Elections California bans voter ID

[sickc0d3r]

Dude. Just stop. I've already said I'm not concerned about fraud so please stop pushing that into what I'm saying. How in the world do you determine who the "real voter" is without some form of identity verification within the process of registering to vote or during the act of voting? How do you determine whether a signature matches or not without some form of identity verification in the process of registering to vote or during the act of voting?

It’s been said over and over, the registration process requires proof of identity and a signature (if you can’t provide id then, you’ll have to provide id the first time you vote).
After that, in Cali, most counties are fine with giving your name at your precinct polling station. They check the list, if you’re on it you sign in as that person. This really isn’t hard.

 

[spamking]

It’s been said over and over, the registration process requires proof of identity and a signature (if you can’t provide id then, you’ll have to provide id the first time you vote). After that, in Cali, most counties are fine with giving your name at your precinct polling station. They check the list, if you’re on it you sign in as that person.

Right. Which is exactly what I've advocated for . . . . identity verification.

This really isn’t hard.

No it's not, but you chose to get all obtuse about it anyway. So then what the frack are you arguing with me about? I've only said in pretty much every post I've made in here that the identity verification needs to happen at some point in the process.

 

[BFoe]

Again, I'm not worried about fraud. But I do expect every voter to be prepared and able to verify their identity at some point in the process.

And I do agree that expressing our rights shouldn't be hard or subjected to ridiculous requirements . . . I'm looking at you GCA and NFA.

Sure, but AFAIK everyone does that in some form or fashion when registering.
And it would be one thing if these laws had broad, inclusive lists of IDs that are acceptable, but of course they never do, people have to sue and litigate, blah blah blah.

No rights are being violated by the GCA and NFA though, so you don’t have to worry about that.

NC also now provides Voter IDs for free . . .

Get a Free Voter Photo ID | NCSBE

Don’t have an acceptable photo ID for voting? North Carolina registered voters can get one from their county board of elections.

www.ncsbe.gov

Yeah, if memory serves I think they spent something like 10-12 million dollars on that program. I don’t know how this ended up, but at one point last year I recall NC saying they didn’t have the funds to do any widespread voter outreach to educate people about the upcoming voter ID requirement or free IDs.
And even those IDs aren’t always easy to get depending on a person’s circumstances.

—She had lost her Social Security card, which made it challenging to get the state-issued ID. “I had to go through all these channels to make a new Social Security card, go to my doctors to get documents from them, get everything notarized and took two trips to my local North Carolina Division of (Motor Vehicles),” she said. “I couldn’t get an ID until I had all of this.”

According to this article, your state expects to spend about 21 million on these.

I would be very curious to know how much money in total has been spent on poll worker education for voter ID laws, costs voters have spent to comply, costs states have spent to create “free” IDs, costs spent litigating these discriminatory laws over periods of years…. Seems like a massive waste of money.
—Can those free Voter ID cards be used for any other purpose, do you know? Like, I could see justifying the cost if it provided IDs that people could use for other things. Or if one didn’t have to surrender their frigging driving privileges to get one like people do in my state.

 

[spamking]

No rights are being violated by the GCA and NFA though, so you don’t have to worry about that.

If you guys are going to whine about $25 every four years for an ID I can whine about a ridiculous $200 tax stamp on a suppressor.

Can those free Voter ID cards be used for any other purpose, do you know?

The voter ID cards can only be used to vote, but aren't required to vote if you have another form of ID and are on the list of voters for your polling location.

 

[andnowweknow]

why did California ban ID's?

Why is the McRib seasonal?

 

[Scerpi]

Sure, but AFAIK everyone does that in some form or fashion when registering.
And it would be one thing if these laws had broad, inclusive lists of IDs that are acceptable, but of course they never do, people have to sue and litigate, blah blah blah.

No rights are being violated by the GCA and NFA though, so you don’t have to worry about that.



Yeah, if memory serves I think they spent something like 10-12 million dollars on that program. I don’t know how this ended up, but at one point last year I recall NC saying they didn’t have the funds to do any widespread voter outreach to educate people about the upcoming voter ID requirement or free IDs.
And even those IDs aren’t always easy to get depending on a person’s circumstances.

—She had lost her Social Security card, which made it challenging to get the state-issued ID. “I had to go through all these channels to make a new Social Security card, go to my doctors to get documents from them, get everything notarized and took two trips to my local North Carolina Division of (Motor Vehicles),” she said. “I couldn’t get an ID until I had all of this.”

According to this article, your state expects to spend about 21 million on these.

