Voter ID Battle Shifts to Proof of Citizenship: Could disenfranchise thousands of citizens

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: New York Times, pg1, lead

By IAN URBINA
Published: May 12, 2008

The battle over voting rights will expand this week as lawmakers in Missouri are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment to enable election officials to require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. The measure would allow far more rigorous demands than the voter ID requirement recently upheld by the Supreme Court, in which voters had to prove their identity with a government-issued card.

Sponsors of the amendment — which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum — say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship.

Voting experts say the Missouri amendment represents the next logical step for those who have supported stronger voter ID requirements and the next battleground in how elections are conducted. Similar measures requiring proof of citizenship are being considered in at least 19 state legislatures. Bills in Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Carolina have strong support. But only in Missouri does the requirement have a chance of taking effect before the presidential election....

***

The Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who opposes the measure, estimated that it could disenfranchise up to 240,000 registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship....

***

Critics say that when this level of documentation is applied to voting, it becomes more difficult for the poor, disabled, elderly and minorities to participate in the political process....

Aside from its immediacy, the action by Missouri is important because it has been a crucial swing state in recent presidential elections, with outcomes often decided by a razor-thin margin....


(Dilip Vishwanat/NYT)
Lillie Lewis, 78, with a letter from Mississippi saying it had no record of her birth. “That’s downright wrong,” she said.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/us/politics/12vote.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all

[But....]

1. This is the front lines..

this fall. We have to register everywhere.

[Trillo]

2. "No taxation without representation"

I guess this blows a hole it in that long-established theory.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Very good point! nt

[Igel]

Lots of people pay taxes and have no representation.

Then again, a lot of people have representation and don't pay taxes.

And if we count corporations, well, then the theory's pointless. Many argue that some corporations should pay many more taxes and have even less access to elected officials, while arguing that other corporations properly don't pay taxes and should have more influence over elected officials.

[Trillo]

152. Sure. Are corporations persons?

If you're going to give a non-sentient entity voting rights, shouldn't every paper dollar have them, too? Oh, wait a minute, isn't that what soft dollars are all about?

I'm still waiting for someone to figure out how to physically jail a corporation and subject it to the same humiliations commonly prescribed for human criminals. I'm thinking iron bars and locks, thick concrete walls, razor wire, rifle toting guards in strategically-placed lookout towers, and of course, bubba and bars of soap.

The closest anyone has come is dissolution. Not much different than saying some tax-paying humans can't vote.

[flashl]

3. "the next logical step" to voter disenfranchisement. nt

[fascisthunter]

4. So the Powerful Rich and Right Wing Want to Disenfranchise

voters.... so they have no respect for democracy itself. Well then, maybe it's time they all left the country and moved somewhere more suitable to their political/economic interests....

[pattmarty]

6. How exactly do you prove you're a citizen? Birth certificate?

[flashl]

7. original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport ...

[DeepModem Mom]

8. I know that's one way. Does anyone else know alternatives?

Naturalized citizens would, I assume, have documentation of their becoming a citizen.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. In the absence of a birth certificate, you were once able to establish it by affidavits

from your parents and the midwife or doctor who attended your birth. That's not much good for older Americans, the group most likely to have no proof of citizenship.

[pattmarty]

12. How 'bout Jesus Christ or St fucking Peter?

[Gormy Cuss]

13. No, baptismal certificates won't work.

;-)

[DeepModem Mom]

15. True. Thanks, Gormy. nt

[marshall]

59. My 92 year old grandmother provided proof that her sister is a citizen

She signed a document saying she was 14 years of age and present when her mother gave birth to her sister. That was good enough for my great aunt to get a passport.

[mhatrw]

64. And if she had already died?

Where would the proof have come from in that case?

[Hatchling]

148. As a member of the elderly and poor

I have to say that in order to survive I had to come up with proof of citizenship. We survive on Medicare and SSA and SSI and you damn well need proof of ID to get those things.

Those who are homeless are a whole other story, and believe me most of the homeless I speak to have a State issued ID and get their SSA check sent to a PO box. They proved their citizenship somehow. And yes I do talk to quite a few homeless. I have to take public transportation and conversations at bus stops get started over the sharing of cigarettes, buying beer and handing out change.

I am sure that there will be exceptions for dealing with those elderly who have no documentation (not even a Social security number?) but I see no problem with showing an ID to vote. I've done so in every election sine I began voting and everyone else should do so as well.

[Gormy Cuss]

68. Lucky for her sister that there was longevity in the family!

My grandmother's birth was never recorded in any official record even though she was born in a mandatory reporting state. She never traveled out of the country until after she was married and then only to a country where no passport was needed. Today she'd be up the creek without a paddle.

[happyslug]

80. At one time (and it is still on the books) you could establish it by the family bible.

Even if everyone involved with the birth was dead. Well into the 20th Century you have births NOT recorded and the only record was within the family (and thus the only record of a birth was in family bibles, accepted by SSA for decades as a source of date of Birth).

[Gormy Cuss]

108. I think that only established your age, not your citizenship but

along with other evidence it could have been used as proof whereas an original birth certificate by itself establishes citizenship. I had one grandparent who never had her birth recorded in official records and another who had a Delayed Record of Birth filed when he joined the army.

