The Brian Lehrer Show

I don't think it disenfranchises people when done responsibly. However, if it's done weeks before an election, that's a totally different story. Making any kind of big changes to the system right before an election has only one function: to prevent certain people from voting.

That said, I actually think that we need to reform the voting system in another way. We have far too many people voting who don't have the slightest idea how the Constitution and government works. I also think we need voters with some sense of civic responsibility. For that reason, I think we need voting requirements including a basic civics test and a certain number of hours of community service (including military service) as prerequisites for voting.

In the same way they have not-for-profits helping people with english and citizenship, you could have similar community organizations educating people on civics. Most people won't take time out of their day to learn something new if there's no incentive for them. And worse, sometimes they won't learn something new because they think they already know and are never challenged on it. Failing a civics test would not be permanent disenfranchisement. People could study up, learn more and try again later.

And as for community service, I realize that some people don't have time for that... but on possible solution is that we could make it so that employers would have to give people a certain number of hours to do community service.

Amazingly, on my 18th birthday, I figured out how to get to the voter registration office and subsequently went to the post office to register for the selective service. Therefore it is bothersome to see how much easier our law makers have made registering, placing almost no burden on the individual to be proactive, witness the motor voter act and various registration drives by interest groups. It seems verification has become less of a priority. In fact over the years we have received several sample ballots (indicating registration) for people who have never lived at our home. In attempting to correct this with the Board of Election, I was met with reticence and obfuscation. Eventually after several election cycles the incorrectly named sample ballots would cease. Disagreement with placing a minor burden of proof of identity seems ridiculous when compared to even the appearance of disenfranchisement of the legitimate voter by the illegitimate voter.

Don't you think it's a good idea for EVERYONE to have an ID? People who don't have ID's would do well to get ID. The process of procuring an ID should simply be made less onerous. Senior citizens should be given free or discounted state ID's to replace their driver's licenses if they've expired, etc.

Everyone should have a valid ID. How else can you pick up your mail at the post office, or prove who you are? It's about time we fixed the problem of people who DON'T have ID's rather than accommodate the lack.

And I'm no Republcan. I just think it makes sense.

If people can't get ID in time for an election, then the state that imposed the rule so late in the day has to be held responsible.

a woman, I agree.

EVERYBODY should have some kind of valid photo ID for a whole bunch of reasons.

I'm not sure that the id is such a bad idea. It would eliminate, if done properly, all those names of dead people that have shown up in some states. If you have photo id and you don't look like the photo, something is wrong. However, it should be free to poor and elderly.

Aren't the conservatives against a national ID? Doesn't this amount to a national ID requirement?

I agree, everyone should be required to carry a photo ID. It's the law in plenty of other countries.

I hadn't realized that legal "standing" had been waived; isn't this a fundamental principle here? Many more proactive issues don't come to court because there is no showing of legal standing. Is this a silver lining in terms of other more progressive issues?

If you need a valid photo ID to buy a firearm, you should need a valid photo ID to vote.

Couple of things.

1) Absentee ballots are exempt under the legislation, so organization will need to focus on absentees.

2) An evergreen issue for editorialists is low turnout in American elections. Yet there is very little coverage of Republican strategies ranging from legal means like runnng negative ad campaigns to illegal means, such as voter caging and phone jamming.

The facts of the argument may hold up in court, but it's the motivation of the people pushing this through that's disgusting. Why are the only people supporting this Republicans? Isn't this another case of the Government getting involved with things that don't need fixing, ie. big Government?

If acquiring an ID is skewed against the poor, then THAT'S what needs to be changed! We should help EVERYONE get proper identification if they somehow can't get access to proper ID.

I'm not necessarily weighing in on the court decision, but I'm a little confused by the argument that people who don't drive are being "disenfranchised" by the ID requirement.

Unless I'm wrong, you don't need to drive to get a "driver's license", right? It is called a non-drivers ID. All the non-drivers I know have one. It seems a little disingenuous to say that people who don't drive are completely left out in the cold.

There many times you need to present an ID in life. On the face of it, this doesn't seem THAT unreasonable, but again, I'm not aware of all the facts in the case.

definition of legal standing... In the common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, for example, a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will be) harmed by the law.

So, if these Republicans want everyone to go to the DVM and get their ID, are they also in favor of "Motor-voter" registration? (I suspect not!)