I would be very curious to know how much money in total has been spent on poll worker education for voter ID laws, costs voters have spent to comply, costs states have spent to create “free” IDs, costs spent litigating these discriminatory laws over periods of years…. Seems like a massive waste of money.
—Can those free Voter ID cards be used for any other purpose, do you know? Like, I could see justifying the cost if it provided IDs that people could use for other things. Or if one didn’t have to surrender their frigging driving privileges to get one like people do in my state.

lol... That article posted referenced a woman who had issues getting an ID because she lost her Social Security card. She said it was pain in the ass to get a new Social Security card. But once she did... No issues getting an ID

Yeah... No shit.

Guess what. It's a pain in the ass for any of us to get a new Social Security card. Not just when the color of your skin isn't white. lol... Why? Because they need to make sure it's actually you and not someone defrauding the system.

And yes, Social Security Fraud is a massive issue. Ask anyone victimized by have their Identity Stolen.

And amazingly, she got her Social Security and an ID!!! Wow. How did she do that? She's black... According to Democrats, black are completely incapable of getting an ID while the rest of the population somehow can do it...

You realize that's actually a racist stance to take? That a certain demographic is somehow less capable to perform a task that everyone else manages to do. Even if its a pain in the ass

 

[BFoe]

If it's so naive to think that homeless people can get an ID, isn't it also naive to think that homeless people are at the polls voting?

Obviously there's going to be some homeless people out there that vote but to think it's some widespread important issue and a reason why we should forego voting security is pretty weak.

So far I haven't seen a single good argument from your side about this but I've seen everything from people are too poor to move about the world in a 10 mile radius, they can't afford the $25 ID, that homeless people would be inconvenienced by it and that there's one DMV in some podunk town in WI that is only open on the 5th Wednesday of the month. Those are some really weak arguments.

You haven’t seen a good argument from my side? I’ve listed a whole host of reasons this disenfranchises lawful voters or makes it much more difficult to vote. Meanwhile, your side’s argument is “we have no data indicating significant fraud, but we should still keep doing all of this shit!”

People being able to vote without undue burden is absolutely an important issue. Our elections are quite secure, and as the most common form of voting fraud when it does exist is multiple voting and not identity-related fraud, most of these voter ID laws don’t do shit to provide any meaningful election security. If there is ever data that emerges showing serious security flaws or widespread fraud, then a national debate is appropriate regarding what actions are reasonable. Until then, these laws hurt far more than they help.

 

[BFoe]

lol... That article posted referenced a woman who had issues getting an ID because she lost her Social Security card. She said it was pain in the ass to get a new Social Security card. But once she did... No issues getting an ID

Yeah... No shit.

Guess what. It's a pain in the ass for any of us to get a new Social Security card. Not just when the color of your skin isn't white. lol... Why? Because they need to make sure it's actually you and not someone defrauding the system.

And yes, Social Security Fraud is a massive issue. Ask anyone victimized by have their Identity Stolen.

And amazingly, she got her Social Security and an ID!!! Wow. How did she do that? She's black... According to Democrats, black are completely incapable of getting an ID while the rest of the population somehow can do it...

You realize that's actually a racist stance to take? That a certain demographic is somehow less capable to perform a task that everyone else manages to do. Even if its a pain in the ass

Yes I know what the quote I posted said, I posted it.
The point is that there are often obstacles to getting an ID card, and costs associated with it, and considering she is already a registered voter there’s no reason that there should be. I have posted articles before detailing stories of people who weren’t able to get their issues resolved though.

And you follow that up with the absolute dumbest fucking talking point I ever hear about voter ID: “Dems are the rEaL RaCisTs because they don’t think African Americans can jump through all the hoops we put in front of them!”

Durr….the issue isn’t whether someone is capable of it, the issue is that they shouldn’t have to do it. I mean, that seems obvious. It has nothing to do with whether someone is smart enough, capable enough, hard-working enough, or whatever enough to get through all the obstacles you guys put in their way, The point is, stop putting fucking obstacles in voters’ way.

 

[oldshadow]

IDs aren't free in my state.

Even if they were, it would still be a barrier to voting because you would still have to get it in the first place.

So is ID for buying a gun.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Right. Which is exactly what I've advocated for . . . . identity verification.

No it's not, but you chose to get all obtuse about it anyway. So then what the frack are you arguing with me about? I've only said in pretty much every post I've made in here that the identity verification needs to happen at some point in the process.

Lol, you're utterly full of shit. My very first reply to you was to inform you of that. Then you went on to talk about presenting it at the polls. It's not my fault you can't follow a conversation. The thread is about Gavin preventing places from requiring id at the polls, ffs.

Here's our entire convo, where I help you with your concern and then you go on and on about voter id:

God forbid we make sure someone who registers to vote is who they claim to be and require ID verification upon voter registration.

According to the state’s website, California does require identification to register, and you could be asked for accepted forms of document identification the first time you vote in person.

Well there you go . . . assuming when you register you also get a CA Voter ID, why virtue signal and "ban" voter ID? If you can prove who you are when you register you shouldn't have any issues presenting your Voter ID at the polling station.