[99th_Monkey]

37. yes, and if you don't have an original, you'd be required to PURCHASE a new orginal copy - $20 in OR

[lonestarnot]

10. And who is going to clean up the mess when it's all torn up?

[underpants]

11. THERE IS NO PROBLEM

From October 2002 to September 2005, the Justice Department indicted 40 voters for registration fraud or illegal voting, 21 of whom were noncitizens, according to department records.
--FROM THE ARTICLE

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
--H. L. Mencken

[DeepModem Mom]

14. Am I right that even the advocates admit there is no problem?

I think they said that before the Supreme Court. I guess they don't mind being blatant about their real, nefarious purpose.

[Igel]

109. Not really.

Most say they don't know the extent of the problem, or if there is a problem.

When you're limiting your discussion to facts and trying for formulate policy, the discussion pretty much ends there. Everybody says there are few facts; everybody says there are no good ways to get more facts. And everybody breaks down into two camps: The lack of facts shows there's no problem; the lack of facts potentially masks a problem, whether minor or serious is unknown.

There's no good way to check on the extent of the problem, even to say there *is* a problem. You can't check the citizenship status of everybody voting in a county, so the lack of data is just a lack of data. There may be no data to get. It's certainly true nobody's been able to get it, so maybe there are data to get. Dunno. And I leave my opinion at that. (I currently have that problem with my dissertation data: The data have had so many problems that I don't know if my claim is true--what I do know is that I can't say it is true any more than I can say it's not true. Fortunately, all my data's problems are systematic, and therefore I can correct them; I'm close to getting something out of them. If only we could say the same about the competing legal/illegal voting claims.)

[suffragette]

16. And the battle shifts from the federal to state level

The Republicans tried to ram through a similar bill (HR 4844) in Sept 2006 before they lost control of Congress.
Fortunately, they were not successful. Now it looks like they've shifted their efforts to states.

There were some good points made and work done to counter the above bill and the points from these are still valid.


From Congressman Becerra's diary at Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/21/124142/791

Imagine you are a victim of Hurricane Katrina. You lost everything - including your birth certificate, and like 75 percent of Americans, you never acquired a passport. Under H.R. 4844, you would be denied your right to vote.

Imagine you were born at home around the turn of the century, and never were issued a birth certificate. Under H.R. 4844, you could not vote.

Imagine you are a Native American born on a reservation and were never issued a birth certificate. Under H.R. 4844, you would be denied your right to vote.

Imagine you are living paycheck to paycheck, you're not sure what happened to your birth certificate, and you can't afford the $100 to apply for a passport. Under H.R. 4844, you would not be allowed to vote.

Voting is a right and a privilege - for everybody, not just the fortunate or the affluent.



From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which sponsored a survey in January 2006 examining this issue:http://www.cbpp.org/9-22-06id.htm

A national survey finds that approximately 11 million native-born citizens currently lack the required documents. A substantial number could have difficulty obtaining or affording them.

The national survey, conducted in January 2006 by Opinion Research Corporation and sponsored by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also indicates that the bill would affect certain groups disproportionately (see Figures 1 and 2) — including people with low incomes, African Americans, the elderly, people without a high school diploma, rural residents, and residents of the South and Midwest. Substantial numbers of these and other citizens could potentially be disenfranchised by the bill.





It's all about the disenfranchisement.

[DeepModem Mom]

22. Thanks so much for this info, suffragette! nt

[suffragette]

33. Thank you for posting this. It's so important.

One group that isn't often discussed, but that is also impacted by these onerous requirements is college students, particularly students from out of state. Students will often wait until the last minute before they register. How many college students will have brought their birth certificates with them to school? Not many, I'd wager.

[dflprincess]

27. It's very difficult to apply for a passport without a birth certificate

and if you do have a copy of your birth certificate, but you changed your name when you got married, you'll need a copy of your marriage certificate as well.

[suffragette]

29. And the more documents you need, the more you have to pay

A poll tax by another name.

[madmom]

17. I was born at home, my dad delivered me, the court house where my birth was recorded

burnt to the ground before every was put on computers. I guess I'm a figment of everyones imagination! BOO!

[kristopher]

20. Provisions can be made in any law that would allow documentation. nt

[dogday]

18. My Grandmother would not of been able to vote, she doesn't have a

BC..
Born in Cherokee NC on the reservation... Did not keep any records back then, nor did they have DR.'s either......

[kristopher]

19. While there are problems, you have to start somewhere

I endorse a national citizen's registry myself, with a national ID/driving license.

Provisions can be made for circumstances like Ms. Lewis; they are an extreme minority.

The main beneficiaries of the present state of confusion are the people exploiting illegal labor. If you support organized labor, this type of documentation is a requirement for forcing labor busting practices into the open.

[KamaAina]

21. This is about voting, not employment

Voting is a civil right.

[kristopher]

28. They are linked, whether you like it or not.

And even if voting is a civil right (does it mean something that it is italicized?) it is still a right of citizenship. Wait....

And even if voting is a civil right it is still a right of citizenship.

Oooo, you're right, that is much better with italics.

Snark off.

Seriously, there are a lot of issues associated with national citizenship registry and ID. We are the only advanced country that doesn't have such a registry and we need one. Until we get it, we are always going to have cases like Ms. Lewis; so sooner or later if we want the other benefits, we are going to have to pay a price. Personally, I think the number of people adversely affected would be disappearingly small as most of the elderly w/o birth certificates can have their lives here verified in a number of ways. The law has to be properly written, that's all.

