On showing an ID to vote.

[dalesql]

I came across a posting that pretty much summarizes why I think requiring a positive identification to vote. So, here it is.

If I want to buy a bottle of bourbon -- which I have the right to do -- I have to provide some form of State-issued photo ID to do so.

And the Federal Government is not only okay with this, the Federal Government encourages it.

If I want to drive my pick-up on a public road in the State of Texas -- which I have the right to do -- I have to provide a specific form of State-issued photo ID to do so.

And the Federal Government is not only okay with this, the Federal Government encourages it.

If I want to exercise my right -- a right guaranteed by name in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -- to buy a firearm from a dealer, I have to provide some form of State-issued photo ID to do so.

And the Federal Government is not only okay with this, the Federal Government actively encourages this. At the point of a gun, sometimes.

If I wish to board an aeroplane to travel to some other part of these United States -- which I have a right to do -- I have to provide some form of State-issued photo ID to do so.

And the Federal Government is not only okay with this, the Federal Government mandates it.

I opened an account at a credit union recently. I had to provide a picture ID -- mandated by the Federal Government -- to do so.

Hmph.

Voting is a right which when misused or subverted creates far more damage, damage that lasts for far longer, than any use of a firearm. Than any boarding of a plane. Than any drive down a highway.

The Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. The Federal Government says, "If you show ID first."

I have the right to travel -- Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution -- the Federal Government says, "If you show ID first."

I have the right to buy booze. "Show ID first."

I have the right to buy tobacco. "ID, please."

I have the right to rent a P.O. Box. The Feds demand that I show ID.

I have the right to open a bank account. IF I show ID first.

Mr. Holder and the US Department of Justice will break the Fed.Gov's foot off in someones butt if you do any of the above -- or more -- without ID. And he -- they -- are perfectly okay with this.

But have one State decide to ask for ID before exercising another right -- the right to vote -- then Holder, the DOJ and the Fed.Gov decide that it violates the Constitution.

Every other right, it's okay to demand that we show ID before enjoying such right.

Huh.

I haven't checked yet -- if you look up the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary, is there a picture attached? Of whom?

LawDog

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/hypocrisy-much.html

Comments

[seawasp]

I disagree wholly. Any single person misusing his or her right to vote hurts virtually no one. Misusing a firearm, hell yeah, it hurts people directly and potentially lethally. Driving a car is something that involves operating something with the energy of a bazooka shell for periods of hours, and thus is tremendously potentially dangerous.

I don't think you should have to show an ID to travel anywhere, so the bit about airplanes is irrelevant.

To FORCE people to show ID at all elections? You'd need a universal government-issued ID.

To make it FAIR -- i.e., not discriminatory against the poor, infirm, etc., -- you'd have to ACTIVELY issue the ID. For free. to Everyone.

And if you have the government issue universal, one-stop, one-size-fits-all ID cards... well, there's a reason that we DIDN'T allow that to happen with the issuance of Social Security. Why we EXPLICITLY forbid the U.S. Government for using the Social Security number as ID. (You can legally refuse to give it for any identification). If you AREN'T fair -- everyone needs this universal ID to vote, but they all have to pay for their own -- it's a perfect discrimination tool against those who can least afford to have their voices lost.

Voter fraud is a VERY small problem, comparatively speaking, in the USA. It's not worth that level of change.

[donnad.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with showing your ID when you go to vote. What is stopping a person from voting more than once, in your neighbors names, your other family members names or just made up names and stuffing the ballot box? Yes, you give your name and they check it off on the rolls, But people make mistakes, if your neighbor comes in after you and his name is already checked, maybe someone checked it by mistake. I can see the list of names when they are checking them off, what is stopping me from picking a random name from the list in front of me? I could vote 200 times over the course of 12 hours. 200 votes can swing an election.

And if someone falsly chose my name and it got checked off, would I still be allowed to vote? Is that fair.

I don't mind showing my ID for any of the things listed above, after all in today's day and age of identity theft, it ensures that my ID is mine, if someone shows my ID and it's not me, it might actually be caught sooner. And as for showing it to vote, absolutely. I have it in my hand as I walk in the door.

[corin91.livejournal.com]

All excellent points. Requiring people to pay for some type of government issued ID, while also requiring them to present said ID in order to vote, is simply a Poll Tax by another name. You really want to go back to 'only rich white guys can vote' days?

[seawasp]

I think it doesn't matter if it's something free to all or paid for by only a few. It's a Bad Idea to have a universal, required-coverage ID for the whole country.

[seawasp]

What's to stop them? Not terribly much, but the fact is it's just not done very often. Creating a new, overarching law -- which would pretty much require a universally-agreed-upon ID to work, and thus a mandated possession of said ID -- to address a minimal problem is killing flies with hand grenades. There are MUCH easier methods of voter fraud (which still aren't used very much in the USA) than having physical people walk in and pretend to be someone else. MUCH easier.

This is a minimal problem and the risk is commensurate with, or even less than, the gain of overall freedom in the society.

Freedom VS reduced risk is a tradeoff. Our current societal vector has focused in my lifetime WAY too much on the "reduce risk" and we are substantially less free now than I was in my childhood. I am against pretty much anything that continues to reduce that freedom. ESPECIALLY when there are other, vastly greater, much more direct risks that our society not only allows, but depends upon. (if you proposed, for instance, a new transportation method that had the same risks in it as automobile travel, you'd be either laughed out of the boardroom or they'd have you examined for insanity; automobiles cause over 37,000 deaths per year).

[zealianbadass.livejournal.com]

Or things could be done properly.

The fact that requiring identification- a deliberate intervention by an untrustworthy third party, to go about one's daily affairs, is indecorous, rude, and should be criminal.

ID to board a plane? To buy alcohol, tobacco, or a firearm? Amateurish. A needless slight on a person's credibility, and a meaningless check on the actions and habits of the populace.