Does Indiana have non-driver ID's? Why not instead push for a support program to assist the poor and elderly with obtaining an non-driver ID's? I do not see a problem with having people verify their right to vote.

so in the fall when the elderly people who typically vote republican can't get to the polls are they going to suddenly revoke the law?

This is a solution that had to go looking for a problem and didn't find one. Didn't Indiana say that they have never had a voter fraud instance? Doesn't anyone see how this disinfrancises a whole class of people? Do you want the Supreme Court to pick our next president? Wake up!

Is voting a right or a privilege?

It doesn't seem like an great burden to expect people to show id in order to exercise a privilege.

Why is that Ubu? You need the id for gun sales to prevent felons from buying firearms, if for no other reason.

What possible benefit is there to creating barriers to the voting populace? This clearly isn't about fraud. If it were the focus would be on absentee ballots, which are a much more potent source for fraud.

There's a similar duplicity going on with that Florida decision allowing other theories besides evolution to be taught in school. The people pushing through these laws are saying that it's not about pushing Religious beliefs into school when that's exactly what it is about.

What about a NATIONAL ID? wouldn't having a nat'l ID solve this problem? But it seems like those who favor requiring a state id to vote are also opposed to the creation of a National ID...

While there have been no proven cases it happens all the time. I know i have been voteing for my grandfather who died in 1988 since 1992.

my father in law moved in w/ u in Sept. an he cannot get a NY ID as he has no utility bills in hisname, etc. I is not as easy as you think. He can vote here, but would not under IN law.

How does this ID rule effect those that are elderly and vote by mail?

MTF

Making voting hard for political purposes is, of course, wrong. But since voting is one of the few exclusive rights we have as citizens, it seems not too much to ask that people prove they are citizens.

Agree, increase civic knowledge. No test to vote, but no school should be allowed to exist as a school without teaching civics to a satisfactory level.

Hm.. maybe a small tax rebate for voting? or a fine for not voting added to that?

...and while we're at it, take back the draft, make it apply to women too. No exceptions for college or well of parents. (Maybe even a system that pushes them further up the line?)

CJP

No, this president's department of homeland security is requiring driver's licenses become a de facto national id. The Mountain West and New England are trtying to stop this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/8/92725/51182/812/472111

I just had to renew my us passport and without having a plane ticket proving I was leaving the country in 14 days or less, the quickest expedition will be 3 weeks, AND you have to mail in your old passport, thus surrendering it until the new one comes!!

Two points.1-The Supreme court has upheld a law,not made one.This is the crux of the argumentthe right has with the left over using courts to create legislation,bypassing the will of the people as expressed thorugh thier elected officials.if you think it is a bad law,throw out the people who passed it.

2- There is no reason for anyone not to have a photo ID.You do not need a dl to have one.It is not unreasonable to ask a minimal degree of citizenship from people deciding the country's fate.

Brian, What is wrong with having to prove that you are registered to vote and that you are who you say you are! How many dead people are still voting in Chicago? I think that you are prejudiced against anything that is perceived to be a disadvantage to the democrat party! I don't see you so upset that some in our Military are denied the right to vote due to logistical problems!

Is the issue showing a valid photo id at the voting station, or is the issue that not everyonehas a drivers license as this primary piece of photo id? If the latter, then I agree with so many postings above that maybe some other kind of state id or voting registration card is in order. A voters card. Wouldn't it be kind of prideful and affirming to receive one at age 18? Like getting your library card in kindergarten?

What about states' rights? The law itself may disenfranchise some voters in Indiana, but wouldn't a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a valid Indiana law passed by duly elected legislators disenfranchise ALL Indiana voters?

I think the law is a bad idea, but it's up to the people of Indiana to change it, not the Supreme Court.

There is a bias against New Yorkers without Driver's Licenses. When I attempted to open a checking account at Chase in 1999 with a Learner's Permit (still an officially issued state photo ID), I was turned away because it wasn't a driver's license and they didn't make exceptions. I ended up going to Citibank and had no problem.

Are blind people and others too physically disabled to drive a car receive drivers licenses in Indiana? If not, they are probably disenfranchised by this Supreme Court ruling. How foolish. It illustrates how partisan and non judicial this court has become. If my point is correct, doesn't it contradict the Americans with Disabilities Act?

The fraud in voting is not with the voters but with those who count the votes - and the unreliable machines with no paper trail.