You do know it is a far right position to oppose such registry, don't you?

[xxqqqzme]

30. you do know your position is embraced by

the current criminal neo-con group, do'nt you?

When Loretta Sanchez defeated bob 'B-1' dornan, he screamed un-documented persons - actually he screamed illegal immigrants voted to elect Sanchez. There was never any proof that illegals voted in that election. And believe me, the publicans here in Orange County tried mightily to prove it.

This crap legislation is for one purpose only - disenfranchisement of minorities period.

[mhatrw]

32. What is the problem? Who is voting who is not supposed to?

Where are the hordes of illegal aliens voting? You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist by disenfranchising poor and elderly citizens.

[kristopher]

36. I don't agree.

What I see is a chance to use their pet issue against them to gain a greater goal. And I don't have an issue with requiring ID for voting. You say there is not problem, but that is a claim similar to those who say there is nothing wrong with the evoting machines. Without verification - in both cases - it is not possible to support the claim that no problem exists.

Since the larger issue of a national citizen's registry is important, then I think the cost is worth it. Do you work this hard to fight against laws that disenfranchise the exfelons who are mostly members of minorities? Numerically it seems like a much more important cause to me.

[Megahurtz]

43. Well said!

:applause:

[mhatrw]

44. Do you want more people to vote or fewer people to vote?

Should we make it harder for people to vote or easier?

My partner's grandmother has voted in the same polling location for 35 years. She has even worked as a poll worker and everyone at her voting station knows her. Yet she has no official documentation of her US citizenship. Why do you want to disenfranchise her to solve a hypothetical problem that you admit that you have no evidence that even exists? Any illegal alien illegally voting would be putting his or her immigration status at risk every time he or she walks into the polling station. Do you really think this is happening is large numbers? Why do you so strongly feel the need to stop the handful of non-citizens who would take such a risk across the entire country such that you would disenfranchise millions of US citizens like my partner's grandmother just to do so? Why does this seem like a reasonable trade off to you?

People like you astound me. Since your wallet is filled with IDs and credit cards and you have a passport, you cannot even fathom the burden this would put on the poor and elderly people who live in your own community. Instead of making it easier for people to vote, you wish to make it more difficult even though you have no evidence whatsoever of the supposed problem you are trying to prevent.

Conflating the non-issue of "voter fraud" with the issue of unverifiable election results is a Rovian trick. There is no reason in the world to prefer unauditable election results to auditable election results and every reason not to. How can you equate this controversy with your plan for the massive disenfranchisement of our nation's oldest and poorest citizens in order to prevent a problem the existence of which you can't even demonstrate?

[kristopher]

51. You don't have to agree. Free country, eh.

[mhatrw]

56. Is it?

[kristopher]

72. That's a huge stretch.

All the other advanced countries have central depositories for citizen registration systems. Are you saying they are all totalitarian regimes?

Frankly, you're crossing the line to being a bit of a flake with that one.

[mhatrw]

78. You want to disenfranchise millions of poor and elderly citizens to "solve" a nonexistent problem,

and you are calling me a flake?

[kristopher]

92. MILLIONS???

If the shoe fits...

[mhatrw]

95. Yes, millions.

[Megahurtz]

140. Exactly.

Why should the U.S. be so flaky? :sarcasm:

[mhatrw]

31. What are the problems? Who is voting who is not supposed to?

n/t

[Dumak]

38. timing is everything

This is pretty obvious disenfranchisement when done right before a Presidential election.
But I wouldn't be opposed to a secure ID (usage-regulated) for all citizens, along with an address registry that would hold everyone's current residence. Then nobody would even have to register to vote.

[rateyes]

23. This is bullshit. When I got my Driver's License in GA, I had

to show them my freaking passport and birth certificate. Anyone seeing my license is damned well assured that I'm a citizen, because I had to prove that to get the license.

Republicans will stop at nothing to suppress minority vote. Bunch of motherfucking racists.

[Megahurtz]

46. Haven't you ever seen

fake Driver's Licenses? They're not that difficult to obtain.

[mhatrw]

55. So people are obtaining fake drivers licenses to vote illegally?

Do you actually believe such nonsense?

[Megahurtz]

60. Sure, why not?

That's what you do when you go to another Country illegally and you want to blend in.

[mhatrw]

65. LOL. n/t

[rateyes]

105. Whoop tee doo.....

How many people are going to use a fake driver's license to fucking vote? The problem with our elections in this country is not voter fraud, it's election fraud, and this ID law just make election fraud that much easier.

[Megahurtz]

142. It would make Election Fraud that much harder,

if you have proper I.D. then you can prove who you voted for.

[crimsonblue]

24. In Kansas, they don't need ID laws...

because caging has become rampant here. If you have previously registered to vote with an address you no longer live at, or registered with a new address that does not appear on your license, then they can and many times do take you off the voter rolls. I had a friend that got an ID in Lawrence with his appt address. He moved the next year and then registered to vote for the first time. When he went to vote at the caucus in February, he was denied because his ID did not match his registration. He had 2 forms of photo ID, and his SSN card with him, and he was still turned back. What the FUCK ever happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" and the mantra that "better for one guilty to go free, than 100 innocents be oppressed"? Some free country this is when the burden of proof is on the individual, not the government.

