Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Some states wise up

From the NY Times:

The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls, a departure from the longstanding practice of using voters’ signatures or household identification like a utility bill. Seven states this year have passed laws requiring strict photo ID to vote, and similar measures were introduced in 27 other states. More than 21 million citizens — 11 percent of the population — do not have government ID cards. Many of them are poor, or elderly, or black and Hispanic and could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.

The poor would have benefit cards that contain their photos. I don't understand the assertion that the others would "have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card." Standing on line at the DMV is not that difficult. A pain in the ass, yes, but not difficult. Plus you need to have ID to do so many other things these days, like enter courthouses or board planes, that I find it hard to believe that there are 21 million citizens walking around out there without photo ID. Are these 21 million citizens actually adults registered to vote?

From the NY Times:

As more Americans turn to government programs for refuge from a merciless economy, a growing number are encountering a new price of admission to the social safety net: a urine sample.

Policy makers in three dozen states this year proposed drug testing for people receiving benefits like welfare, unemployment assistance, job training, food stamps and public housing. Such laws, which proponents say ensure that tax dollars are not being misused and critics say reinforce stereotypes about the poor, have passed in states including Arizona, Indiana and Missouri.

In Florida, people receiving cash assistance through welfare have had to pay for their own drug tests since July, and enrollment has shrunk to its lowest levels since the start of the recession.


How do we get this in New York? Oh wait, Cuomo is governor. Never mind.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

taxi drivers and for hire(limo drivers) must have drug testing to qualify for N.Y.C.,T.L.C. licenses, each year.

the A.C.(uncivil) L.U. sues to keep their patrons on welfare, non -drug tested.

Deke DaSilva said...

Many of them are poor, or elderly, or black and Hispanic and could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.

Liberals screamed "Racism!" over the premise of the book The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, yet what does the liberal NY Times writer seem to be implying about the intelligence levels of certain loyal members of the Democratic party?

Anonymous said...

If photo voters' IDs are required in Flushing you wouldn't see but a handful of legitimate Asiatic voters showing up at the polls.

Might John Liu and other candidates have bussed in out of district voters to rig past elections?

H-m-m-m...."The mountains are high and the emperor is far away"....a wise old Chinese saying!

The NYC Board of Elections are certainly "out to lunch" payed for by "The Friends of Oriental Candidates".

LOL!

Anonymous said...

My native-born American parent who voted every year from her 21st year until death when well into her 90s could not have easily navigated a quest to get a photo id. Never drove, never had a passport, never had a credit card, didn't fly, etc, etc, and physically could not have endured the process to get a non-driver id. And yes, all across this country there are others like her.

Anonymous said...

She could endure the process to vote but not to get a photo ID? Please spare us. Waiting on a line is the same whether it's for the doctor, for a photo license or voting.

Anonymous said...

Never drove, never had a passport, never had a credit card, didn't fly, etc, etc, and
---------------------

Jesus, what a boring life!

Anonymous said...

A national identity card with photo, RFID, and biometric data is the way this can be fixed. Issue one to each legal resident and each legal entrant to the United States.

r185 said...

1) At age 89 I don't think my mother has a recent (within 25 years) ID with a photo.

2) There's a big difference between going 2 blocks to vote and getting her downtown to some office to wait on line for a photo ID.

3) But more importantly, photo IDs is a solution to a problem (individual voter fraud) that is virtually nonexistent in this country. However, there is plenty of voter suppression.

Anonymous said...

THis is a long time coming.I think we know who would oppose this.....

Queens Crapper said...

You don't need an ID card with a photo to get a non-driver id.

Anonymous said...

You also don't need to take her downtown to get to a DMV.

r185 said...

Queens Crapper, I'm confused by "You don't need an ID card with a photo to get a non-driver id."

Are we talking about the article that starts... "The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls." ???

Queens Crapper said...

Yes, what part of my statement did you not understand?

Anonymous said...

) But more importantly, photo IDs is a solution to a problem (individual voter fraud) that is virtually nonexistent in this country. However, there is plenty of voter suppression.

how do you know voter fraud is non-existent? Have you gone door-to-door with petitions only to realize block after block is filled with fraudlent names? I have. And how is asking someone for ID "supressing" their right to vote?

Fadlo said...

r185 said...

"3) But more importantly, photo IDs is a solution to a problem (individual voter fraud) that is virtually nonexistent in this country. However, there is plenty of voter suppression."

This is the crucial point that most readers of this site will miss.
Electoral fraud is a WAY bigger problem in America than voter misconduct.

Fadlo said...

Anonymous said...

"how do you know voter fraud is non-existent? Have you gone door-to-door with petitions only to realize block after block is filled with fraudlent names? I have. And how is asking someone for ID "supressing" their right to vote?"

Asking someone to identify themselves to vote is not necessarily an infringement on their voting rights.