They don’t give you a voter id, they add you to the registered voters list. And every single legally registered voter in Cali can vote by mail or drop box if they want to.
I agree it is a trivial thing to require id, but it really is a manufactured issue, and you have to provide for exceptions like lost id’s or whatever, anyway.
Double votes are flagged, mismatched signatures are flagged, polling stations have cameras, nobody is lining up to risk prison time for the chance that one or two extra votes might affect the outcome.

I believe both sides have contributed to this . . .

I'm surprised CA doesn't give registered voters a free Voter ID like we get here in Oklahoma.

They give them all ballots. The ballot is their id. Some counties want you to bring it to the polls with you if you vote in person.

The push for “voter id’s” is definitely a republican thing, and it’s definitely not based on any reality of voter fraud. It’s looking for problems where none exist.

But, like I said, I agree that it’s a trivial thing to require an id, we require some form of id to vote in person in my state (I always use the drop box, though).
I think a dedicated voter id can make the process more efficient. I just don’t think it matters much, otherwise. If Cali doesn’t want their counties to require it, it’s not creating any problem, so who cares?
I definitely don’t support these bang new requirements right before it’s time to vote, which is what started this kerfuffle between the state and Huntington Beach.
There needs to be a long enough roll out period for people to be informed and adjust.

So basically every registered voter gets a ballot to either mail in or use as an ID at their polling station? Interesting.

Wanting registered voters to prove they are who they say they are is looking for problems where none exist? Whether the chance of fraud is 5% or 75% why wouldn't every US citizen want to do everything possible to ensure our single votes are as equal as they can be?

People would still complain that it "isn't fair" or discriminatory.

Yes, it is looking for problems where none exist. There’s no significant fraud, and it certainly isn’t going to suddenly become a problem at in-person voting (think logically about it, who’s going to risk impersonating someone just to cast one vote which very likely will end up being tossed when the signatures don’t match, or the real voter votes and it’s flagged as a duplicate or whatever, and even if it’s counted it’s not making any difference unless thousands of people are also taking the same risk, and oh yeah they also need to be voting your way). So, yeah, the motive for these election year changes clearly isn’t to prevent fraud.

Dude. Just stop. I've already said I'm not concerned about fraud so please stop pushing that into what I'm saying. How in the world do you determine who the "real voter" is without some form of identity verification within the process of registering to vote or during the act of voting? How do you determine whether a signature matches or not without some form of identity verification in the process of registering to vote or during the act of voting?

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Why is the McRib seasonal?

You said "Why are you so interested in solving non existent problems?" to another poster. What problem was California fixing when they banned ID's?

 

[Dalarna3]

I have to renew my ID and it costs money.

I don't and it should be free anyway.

 

[BFoe]

If you guys are going to whine about $25 every four years for an ID I can whine about a ridiculous $200 tax stamp on a suppressor.

You sure can.


Kidding, kidding. Sort of. But along those lines: no ID, can’t cast a vote. No suppressor, can’t fire a gun? Even if we went by your interpretation (agreeing with Roberts Court) of the 2A and not mine not having a suppressor doesn’t prevent you from hunting, shooting for sport, defending yourself or your property…none of that. You might find the tax stamp inconvenient, but I fail to see how it is infringement, even according to the Roberts Court’s interpretation of the 2A.

The voter ID cards can only be used to vote, but aren't required to vote if you have another form of ID and are on the list of voters for your polling location.

 

[Dalarna3]

i don't have to. its the same semantics from the same group of people and the issue is never really about showing id or validating their votes. it's about trying to suppress groups of people from exercising their constitutional right to vote, not because they are illegal voters or anything, but because they are likely to not vote how the republicans want them to.

they wouldn't be screeching about mail in voting if republicans had a tendancy to vote that way, and i don't see them clamoring for mandatory voting id requirements in any deep red poor districts chockers full of white people. voter fraud would never ever be an issue there or anything. but in any contested state that they lose, just ask them and i'm sure that they will tell you everywhere outside of a courtroom that the fraud was everywhere and we need to "fix" this by making it harder for these people to vote, that is if they can't just bully the courts into throwing out their votes for no legitimate reason at all.

You're trying to bring in hyperpartisan talking points about "Republicans bad" because there is actually no good reason to not have voter ID.

 

[spamking]

Lol, you're utterly full of shit. My very first reply to you was to inform you of that. Then you went on to talk about presenting it at the polls. It's not my fault you can't follow a conversation. The thread is about Gavin preventing places from requiring id at the polls, ffs.

Here's our entire convo, where I help you with your concern and then you go on and on about voter id:

Holy crap man . . . you've made up an entire argument in your head to justify this junk post.

The entirety of my discussion involved voter identity verification at some point in the registration or voting process. You even quoted yourself indicating that it already happens in CA.