[treestar]

25. Oh please, like illegal immigrants try to vote and are great enough

in number to affect the process.

Geez.

This state has no problems, I guess, when it has time to worry about this.

[crimsonblue]

26. Furthermore,

Voting is an inherrant right not given to us by the Government, because they cannot grant rights that naturally exist. This country was founded on the principle that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were inalienable rights bestowed upon all. For the government to force someone to prove their rights is nothing short of oppression. This is also the only chance the Repugs have at defeating Obama in the fall.

[cnc1970]

40. "right to vote"

Hi all just recently found this site, look forward to talking to everyone, one thing that confuses me is that many people here have mistakenly said there is a right to vote in a federal election for president, that just isn't so, wasn't designed that way, never has been. I don't see anything wrong with making sure people that vote are US citizens, sorry if some people think it is "inconvenient" to go down and get a passport or copy of their birth certificate but there has to be a certain amount of responsibility for the ones who want to vote, such a great honor should require some effort to make sure the ones that really take it seriously are the ones exercising that power. I am a first generation US citizen on my mothers side and they did everything they could to make sure they had all of their paperwork together to be able to vote, I don't think thats too much to ask for others.

[mhatrw]

45. So since you can prove your citizenship, all our poor and elderly should be

forced to as well just so that they can continue voting at the polling stations where they have voted for years?

Why do you wish to make it more difficult for the poor and elderly to vote? What problem are you trying to solve by doing so? Do you have any evidence that this problem even exists?

[Megahurtz]

50. The elderly have had YEARS

to get their Birth Certificates and other I.D. papers together. The poor need them to get Public Assistance, Food Stamps etc.

Really it's NO BIG DEAL to have to prove Citizenship and it will cut down on Voter Fraud.

[mhatrw]

53. You have no clue whatsoever what life is like for our poorest citizens.

Would you deny a starving person food if he or she didn't have the correct paperwork? Would you deny a dying person medical care if he or she didn't have the correct paperwork?

[Megahurtz]

61. LOL.

I have been one of our poorest Citizens for many years and I do know exactly what it is like.

It sounds like you are the one who doesn't

[mhatrw]

66. Oh, really? So tell me, where did you and the other homeless people you slept on the street with

keep important documents?

[crimsonblue]

86. In their fancy bank security boxes, and such!

Democracy fails when we eradicate the rights of the majority all for a tiny problem (in which there is no clear evidence that it is a problem warranting correction). The ID acts are racist, ageist, and bigoted baiting traps to gather anti-immigrant and anti-poor resentment among the electorate. It doesn't surprise me that we've had many "new users" join this thread... All you freepers and a15 losers can go to hell.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crimsonblue]

99. here are the pertinent passages pertaining to the right to vote, dumbass.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
— Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
— Nineteenth Amendment (1920)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
— Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.
— Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)

The words "right to vote" even appears in the Constitution, you dumbass (and yes, contrary to your idiotic views, Amendments are part of the Constitution).

[crimsonblue]

103. here's a link for ya too...

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/vote.htm
(It's even from an official government site!)

Abraham Lincoln best described democracy as "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." For that government to be "by the people," however, requires that the people decide who shall be their leaders. Without free and fair elections, there can be no democratic society, and without that constant accountability of government officials to the electorate, there can, in fact, be no assurance of any other rights. The right to vote, therefore, is not only an important individual liberty; it is also a foundation stone of free government.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Megahurtz]

134. Nowhere.

I was so down and out and overwhelmed with the prospect of day to day living that voting was the last thing on my mind.
Actually it was not on my mind at all at all.

Does that answer your question? }(

[crimsonblue]

54. Voter fraud? Give me a fucking break...

How many prosecuted cases of voter fraud have there been? Comparatively, how many qualified voters have been denied their right to vote, because they don't have "proper ID" or whatever? The onus is not on the individual to prove their validity. That's why we supposedly live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof falls on the government's shoulders.

[Megahurtz]

63. I don't know how many

but I know of a recent prosecution in Orange County, California perpetrated by Republicans.
It appears several of them voted one too many times.
I would certainly like to see this shit stopped.

[mhatrw]

69. Exactly! Let's disenfranchise millions of elderly and poor because

Republicans claim a handful of people voted twice!

[Megahurtz]

71. Wrong.

Democrats claimed Republicans voted more than twice. And they did.

[mhatrw]

76. And how would disenfranchising millions of poor and elderly

prevent this?

[cnc1970]

83. Sorry

There is severe lack of evidence for your claim, in Indiana they couldn't find one person to come forward to complain the law kept them from voting. And you keep throwing around this false term you have been taught "disenfranchised" do you even know what that means?

[mhatrw]

85. Care to back up your assertions with anything other than hot air?

"In Indiana they couldn't find one person to come forward to complain the law kept them from voting."

Who is "they"?

[cnc1970]

88. sure.. and when I do?

You are going to admit you were wrong right? Or are you going to dance around and make excuses for why it isn't so? Let me know before I do the work for you.

[crimsonblue]

89. weren't there a bunch of 80 yr old+ nuns that were denied their right to vote?