This is a travesty of justice and I cannot understand why Justice Stevens would vote for it. The other 5 are cretins and would be expected to vote that way. What a disappointment!

Since I left the NYC I find getting around as a disabled person has become harder. I have seizure disorder and so, cannot drive. Living in Texas there is no way I could walk to the Drivers License agency to get a new state ID. Luckily I didn't lose all my paperwork in Katrina. (I moved first from new York to New Orleans.) I have to keep a large amount of paperwork for my disability, but getting that here would be impossible here. Thank God for public transportation. I don't mind walking a few miles, but a little help is nice.

I'm against the ruling, but have had my disability mail in ballot disenfranchised when I voted against the popular Republican opinion because they couldn't verify my signature. So it might solve some problems.

This is another step on the slippery slope of disenfranchisement of poor voters. We saw this in parts of Florida in 2000 with massive purges of (predominantly minority) voters from the voting rolls. Whenever it's possible to eliminate a paper trail from electronic voting, republicans have tried to do so. Ken Blackwell's shenanigans in Ohio in '04 bordered on criminal. How is it that broken voting machines always end up in minority neighborhoods? Am I paranoid to believe this is a conspiracy? I don't think so.

I moved to NYC from Indiana (thank god). They DEFINITELY make it difficult for the poorer/younger voters to exercise their rights. A red state FILLED with red tape. If you're going to require government ID from everyone, then make them free and available locally, like at post offices. Since that'll never happen, I think we need to err on the side of freedom here. If you don’t, then it becomes Jim Crow Law-esque against the poor.

I agree, voters should be educated, so did the founding fathers. That's why public education is legally required. Just because it's badly executed doesn't mean you can take away those people's votes. Why not fix the schools instead?

I live in Brooklyn; my only photo ID (an Indiana driver's license, ironically) expired last year. I don't happen to have a birth certificate or a social security card; in fact I have no Idea how I'm going to replace it. It will certainly take some days off work, spent waiting in lines downtown. If I still lived in Indiana, this would have kept me from voting in the primary. People should be _encouraged_ to vote, not discouraged (which is the obvious end of such laws - vote fraud was of course a driving engine behind Rove's prosecutor purge).

Sigh, the poll tax returns. Fortunately Republicans are literally dying off[1] so these squabbles for tiny margins at the edges may become less important.

[1]http://tinyurl.com/5t2d7o

Requiring a drivers license to vote clearly discriminates against a variety of classes of voters. Here in New York City for example, barely more than half the residents over 18 have drivers licenses, that number increases to more than 90% outside of the city. The impact is multi-fold and impacts on urban voters, poorer voters who can't afford cars, voters of color, new citizens and young voters just 18.

Here in New York, our laws aren't as restrictive but ID is also an issue. Many new voters are required to show valid ID if their name doesn't show up in the state DMV database. That may not seem like a problem to many, but a study NYPIRG conducted in the 2004 elections showed that more than a third of poll site coordinators in NYC weren't able to answer surveyors basic questions about whether certain IDs were valid. Incredibly, the City Board of Elections has been unwilling to place more detailed lists of what counts as a valid ID in poll worker training materials or at the polls.

Voting is a RIGHT, and measures like those in Indiana are a sorry reflection on the political and partisan manipulation of our election system.

It is nonsense to think that this requirement disenfranchises people in this day and age. I had to obtain a NYS Non-Driver's ID almost ten years back simply to be allowed to pick up an occasional envelope or package at any U. S. Post Office, and it surely must be more important to verify - at least to the extent that a photo ID does so - that someone coming in to vote is who he or she says they are, than it is to verify the ID of someone who wasn't home to receive a mailed advertisement or the like. To open an account today, most banks require two forms of ID, one of which must be a photo ID. Obviously, common sense should obtain when the voter is someone who has been voting in the same place for forty years and where the Voting Board has such background information (as in New York City), but where there is any question of identity, a photo ID is not too onerous a requirement.

I don't drive. When I wanted to open my first bank account, I had to get a state ID from the DMV. It was not a huge problem. I renew it at the DMV, and update my address on it at the DMV. So I don't understand the big problem.

Can we really call requiring IDs government meddling in this case? I mean, this is an affair that concerns the government. Elections aren't a private system that should be free of government regulation. It's a government-run process by its very nature.

