And what about maintaining adequate polling locations, and/or extending polling times? Are you opposed to that?
Examples of why voter identification should be required, right?
My belief is that requiring voter identification makes sense to prevent (or attempt to) fraud. The integrity of our system should be important to everyone. What are your reasons for opposing it?
Serious question. I'm not trying to bait you but I have yet to see or hear what I felt was a legitimate reason against requiring ID.
I find it ironic that gun owners would be, of all people, for voter identification. Requiring ID hurts far more people who wish to legitimately and legally vote, than those who wish to commit fraud. But identification is simply "common sense voter laws," right? So essentially, the premise is, "because some will do bad, let's penalize everybody." I think we can agree that instances of people doing illegal things with firearms FAR exceeds people committing fraud to vote. And yet, the application of "common sense gun laws," is viewed as distasteful to gun owners because it adds an additional hindrance to those who act legally. So tell me the difference. Why not aggressively enforce current voter laws, rather than add an additional step which has a significant bearing on legally eligible voters? It would seem there's a fair amount of hypocrisy concerning the matter.
Why would anyone be against this? Voter ID aside, Indiana polls should be open later than 6pm, and polling places uniform in number, in comparison to populace. Certainly polling places shouldn't be drastically cut due to "budgetary" concerns.
...you'd be wrong if you assumed I didn't look further into the issue.
You guys are pulling a Sharpton, and leaning on the "racism" crutch, despite it not being mentioned by any of the proponents.
And what about maintaining adequate polling locations, and/or extending polling times? Are you opposed to that?
Well, I guess I know who's in the pro-voter suppression crowd. Meh... last gasps, I guess.
I did have a lady that had divorced and remarried who has BOTH of her ID's...the old and the one with her new married name. Interestingly, she came in and voted under her new name and then returned later and tried to vote again under the old name. I recognized her and confronted her about having already voted. She had stated the first time that she wasn't sure which name she would be under in the polling book. I remembered she had been listed in it under both as she reregistered and the clerk's office had not caught that she had a previous registration under a different name. I turned her away and flagged it in the book so it would get corrected. She would have voted a second time if we had not been paying attention. It was slow enough when she came through that I happened to be standing behind the clerk overseeing things both times.
That should result in an arrest and if convicted, 30 days in jail.
IC 3-14-2-12
Voting or applying to vote in false name and own name
Sec. 12. A person who:
(1) knowingly votes or makes application to vote in an election
in a name other than the person's own; or
(2) having voted once at an election, knowingly applies to vote
at the same election in the person's own name or any other
name;
commits a Level 6 felony.
I called it in to the clerk's office and made sure they had her info. When I confronted her, she acted shocked that I was accusing her of trying to vote a second time but when I pointed out where she had already signed the poll book, she didn't have much to say and left quietly. I had no authority to detain her and had her name and address, etc. so figured it was up to the clerk to address the situation.
Right, it been steered into a thread about voter identification, racism, and minorities. Despite the OP not mentioning a specific unfair restriction, and the subject making the statement listing elderly, poor, and minorities as the groups affected.
But hey, just another day on INGO to complain about minorities.
This seems like a good opportunity to give something and get something in return. We'll agree to voter ID laws; they can agree to expand early voting. There's a word for that sort of legislative agreement, though I haven't heard it in so long that I'm having trouble recalling it....
I find it ironic that gun owners would be, of all people, for voter identification. Requiring ID hurts far more people who wish to legitimately and legally vote, than those who wish to commit fraud. But identification is simply "common sense voter laws," right? So essentially, the premise is, "because some will do bad, let's penalize everybody."
What is this significant impact voter ID laws has? List your disenfranchised here. And your premise is weak. Of all the gun laws I find overreaching, providing an ID while filling out a 4473 isn't topping the list.
Kut- You and I agree FAR more than we disagree, judging by your posts throughout this General Political forum. That being said, I will point out one thing that may shine some light on 'the other side' of this issue, for you.
One member here posted this previously, and I absolutely agree with the observation.
The MAIN POINT of having this ID law, is to prevent fraudulent voting, period. Why is that important? Because, any person whom is able (under a 'no ID scenario') to 1) vote twice, OR 2) vote when they are not eligible to do so.... thereby could be essentially voiding or 'neutralizing' my vote. Of course that would only exist in the case that they voted differently than I. But I don't believe any of us here want to see people voting, when they don't have a right to.
I have to drive 5 miles to get to my polling place. I feel like I'm being suppressed.
Name a city where anyone is 5 miles from their polling place.