So there ya go, mr dumbass ignored guy (not you mrhatrw) . There's some people that were disenfranchised all because you were scared that them "aliens n such" would vote and halt the right wing's vote rigging apparatus.

[cnc1970]

94. cant deny a right that doesnt exist

found that right for us yet?

[mhatrw]

97. Just because it's not a federal right doesn't mean it's not a right.

What state do you live in other than denial?

[cnc1970]

100. care to expand on that?

Seems like you are coming along slowly, tell me how something that isn't a federal right as you admit can only deal with the federal level such as in a presidential election?

[mhatrw]

102. What state do you live in other than denial? n/t

[crimsonblue]

107. There are technically no federal elections..

In the November GE, you vote for state electors, who therein vote at the Electoral College. You do not directly vote for President. I will concede that. But to say that just because it is not a direct vote means there is no right to vote is patently absurd. Take a look at your amendments, and you will quickly find you are wrong, dumbass (not mhatrw). The federal government nor the states may restrict your voting rights as long as you are 18 and are not a current felon. end of story. i know that's a big bummer to the bigots out there, but that's reality.

[cnc1970]

111. And what if the state decides to assign their electors regardless of the popular vote?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, why? Because there is no right to vote in a federal election, that has been proven over and over again

[crimsonblue]

112. hmm, go ahead and throw out ridiculous "what if" scenarios...

I can beat that.. What if you were a stupid freeper trying to stir up dissention on DU? Oh wait....


The states are bound by their own Constitutions to designate electors (who are chosen, err hand picked, by the candidates) according to the popular vote in the state (with notable exceptions being NE and Maine who split according to congressional district). This is very similar to both parties' primary elections, in which electors are allotted based on the popular vote in the state. Do you get it yet? How does this system at all validate your bizarre claims that the right to vote does not exist? I guess even with the truth, the idiotic refuse to see it.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crimsonblue]

77. then you know what you do?

You apply the law and fucking prosecute them! You do not disenfranchise millions. That's like saying that since a few people steal from McDonald's, everyone must show ID in order to eat at McDonald's. off to the ignore pile with you.

[dflprincess]

147. A few years ago I took my mother to get a state id card

I was having a fit of paranoia that ids would be required to vote.

So, the old one is in her 80s and showed up at the DMV with a copy of her birth certificate and a copy of her marriage license. The clerk, who was very young, was completely thrown by her birth certificate because it happened to be a copy she had picked up in 1942 and it was TYPED. The clerk at the next station (more my age) leaned over, looked at the certificate and said "It's good - there's the county seal. That's how they used to do 'em."

Next, he was thrown my her marriage certificate (issued 1946), I was afraid we'd have trouble with this because her middle name has an extra letter in it that isn't on the birth certificate. He shows this to the older clerk who said - "They were always doing things like that back then. It's just a typo, don't worry about. " But, the young one wasn't satisfied, he pointed out that nothing on the certificate said what last name my mother would use after she was married. To which the older clerk said "It was 1946 - it was a given she'd use her husband's name."

Finally the kid stamps all the new documents, takes the Mom's picture for her id and tells her what the cost is. She was going to write a check, but he told her he couldn't take that because she didn't have a photo id (I swear to God, he said that) - fortunately she had cash.

So, my point is, even with the correct documents, we could have had a fight getting the id because a younger clerk wasn't familiar with how older documents looked or what social customs assumed was necessary on them.

[cnc1970]

67. ALL our poor and elderly?

"all our poor and elderly"? come on, you aren't exaggerating a bit are you? ALL of the poor and elderly? I just found one poor and elderly person that has their ID so there goes your theory!

[Megahurtz]

73. My Mother is elderly

and she has had her identifying papers for years.

All of these "poor and elderly" better get their shit together if they want to vote!:sarcasm:

[mhatrw]

81. "All of these 'poor and elderly' better get their shit together if they want to vote!"

Why are you using quotes and the sarcasm tag? Isn't this your stance on the issue?

[Megahurtz]

143. Tone of voice.

There is no hard and fast rule for the "sarcasm" tag!

[mhatrw]

79. Read what I wrote again. n/t

[Megahurtz]

47. Sounds good to me. n/t

[crimsonblue]

49. hmm.. who to believe?

A first time poster who is a first generation american, or a naturally born American with many posts to boot? You are clearly wrong. You obviously know little about this country. Millions of people over the age of 60 do not have birth certificates or photo ID. Many millions more have seen their records wiped out (Think Katrina, or the Greensburg tornado). And yes, people have the right to vote in the presidential election, you moron. The presidential election has always been determined by an alottment of electors chosen by, you guessed it, direct voting each state. Also, these laws affect not only National elections, but also state and local elections. If you think you don't have the right to vote in your state and local elections, then you are once again crazy. Pleasae go back to freeper land, from whence you came.

[cnc1970]

62. believe the one with the facts to support him

I am a naturally born American, thats what first generation means, sounds like you know about as much about that as you do about the country and the constitution, nowhere in the constitution does it say there is a right to vote for president, there are amendments that say if the states choose to assign their electors by popular vote that they can't use sex race etc as factors to determine eligbility. But there is nothing to say that they electors can't pick who they want if the states decide to do that, it isn't a right. If you think so you are obviously a fool. Don't believe me? I assume you can read wikipedia?