I don't understand what the problem is. When I registered to vote I had to fill out a form for the Board of Elections and provide them with personal data, such as home address, birthdate, etc. The only difference is that an ID would carry a photo.

Personally, I have had an incredibly awful experience with the NYC Board of Elections. I showed up the day of the primary to vote and was told I wasn't on the roll. I had not previously registered for a party, but I made sure I registered as a Democrat BEFORE the registration deadline. Not only did I fill out the form, I actually walked it down to the BOE office on Broadway to deliver it in person. I was able to vote via affidavit, only to receive a letter from the BOE saying that my ballot wouldn't count as I wasn't registered as a Democrat. My letter in response explained the situation, and asked for an explanation of why my registration wasn't processed even though submitted on time. All I got back was a form letter telling me once again that my vote didn't count.

The moral of the story is that we need an efficient system that will both encourage people to vote (simple registration) and diminish the processing issues the BOE clearly has.

IT COSTS MONEY TO GET AN ID. that's another reason people don't want to get them if they don't need them

Brian,

Love that you are discussing my home state of Indiana, though people there are called "Hoosiers", not Indianaians! Thought it might help.

You also have not mentinoed the cost factor involved in obtaining an ID, driver or non-driver, it can cost up to $90 in NYS. Talk about disenfranchising poor people.

on the brite side. GOP will have a harder time protesting Dem voters if dems have photo ID making lines move faster.

I suggest that there is a way for voter retaliation to occur.

A list of the legislators who voted for the voter restriction act should be promulagated - all year long in every state that passes photo requirements. If the legislators know they will be "outed" they may think twice

It isn't unreasonable for everyone to have an ID. That isn't the issue, this isn't about ID its about proving your identity to vote, that is the issue and there are plenty of methods other than a state ID that can be used to prove your identity to vote.

What is unbelievable is that we've had two Presidential elections stolen through Election fraud and what issue does the Supreme court tackle? Voter Fraud. Which seems to never occur.

The Indiana legislature did this because George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican "brand" ... this is merely a tactic to try to cling to power. In the 2008 election you can look forward to other voter suppression measures in red or reddish states, including more voting machine shenanigans. Ladies and gentlement - your modern GOP!

THEY ARE NOT FREE!!

From the Indiana BMV site:

"The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented."

Could this be the "documentation" of being poor that the other guest mentioned?

Well, if it costs money to get an ID, then people who are poor (and presumably officially so, on welfare, etc), should be able to have ID for free. That's the state's responsibility. The state should ensure that everyone can have an ID who asks for ID.

You simply cannot mess with the voting requirements a week before a HOTLY CONTESTED PRIMARY. This is pure politics and sheds an ugly light on the Replublican dominated Indiana State Legislature.

This law, all by itself and without being enacted yet, will discourage and disenfranchise more than the pols think. U.S. politics is becoming more and more infantile.

CJP 6

ya how can we live in a police state without ID. give me a break

If the cost of the ID itself or cost of transportation to the DMV is the issue, then that's the issue that needs to be addressed. Any voter ID requirements should necessarily come with a provision to enable people to get IDs at little or no cost to them.

As a social worker, I remember when the NYC proposed that elderly/disabled have photo ID on their Access-a-Ride cards. Social workers protested saying that this would be burdensome or impossible for elderly homebound who had no cameras couldn't afford to buy them, obtain film (this is before digital) pay for processing etc. I recall being at an advocacy meeting with city government officials one of whom said "come on, doesn't everyone have a camera?" He had no clue how the poor of the city lived or what it meant to be homebound with assistance.

It strikes me that after all the hubbub — especially by Republicans —over Barack Obama supposedly being an elitist because he doesn't eat alot of greasy food or whatever, that primarily Republicans are looking to restrict voting to those people with the wherewithal to drive a car or travel out of the country. The other commenters suggestion that people should pass a civics test is even worse. Restricting rights, especially one as fundamental as voting, to people who meet arbitrary guidelines, especially ones that tend to correlate with wealth, education and social standing, is true elitism.

When I was in college in Utah in 1988, for some reason I needed a Utah state photo ID. I had Washington State driver's license but no car. I went wherever it was that I needed to go to get it, no problem. I don't remember why I needed it. Are you telling me that not every state offers a non-driver's license photo ID?