But, you have to ask yourself why some sectors consider voter identification to be so crucial.

If these people are making the claim that "voter fraud" is rampant, society should politely ask them to back up this claim with solid evidence before attacking the rights citizens who are most marginalized and vulnerable.

Unsurprisingly, none who make this claim seems to ever bring any evidence to the table. Yet, curiously it always seems to pop up just before a major election.

Queens Crapper said...

Queensites are the most marginalized voters in America and the vast majority of us have no problem showing ID to vote.

Fadlo said...

Queens Crapper said...

"Queensites are the most marginalized voters in America and the vast majority of us have no problem showing ID to vote."

With all due respect, how is this relevant to my point that somebody who makes some claim should back it up with evidence?

You have an ID, and don't mind showing it off. Great.

So, you believe "the vast majority" of Queensites think there's nothing wrong with State Representative Joe Schmuck trying to prevent citizens from voting because they happen not to have one?

Because if that is true, we're all in dire need of a major civics lesson.

Queens Crapper said...

Why should voting be different than anything else we are required to show ID for? I need to show it to buy OVER THE COUNTER allergy medications, to buy alcohol, adopt a pet, write a check at the grocery store, make a credit card purchase at Best Buy, apply for a loan to purchase anything, start a new bank account, get a marriage license, drive, close on a house, get medical care, and to pick up a mailbox key from the US Post Office.

I need it to get on a plane, to get insurance, to rent an apartment, to get a job, to get a hotel room, to rent a car, to get into City Hall and a myriad of other things.

So please explain how State Rep Joe Schmuck was able to get these regulations passed to prevent fraud and improve public security but doesn't think it's necessary for people to have to show ID in order to vote.

sirbeef said...

Well said, QC. I'm gonna copy and paste that in other blogs when this issue comes up.

Anonymous said...

How quaint. Please, I don't want to get schmutz on my spats.

When something even as trivial as getting a bathroom key requires one, the idea that someone is burdened by producing a government id for voting is not serious.

Everywhere where an government-issued photo id is required, the rate of illegible votes casts is close to zero. I don't know about you, but I do not want my vote diluted by illegible voters.

Anonymous said...

Next logical step: federal National ID cards.

Then, Big Brother will know exactly where you've been, what you buy (except for firearms, of course), and how you vote (the US constitution does not have a provision for a secret ballot, in case you didn't know.)

Hey, by now we should be used to having gov't chip away our right to privacy in this post-9/11 world, no?

r185 said...

Queens Crapper: "You don't need an ID card with a photo to get a non-driver id.....Yes, what part of my statement did you not understand?"

The part I don't understand is where you seem to argue that the proposed requirements are for non-driver IDs (without photos). The goal of the various state legislatures is NOT a non-driver ID without a photo. As the article states "The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for PHOTO identification at the polls."

Queens Crapper said...

Last time I checked, non-driver ID's had photos. That is the point of getting one. You do not need photo ID to get one, but once you get one, you have a photo ID.

Understand?

r185 said...

Yes, Queens Crapper, I understand. My point (in my initial post and now) is that getting one - whether a non-driver or other ID - for an elderly person can be onerous.

And there is virtually no evidence supporting the amount of voter fraud that would warrant possibly disenfranchising voters. There are scores of studies and reports debunking the type of fraud this purports to address, and only scant anecdotal evidence provided by its proponents.

Anonymous said...

I am a queensite who sees no reason to have to show ID to vote. Where are the facts to show that there is voting fraud, this is another non-issue but yes lets make more laws and regulations to solve a non-problem and lets ignore the real issues.

Queens Crapper said...

No evidence?

Queens D.A. Is Reviewing Voter Registration Fraud Case

r185 said...

Queens Crapper, "No evidence?"

So, a "review" is now the best evidence to be found in all of NY? What was the result of that review? (They've had 6 years to do it.) What fraud was found, and how many votes out of the total cast were proven by the resulting convictions to be fraud?

The real crimes going on with elections are voter supression and those related to campaign finances.

Queens Crapper said...

Jesus Christ, I have to do all the research for you? That was just supposed to be a refresher on the Jimmy Meng scandal. Look it up for yourself. His aide was brought up on charges. Not only that, but there were reports of many people being registered to vote in a state other than where they legally reside and voting twice - once in person and once by absentee ballot. Make it the law that your ID has to match the state you are voting in.

Anonymous said...

please refer to the post about campaign finance donations to Comptroller,John Liu,from the Asian community.

this should scare the hell out of americans who actually believe that nyc elections are not corrupt ?

RE:" the next logical step"

if you use a cell phone there is a record of when,where and the # you spoke with.at retail shops ,their camera and cashier receipt records it all. the gov. can court order your blogger to reveal the names of commenters. do you live a reclusive cave?

Anonymous said...

Including you?

Anonymous said...

will not the American (UNCIVIL) Civil Liberties Union defend us ?