"There is no "right to vote" explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, but only that they cannot be denied based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, however, the "right to vote" may be denied for any other reason (i.e. being convicted of a felony)."

what about the supreme court? Guess they don't know anything about the constitution either right?

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art.II, §1."

So get over yourself, you don't know anywhere near what you pretend, you sound like an ignorant arrogant ass.

[mhatrw]

70. So what is your point? Would you like to go back to days before

the popular vote decided our state elections? Or go back to days when only land owners could vote? Or maybe just count minorities as 3/5ths of a vote?

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

84. You tell us, Jim Crow!

There ought to be an IQ test for voters, right, Jim?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

90. You are ignorant and well out of your league here.

Do you know what a poll tax is?

Do you know what a literacy requirement for voting is?

[cnc1970]

96. yes I am familiar with them so what?

[mhatrw]

101. What term is commonly used to refer to laws such as these, which were widely enacted in the USA

in the 19th and 20th centuries? Why are you advocating a return to these days?

[cnc1970]

110. You must be speaking a different language

I am familiar with the laws and I know they were called Jim crow laws, so what? It is your mischaracterization that I am advocating jim crow laws. That is a horrible way to argue, I realize you may not be used to dealing in the currency of facts but really, because I recognize that there is no federal right to vote for president I must be advocating Jim crow laws, give me a break thats a huge reach.

[mhatrw]

118. Your own words betray you.

What I see is an large ignorant mass of voters that can't point to their state on a map, think that the US is a democracy instead of a republic, are only looking for the largest handout from politicians so they can throw their vote that way, how can you possibly justify letting them make such important decisions about what they have no clue about?

Here you advocate a political literacy test for voting.

I think a little work on the part of the voter and a little cost of exercising that responsibility would make sure that the most responsible and dedicated citizens not to mention legally qualified will be voting in a presidential election.

Here you advocate a poll tax.

[cnc1970]

119. Thats your assesment and its wrong

So tell me if you truly think there is a right to vote in the federal election why are so many top scholars and democratic activists pushing for a constitutional right to vote? PLease explain how the vice dean of columbia law could have it so wrong when he wrote an article, ""We Need A Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections."

read his article here http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20001213.html

[mhatrw]

121. I never made any such claim. But I can see why you want to change the subject.

What I see is an large ignorant mass of voters that can't point to their state on a map, think that the US is a democracy instead of a republic, are only looking for the largest handout from politicians so they can throw their vote that way, how can you possibly justify letting them make such important decisions about what they have no clue about?

Here you advocate a political literacy test for voting.

I think a little work on the part of the voter and a little cost of exercising that responsibility would make sure that the most responsible and dedicated citizens not to mention legally qualified will be voting in a presidential election.

Here you advocate a poll tax.

[cnc1970]

123. Again, that is your false assesment

you are the one changing the subject. Look at your argument, because I think legally qualified people should vote, and that I am frustrated that ignorant people looking for a free ride or looking for someone to create a theocracy for their religious beliefs get to make decisions that take away my basic rights I must be advocating a policy of racism. thats BS try again.

[mhatrw]

126. Nice try. Now try addressing your own words.

What I see is an large ignorant mass of voters that can't point to their state on a map, think that the US is a democracy instead of a republic, are only looking for the largest handout from politicians so they can throw their vote that way, how can you possibly justify letting them make such important decisions about what they have no clue about?

Here you advocate a political literacy test for voting.

I think a little work on the part of the voter and a little cost of exercising that responsibility would make sure that the most responsible and dedicated citizens not to mention legally qualified will be voting in a presidential election.

Here you advocate a poll tax.

[cnc1970]

127. I did address them, again, you are wrong

You can state your opinion any way you want to, doesn't bother me. I have no problem with what I said. Once we recognize the truth that there is no right to vote in a federal election we can make sure that people who don't take their responsibility of their citizenship seriously won't be able to steer the country in the wrong direction. You apparently have the foolish idea that every can and should vote in the federal election. I guess you would be totally fine if the evangelical christians voted us into a theocracy, or the republicans voted for more torture or federal wiretapping, well hey at least they were exercising their "right to vote" right? Did you read the article? can you tell me why so many are pushing for a federal right to vote if it already exists? You seem to keep avoiding that for some reason

[mhatrw]

129. It's called democracy, cnc1970.

What do you have against it?

[cnc1970]

131. So you think we are a democracy? No surprise there

We aren't a democracy, we are a republic, say the pledge of allegience, it says to the republic, not to the democracy for which it stands.

[mhatrw]

133. I'm not the surprised in the least that you find this distinction so compelling.

What kind of republic would you say we live in? A free one?

[cnc1970]

137. Despite the best attempts by members of the government I would say so.

[mhatrw]

139. Yes, government is our enemy, but authoritarianism is our friend. n/t

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crimsonblue]

82. did I say explicit?