And I think that passing this requirement days before an election is irresponsible. If they want to make this a requirement, they have to get the message out and give people time to get this new ID. And offer a non-driver's license ID, for Pete's sake!

I think Indiana's new law is just another form of disturbing discrimination based on class.

This kind of discrimination can only come out of the minds of people who have NEVER experienced the kind of hardship economically marginalized people have. Why are people like this allowed lord over the disadvantaged?!

Are people notified that their provisional ballot was not counted and the reason why or do they never find out they didn't vote?

The Indiana voter ID law is simply a way to suppress voting among the poor and people of color. Who may find it difficult to prove birth and so on. The result is Republican Party plantation. Remember Indiana has had a long history with the KKK.

The cultural mind set dose seems to have changed.

Thank you for your focus on this. What about the sick, the caregivers to the sick, or women or men with children? How are they supposed to get out of the house, abandon their dependents, to chase around for a birth certificate and stand in line at Motor Vehicles for a day? I guess this is the overt point and purpose of this law.

If you disenfranchise the time-poor, which includes non-wealthy parents, full-time employees (I doubt Motor Vehicles is open on the weekend and doubt people could easily take a day from their weekend errands even if this was the case), the sick, and those who care for the sick, you get everyone but Republicans out of the electorate.

Maybe this is God's way of making sure this country completes the process of becoming a third-world dictatorship, with the majority of the population living in cardboard shacks.

I work in investment banking but have no desire for lower taxes at the expense of democracy or the rights democracy brings: food, housing, medicine, nontoxic air, water, and food, education, and a check on wars of aggression.

What's the big deal? You need a photo ID to get into a bar, and people are able to do that. You'd think getting an ID to prove who you are to vote would not be a huge deal.

Every minute that Democrats spend agonizing about the decision in the Indiana voter ID case is lost time. The Court’s ruling challenges liberals to mount an effort - reminiscent of the voter registration drives of the 60's - aimed at ensuring that poor and handicapped voters can get registered. Working through churches and other local organizations, young volunteers (college students?) and volunteers of all ages could help applicants with the paperwork required to obtain birth certificates and other needed documents. (In Connecticut a mobile van from DMV visits communities around the state to enable residents to renew their licenses close to home. Perhaps Indiana could be persuaded to use such vans.) Prominent, wealthy Democrats who are so vitally interested in this presidential campaign could be asked to contribute to the funding of this effort. In addition, local volunteers could organize bus- or van- transportation to motor vehicles departments and help potential voters obtain their ID cards. This effort could then be continued on election day in order to ensure that all voters can get to the polls.

I've been on food stamps a couple times, and had to provide fingerprints and be issued a photo ID by the state. Since these seem to be Federal requirements to prevent food stamp fraud, I would expect Indiana to have a similar requirement for people on public assistance.

The question is, are these photo IDs good enough to vote with? If not, then there something truly scurrilous going on.

The guest is incorrect about the charge.

There is also a charge for the birth certificate needed to get the ID, which might be waived if you are poor.

I have seen a man, who moved from here years ago, voting from our "table" on election day. I think he still worked nearby; there is voter fraud, if you don't look for it you don't find it.

Katie--

The Civil Rights act enforces the 14 amendment's guarantees to citizens who states wuold disenfranchise. The result of the civil war was establishing the role of the Federal government in protecting citizens from their states' violatint their individual rights.

Personally, when I lived in France for a decade, I was quite happy with the obligation to always have ID on my person. It made total sense to me. It's not like anyone knew me there, and it's not like in a big city like New York anyone is likely to know who I am as I zip around the city on my various freelance jobs.

People seem to want to feel comforted that they know who they are, and that they have no need to prove who they are because they're secure in their personal identity as an American or something. What is the point of deliberately not being able to identify yourself? What is so gloriously free about that? I think the idea that only fascist police states require personal ID is a romantic notion that has been outdated by the modern world, where people can pretend to be you with great ease, and I'm talking identity theft, not elections. Don't we all want to prove who we are now?

Thank you for your focus on this. What about the sick, the caregivers to the sick, or women or men with children? How are they supposed to get out of the house, abandon their dependents, to chase around for a birth certificate and stand in line at Motor Vehicles for a day? I guess this is the overt point and purpose of this law.

If you disenfranchise the time-poor, which includes non-wealthy parents, full-time employees (I doubt Motor Vehicles is open on the weekend and doubt people could easily take a day from their weekend errands even if this was the case), the sick, and those who care for the sick, you get everyone but Republicans out of the electorate.