I also said that if someone could verify who they were at registration that it shouldn't be an issue to do so at the time they vote.

Good grief.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Holy crap man . . . you've made up an entire argument in your head to justify this junk post.

The entirety of my discussion involved voter identity verification at some point in the registration or voting process. You even quoted yourself indicating that it already happens in CA.

I also said that if someone could verify who they were at registration that it shouldn't be an issue to do so at the time they vote.

Good grief.

So you would agree that as long as someone verifies their identity at registration, which is generally the norm across the country, they don't need to present photo ID at the poll on the day of voting?

 

[spamking]

You sure can.


Kidding, kidding. Sort of. But along those lines: no ID, can’t cast a vote. No suppressor, can’t fire a gun? Even if we went by your interpretation (agreeing with Roberts Court) of the 2A and not mine not having a suppressor doesn’t prevent you from hunting, shooting for sport, defending yourself or your property…none of that. You might find the tax stamp inconvenient, but I fail to see how it is infringement, even according to the Roberts Court’s interpretation of the 2A.

Something is either a poll tax or it isn't. Something either discourages a right from being exercised or it doesn't. The tax stamp was one example, not the only example.

Anything that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right, even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement.

 

[RoastBeast]

You haven’t seen a good argument from my side? I’ve listed a whole host of reasons this disenfranchises lawful voters or makes it much more difficult to vote. Meanwhile, your side’s argument is “we have no data indicating significant fraud, but we should still keep doing all of this shit!”

People being able to vote without undue burden is absolutely an important issue. Our elections are quite secure, and as the most common form of voting fraud when it does exist is multiple voting and not identity-related fraud, most of these voter ID laws don’t do shit to provide any meaningful election security. If there is ever data that emerges showing serious security flaws or widespread fraud, then a national debate is appropriate regarding what actions are reasonable. Until then, these laws hurt far more than they help.

It doesn't disenfranchise lawful voters any more than people are disenfranchised from doing anything that requires an ID. An ID is essential to being a contributing member of society. The fact that people have to pretend like we have a large group of disenfranchised voters that wouldn't be able to travel 10 miles or afford $25 is laughable. It's as weak as an argument can get.

It's difficult to find widespread fraud when you can't even verify the vote because there was no ID needed in the first place. If it's not a problem then liberals wouldn't be so worried about it. It may not be a widespread problem but it happens and it's inexcusable that it happens at all. There's a good reason why liberals want our borders open and our elections to not require ID.

 

[BFoe]

Something is either a poll tax or it isn't. Something either discourages a right from being exercised or it doesn't. The tax stamp was one example, not the only example.

Anything that prevents any of us from fully expressing a right, even if that entails something you might deem as unnecessary to exercise that right is an infringement.

But it doesn’t. It doesn’t prevent you from fully expressing a right. it doesn’t even discourage you from exercising it. For example, you believe the 2A encompasses a right to self defense. You’re telling me that if someone tried (for example) to break into your home and threaten you, you can’t defend yourself because you don’t have a suppressor? Come on man. Your expansion of the word “infringement” to encompass every single preference, convenience, and desire you have has gotten to be ridiculous at this point—and that’s even with me using the Roberts Court’s wildly expansive view of the 2A.

 

[BFoe]

It doesn't disenfranchise lawful voters any more than people are disenfranchised from doing anything that requires an ID. An ID is essential to being a contributing member of society. The fact that people have to pretend like we have a large group of disenfranchised voters that wouldn't be able to travel 10 miles or afford $25 is laughable. It's as weak as an argument can get.

It's difficult to find widespread fraud when you can't even verify the vote because there was no ID needed in the first place. If it's not a problem then liberals wouldn't be so worried about it. It may not be a widespread problem but it happens and it's inexcusable that it happens at all. There's a good reason why liberals want our borders open and our elections to not require ID.

This is just not true at all.
In AL as I mentioned, you can’t use a license that’s expired more than 60 days to vote. You can do all sorts of other things with that ID though.

Plenty of people in rural areas are contributing members of society but don’t have ID, or valid ID anyway. When I moved to rural NV, the DMV was a 90 minute drive away. I could register to vote, because I could prove I was a citizen, I could prove residency, but honestly I wouldn’t have bothered getting a NV ID if I didn’t need it for work. My out-of-state ID was fine for all my other needs. Nevada doesn’t require ID to vote so it wouldn’t have mattered, but I can imagine people in rural areas in other states might encounter the same issue.

As far as fraud being inexcusable if it happens at all, I would say the same thing about disenfranchising voters. And that happens wayyy more than voter fraud. As for verifying the vote, voters always have to prove residency and US citizenship when they register. If I showed up to vote, gave the poll worker my name, and was told I already voted when I hadn’t, you’d better believe I’d be documenting this and signing an affidavit. This would be happening all over the place if there were significant fraud, and it just isn’t.