No. That implies that the right was given to us by someone. That right exists with out without government. Take a minute and read the Federalist Papers. The fact that these rights were denied by the founding fathers means that they weren't perfect people. They also allowed slavery and made votes from minorites worth less than 1 vote. "The right may be denied for any other reason" , eh? So someone can just deny your right to vote because you might wear a green hat to the polls, or your right could be denied because you were too tall? The qualifications serve as guidelines, if it does not fall in the guidelines, it is illegal, not legal you dumbass. And felons get their voting rights back after they assimilate back into society. Also, the ID act applies to ALL elections, not just national ones. You can't vote for city commissioner in IN without a valid ID. Maybe you and your family learned history growing up admiring Reagan and the Bushes, but the onus is on the government to prove anything, not the individual. The government should fear its people, not the other way around. Welcome to my ignore pile, dumbass.

[cnc1970]

98. You said there is a constitutional right to vote for president you were wrong

Guess your way to admit you were wrong is put the poeple that point out that you dont' have clue in your ignore pile, thank you! I consider that an honor!

[mhatrw]

104. Congratulations, Justice Scalia!

Now check your state Constitution and Code, then get back to us.

[crimsonblue]

113. also, the words "right to vote" DO appear in the Constitution..

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
— Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
— Nineteenth Amendment (1920)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
— Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.
— Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)


BAM! there's concrete proof, dumbass. (not mhatrw)

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cnc1970]

114. I did, so what?

How does my state constitution prove there is a national or federal right to vote for president? My state just says the states electoral votes will be determined by popular election, if they decided to change that tomorrow there is nothing I could do about it because it is the states right to cast its electoral votes.

[mhatrw]

117. Once again, who is the "they" who is going to change YOUR state's

laws (and perhaps YOUR state's constitution) to deprive you of your current right to have your vote determine the way your state's electoral votes are cast?

You (rather than "they") appear to be the only one advocating a return to the dark days of poll taxes, literacy tests and electoral votes that don't coincide with popular votes.

[cnc1970]

122. we arent in that much of a disagreement on the issue

I do however reject your attempt to call me a racist, its a bad tatic and totally inaccurate. All I stated is we don't have a national right to vote in the federal election for president. Now you are talking about our rights in each of our states. The "right to vote" is a legislative priveledge extended by the state which can change at any time, if it were a federal constitutional right they would not be able to change it. Isn't this what everyone was raising such a stink about in Bush V Gore in FLorida? Isn't this what the SC confirmed? Isn't this what has been decided over and over again by the SC? Isn't this what the best constitutional minds out there are telling us? Again read this article and tell me we have a federal right to vote so why doesn't this guy get it either?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20001213.html

[mhatrw]

125. It's not an real issue, just like "voter fraud" is not a real issue.

However, your calls for a poll tax and a political literacy test for voting are racist, ageist and classist and would result in the disenfranchisement of millions.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

130. No, small minded people try to come up with reasons to exclude

those they are prejudiced against from participating in democracy.

[cnc1970]

132. I wouldn't disagree

however that isn't really relevant here now is it?

[mhatrw]

135. Oh, I'd say it's highly relevant.

What I see is an large ignorant mass of voters that can't point to their state on a map, think that the US is a democracy instead of a republic, are only looking for the largest handout from politicians so they can throw their vote that way, how can you possibly justify letting them make such important decisions about what they have no clue about?

Here you advocate a political literacy test for voting.

I think a little work on the part of the voter and a little cost of exercising that responsibility would make sure that the most responsible and dedicated citizens not to mention legally qualified will be voting in a presidential election.

Here you advocate a poll tax.

[cnc1970]

136. Im sure you would think so, you have gotten most things wrong so far

[crimsonblue]

52. furthermore, it is not an "honor" to vote...

it is an inherrant right, because this country was founded on the notion that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law, and that men may voluntarily choose their leaders. For you to say that you require ID to vote because it is a responsibility is like saying all parents must sign up with the state prior to having children. Welcome to DU, but you need to read up on your Constitution, and realize our rights exist with or without government.

[ismnotwasm]

120. Only propertied white men were allowed to vote

As part of the original design.

[cnc1970]

151. jesse jackson JR DEMOCRAT on this issue

guess this african american democrat doesn't know what he is talking about either?

http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingAmendment.htm

[Mountainman]

34. All Dems should vote absentee.

If you are registered in CA you can ask to be sent your ballot by mail. That way if you don't get one you have about a month to get it taken care of.

Here again the repukes want to take away rights yet the always say the troops are fighting to protect our rights and freedoms.

[Liberty Belle]

35. How many voters don't have their birth certificates and won't pay $20 or so to get a replacement?

Older folks, those who don't drive, aren't going to bother going to some government office, standing in line and paying to order one even if they were born here.

How about people who lost records in fires, floods, hurricanes, etc?

And when we are out registering voters, how many people walking by will just happen to be carrying around their birth certificates or other proof of citizenship?

I hope a court rules this one unconstitutional, and fast.

[L0oniX]

39. Achtung ...your papers?

[Megahurtz]

41. If you are a Citizen

it's not that damn hard to prove Citizenship. :shrug:

Jeez, common sense.:think:

[mhatrw]

48. It's easy for YOU to prove your citizenship.

For millions of voters, just using their walkers to get down to their polling station is highly difficult.

For millions of voters, spending the $30 to $100 dollars necessary to try to obtain proof of their citizenship would be a huge financial burden.

Why do you wish to disenfranchise these voters?

[Megahurtz]

58. For people having difficulties

getting down to the Polling Station there is "Vote by Mail". And it's common knowledge that everyone in this Country needs to have identification proving their Citizenship or Legal Residency.