Maybe this is God's way of making sure this country completes the process of becoming a third-world dictatorship, with the majority of the population living in cardboard shacks.

I work in investment banking but have no desire for lower taxes at the expense of democracy or the rights democracy brings: food, housing, medicine, nontoxic air, water, and food, education, and a check on wars of aggression.

Suppressing voter turnout among the people who'll vote for your opponent is an old and effective campaign tactic. It works.

regarding the supreme court - this is the kind of thing that happens when the GOP is in office.

If there's anything we need in the US, it's more laws that serve no purpose whatsoever. Americans will put up with anything.

6 points!?!? My wife and I moved from New Orleans and had NO PROBLEM getting NY state driver's licenses. We certainly did not need 6 points. Maybe a non-driver's license ID requires more proof, but a driver's license was super easy.

I had an Indiana state ID when I studied at IU. It was quite easy to get and I believe it only cost $10. I don't know why this is such an issue.

It seems to me that there is much more opportunity for fraud with absentee ballots, which are obviously not involved with photo ID's. One can imagine a family member sending in another's ballot.

As to motive... demographic trends have indicated a growing advantage to Democrats... Republicans are reading the same polls. One sourceL http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783

The NYS signature requirement is almost a farce! You sign right below a copy of your signature, and any first-year art student can copy a signature that well. The signature should be hidden until after you've signed.

did brian really just say that Indiana "could decide the entire primary season?" Huh? Thats not even a Clinton talking point

Make the requisite ID dead easy to get and somewhere between free and really low cost. And, as others have noted, make sure any change in procedure is allowed plenty of time for phase-in.

I lived in Europe for a couple of decades and got used to carrying ID. Don't see it as a political issue, just a normal way of getting around in the world.

jack, senator clinton is running out of time. she isn't going to NC

Absentee ballots are much more easily subject to fraud, and photo ID doesn't help there!

This isn't Europe. We're supposed to have the right to privacy. That includes walking around in public without ID. No cop has the right to demand my name and information on the street. I have a very hard time reading how willingly people on here are to let laws creep in on these rights. There are plenty of ways to prove who you are at the polls without government ID.

joan

we could learn a lot from our European brothers and sisters

In the context of the general Republican paranoia this voter ID story is obvious. Back when the issue of Alberto Gonzalez firing state prosecutors one of the reasons given was that these people were not active in going after voter fraud, mostly attributed to immigrants. Two bi partisan commissions showed that there was no voter fraud. The Indiana decision mentions Tammany Hall, which was a system of patronage specifically aimed at Irish immigrants at the time. It's all about the elections.

Another dimension is the makeup of the Supreme Court. A less obvious aspect to the election of George W. Bush was his potential of changing the court. This indeed has come to pass, as shown by other decisions prior to the Indiana case. Alito and Roberts have already taken the side of big business in a number of cases. A recent case of a woman who found she was being paid a lot less for the same job than a man is one example. Alito and Roberts are young, so heaven help the individual who has been mistreated by corporate America. One more negative way George W. Bush has impacted our country.

CT has required photo ID for several elections. It does not seem to have had an impact on turnout. Improved on a system where when you entered you gave your address and then your name. Anyone could have usurped your voter registration.

On ID in general . . . many buildings in NYC require a photo ID to get in. When you are hired, your employer is required to get either your passport or 2 other forms of ID to prove citizenship. People need photo ID to get on an airplane. In general, people should have a copy of their birth certificate and social security card.

hjs,

I wasn't bad-mouthing Europeans. They have a lot of great examples we could learn from. I'm only stating that this is not Europe. I think changing the constitutional fundamentals in America to more closely resemble Europe is not a viable solution to our problems. The fundamentals we do have are pretty darn good. Why not actually require our polititians to represent and uphold them? Now THAT would make me proud to be part of this country. Otherwise, I suppose we could all just move to France... haha

Well, this makes the obvious case for a national identity card a slam dunk now. If a photo ID is a now an accepted requirement for exercising one's right to vote, then obviously the government needs to issue acceptable identification to EVERY citizen (without ANY charge to them indvidually) upon reaching voting age (18). This ruling, along with growing legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, terrorists & identity theft should have the effect of overcoming widespread paranoid resistance to the idea of national identity cards as a right (& requirement) for all adult citizens.

