who you claim you are via proper ID.

Try purchasing a firearm from a dealer without proper ID.

I guess we could argue the merits of needing or requiring ID for all of the above, yet few ever do, esp. on the left. So I can see no reason to exclude the franchise of voting from the protections provided by the verification of you being who you claim to be. Especially in light of the ubiquitous of the requirement for proper ID to navigate through modern society.

 

[Fly320s]

Is voting a right?  It is mentioned in the constitution, but voting is never specifically enumerated as a right.

[Ron]

My suspicion is that the right to vote is part and parcel with the DOI and constitutions recognition that it is our natural right to choose who will govern us and how they will govern us as a society.

The constitution of course limiting those who are chose from among us from overstepping the authority temporarily granted them by the people.    (sometimes I crack myself up).

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

What we need is a national ID that carries RFID verification of your identity, and then to require that in order to exercise any of the rights of an American citizen - sure, it might give a bad government all sorts of unanticipated powers, but if it stops illegals from voting and buying stuff it'll be worth it!

     i saw what you did there......   nice

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

deleted  double tap

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Try exercising property rights without some form of ID.

Try getting a job without some form of proper ID.

Try using the most common forms of conveyance (cars and planes) without proper ID.

Try and exercise your legal rights in the court system without having some way of proving you are who you claim you are via proper ID.

Try purchasing a firearm from a dealer without proper ID.

I guess we could argue the merits of needing or requiring ID for all of the above, yet few ever do, esp. on the left. So I can see no reason to exclude the franchise of voting from the protections provided by the verification of you being who you claim to be. Especially in light of the ubiquitous of the requirement for proper ID to navigate through modern society.

 

except for buying a gun i've done all of the above sans id other than one from a check cashing joint.

[Tallpine]

except for buying a gun i've done all of the above sans id other than one from a check cashing joint.

You have a friend with a private plane   

And yes you can drive without ID as long as you don't get stopped.  Heck, I never carry my DL unless I am going to town, and I drive fire trucks all over the place without my DL with me. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i've flown post 911 without id   commercial  national to joe foss in south dakota via chicago. 

[zxcvbob]

I've signed up to be a MN election judge this year; never done it before.  I expect in the general election to see bus loads of colorful people from Milwaukee or Chicago showing up to register and vote.  I know that's a long drive, but if they hit a dozen or more counties it could be worth it.

In the previously mentioned Senate race, our 'Lustrous Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (a Democrat) kept recounting the vote until he got the results he wanted and then he certified it real quick.  Whenever they came up short, someone would find another box of ballots.

Except for adding to the Democrats' majority in the Senate, Franken has actually been better in office -- more worthy of respect anyway -- than the previous Republican *expletive deleted* Norm Coleman.

(we can't say "*expletive deleted*bag" anymore?)