There are many laws in California where I live requiring people to put out their own money to fulfill a law.
Auto Insurance is one of them and there are any more.
Either you get the insurance, or you don't drive, it's that simple. I don't like it any more than anyone else but that's the way it is.

I am more concerned about Voter Fraud and what goes along with it than I am about people that should have seen something like this coming and should have gotten their act together a long time ago. Requiring people to prove their Citizenship is just another important step to clean up fraud.

If someone wants to vote than they should legally do what it takes to do just that.

Try going to any other Country, such as Canada, for instance. You will be required to prove Citizenship.

[mhatrw]

75. You have to have a mail box to receive an absentee ballot.

And it's common knowledge that everyone in this Country needs to have identification proving their Citizenship or Legal Residency.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

There are many laws in California where I live requiring people to put out their own money to fulfill a law. Auto Insurance is one of them and there are any more. Either you get the insurance, or you don't drive, it's that simple. I don't like it any more than anyone else but that's the way it is.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Voting is a protected right under California state law.

I am more concerned about Voter Fraud and what goes along with it than I am about people that should have seen something like this coming and should have gotten their act together a long time ago. Requiring people to prove their Citizenship is just another important step to clean up fraud.

Why are you concerned about voter fraud? Where is your evidence that voter fraud is a problem? Why do you wish to disenfrachise everyone who can't "get their act together"? Is this really a reasonable response to a problem that doesn't exist except in your fevered imagination?

Try going to any other Country, such as Canada, for instance. You will be required to prove Citizenship.

Bullshit.

[Megahurtz]

144. Driving is A Right in my book

and I see you glommed on to the "Driving is a Privilege" jargon, so you really drank the Kool Aid on that one.
California used their "Driving is a Privilege" mantra to take Driver's Ed out of Public Schools. So good job for promoting that one! :sarcasm:

I am concerned about all fraud when it comes to voting. The system needs to be cleaned up.
Votes need to be properly documented one way of doing that is requiring valid I.D. such as proof of Citizenship or legal Residency.

If you think it's bullshit that Canada requires proper I.D. while you live there, you go try living there for a few years, see how you fare on that one and get back to me. :P

[mhatrw]

153. It doesn't matter what you think. It matters what the CA Supreme Court thinks.

Under CA law, voting is a right and driving is not.

[Megahurtz]

145. Are you saying that people with walkers don't have mailboxes?

:wtf: :crazy:

[mhatrw]

154. What I'm saying is that you have no clue how our frailest and poorest

citizens live.

[crimsonblue]

93. how many poor or elderly will be traveling outside the US?

your racebaiting is getting old, so off to the ignore pile with you.

[Megahurtz]

138. Racebaiting? Are you nuts?

Where in mt post am I conveying anything about race??? Holy crap. :crazy:

And no where did I convey anything about the poor and elderly going traveling either.

I could give a shit if you ignore me, you are just trying to plant words in my mouth.

[2peaches2]

57. It can be really hard for some.

My sister was born in Panama at the Canal Zone Military Hospital while my father was stationed there in the Navy in 1955. Since we don't control or have a presence there anymore, it took her almost 8 months, many, many calls and letter to everyone including the State Department before she could get a new copy of hers. And she only had to go through this crap because someone at Social Security Department put the wrong date on her papers years ago and they wouldn't/couldn/t "depend" on the validity of any of her other paper work. So she had to go through all this nonsence for an up to date birth certificate. Many people wouldn't go through all this crap for another piece of paper that shows what you already know.

[Megahurtz]

146. It may be hard for some

but actually it should be done.
Personally I would never want to be stuck confined inside the borders of one Country because I could not identify myself to get into another.
For survival I suggest get your papers in order!

[Hutzpa]

42. There are issues that requires sterner participation

than mediocre responses and this is one stories that falls into
that category.

The Republicans knows they have no chance come Falls so their
only strategy is to do what Republicans do best and thats to
go after the weak.

Their policies have always been to deprive ethnic minority from
achieving anything in life and forcing congress to pass a bill
that will disenfranchise voters is no surprise, where we come
in is to find a way of preventing them from achieving this goal.

:think:


edit: to add emoticon

[northzax]

124. thousands!

damn, that is much worse than disenfranchising millions in two entire states!

[Pavulon]

149. I would support it 100% if the process

to get a passport cost $10. The process is easy and could be subsidized. Takes 3 weeks.

[tom_paine]

150. Wow, the Bushies are FULL SPEED AHEAD in securing unchecked power for decades, even centuries

(if the Amerikan Empire lasts that long, most Empires don't)

We scarcely even become aware of the last disenfranchisement tactic when they unveil the next THREE.

Add in the fact that our Democratic Leadership, with some VERY rare exceptions, seems pathologically frightened of addressing these issues, and it is simply a recipe for the End of America, plain and simple.

I'll say it again: This thing has passed a tipping point and is almost certainly too far gone to stop without another 60s or an out-and-out revolution.

We all know that collectively, there isn't enough spine, integrity, or even love of freedom in Imperial Amerikan Subjects to do anything but kneel before the Bushies, as we have been doing for the most part for seven years (25 years and more, really).

I pray that I am wrong, but given the mounting evidence, the likelihood of that seems very remote indeed. Less than 2% is a generous estimate, I think.