As a side note on questioning the motives of the meany Republican supporters of this identification requirement for voting as a suppression tactic: that is a bit rich coming from so many 'progressives' who have been less than apoplectic about the outright disenfranchisement of nearly 28.3 million Americans in Florida & Michigan during the Democratic Presdential nomination process as well as underwhelmed by the 'caucus' method of delegate selection in 14 other states which makes Republican voter suppression efforts appear utterly amateurish by comparison!! How would our 'progressive' friends feel if we decided to hold ALL elections by caucus from now on? I hear it now....ohhhhhhh but that's different.

joan

just making a side point. i agree with you no police state, sorry for the confusion.

ps i won't mind living in europe, france even.

While I oppose the Indiana law, it disingenous to suggest that few people game the system. When I grew up in Brooklyn in the 1950s and 1960s, the phrase "graveyard vote" was a part of the common vernacular. My father, who grew up in Italian-American Harlem, often told the story of how, in the 1920s, at age 25, having been paid $5.00 by the local Democratic club to vote under another name, he was prevented from doing so only after a poll-watcher noted that, according to the voter registration card, he was supposed to be 65. The morning after the 1960 Presidential election, when the Cook County results came in late, my Dad, a life-long Democrat, marched into our kitchen and stated, with satisfaction, "Daley has finally finished counting the votes from the cemetary."

My own experience confirmed my father's. In 1965, at age fifteen, I volunteered for the campaign of one of the Democratic candidates for NYC mayor. On primary night, I was surprised to hear campaign workers asking one another "How many times did you vote?" Each one reported multiple votes -- e.g., "three," "five" -- five was the top number. (Our candidate lost.)

Maybe things have changed in the new century, but I doubt it. The point is that, while fraud occurs, the damage done by such fraud is far outweighed by the benefits to democracy obtained by permitting free access to the polls by the millions of citizens who do not game the system.

The voter-ID law bears a striking resemblance to the poll taxes and literacy requirements of the pre-civil rights era. That it is so prominently supported by the Republican legislators of various states speaks to the partisan desire to keep the poor, minorities, and the elderly from voting- and voting Democratic.

Yes, people should be more educated about civics.

But we all should have the right to vote.

If anyone is still reading these comments...

Please be aware that not all adult US citizens have birth certificates, especially older people who may have been born at home in rural areas. As for those who have birth certificates available, it costs money to do so (the State of California charges $14 for a certified copy) and takes time to process (average of 12 weeks in CA, according to their own web site), in addition to the cost of the photo ID itself.

Additionally, getting a (non-driver's) photo ID, usually through the state DMV, is particularly onerous for those who don't drive and who have little to no access to public transportation (New Jersey, as an example).

Interestingly, as mentioned previously, the logical solution to this issue would be a national ID card as used in some other countries, but the same people who want to require photo ID to vote are most likely the ones who would be the staunchest opponents of a national ID card. Unless we can leverage modern technology and just have everyone tagged with a RFID chip, perhaps? Guess it beats the bar code tattooed on your hand or head...

Lastly, I believe the State of Oregon has what seems to be a convenient, efficient, and relatively low-fraud "vote-by-mail" system (completed ballots can also be placed into drop boxes at official drop sites), which has been in place since 1998. Why aren't more states looking into this alternative?

If it comes to bar code tatoos, I have a suggestion for where best to place it - well for me anyways - I guess this would be a matter of choice for each citizen, right?

james 94,

although not as cool as bar code tats the cattle prefer implantable RFID chips. think of the shopping ease just wave the implant at the cashier and your tab is debited from your accounts. passing police check points couldn't be faster. hospitals won't mixed you up with other patients either.

Why can't I use my Social Security ID card or birth certificate that doesn't have my photo as an ID to vote? It's government issued.

Yea...but, if I get tatted where I wanna, I think the effect of showing the tat when necessary or requested would have a more impressive impact & maybe even reduce my voting rights risk....

james,

and u have no problem showing that off to some 78 years old pole worker? shameless

uh....don't presume to KNOW where I'm gonna get dat tat....or whether it would be 'showable' to any 78 or even 78 & 3/4 year old pole worker ;)

Why would you want people to be able to vote who couldn't prove who they are?

Are we arguing for incompetence and status quo?

Here is a rare case of the government being proactive.