11 ms·

It's complicated in the US because it's the states that administer elections and IDs. Everyone does it differently, with different equipment, ID requirements, a

It's complicated in the US because it's the states that administer elections and IDs. Everyone does it differently, with different equipment, ID requirements, and allocation of election resources. Voter ID, for example, is contentious because a state can influence election turnout through decisions on where ID offices are located and when they're open. Edit: I always find it ironic that the Republican party--the party of limited government--wants people to have to go to the bastion of efficiency known as the DMV (!!!) in order to vote.

rtkwe 7y ago
Also some states have restricted early voting times and reduced the number of polling places open in some (typically poor non-white communities that vote more democrat) as a way of making it harder for certain minorities to vote. [0] > The U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed a Republican bid to revive a strict North Carolina voter-identification law that a lower court found deliberately discriminated against black voters, handing a victory to Democrats and civil rights groups. > The appeals court found that the law’s provisions “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” concluding that the Republican-led legislature enacted it “with discriminatory intent.” [0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/
codedokode 7y ago
In Russia we use an internal passport to vote. So the voter doesn't need any special documents.
- the_narrator 7y ago
  that seems logical; I fail to understand the argument that some form of voter identification like this is 'racist'
  - mffnbs 7y ago
    Not directly racist, but it costs money and time to obtain a passport.
    - tooop 7y ago
      Passport for a regular person in my country costs 30$, for children, people under 20 or over 65 and disabled persons it is 15$, and it is valid for 10 years. You literally have 10 years to put down 0.25$ per month. P.S. You must have a valid passport when you reach a certain age.
      - mffnbs 7y ago
        The US does not have a law requiring you to have an id. Requiring people to have one is making the assumption that every person in the US can afford the time and money to obtain one, as well as the physical ability to do so. If you cannot make this assumption, then you are actively disenfranchising people.
        tooop 7y ago
        Sounds a bit backwards when one of the most powerful countries in the world cannot afford to issue its poor citizens passports...
        mffnbs 7y ago
        We can afford to do that, easily. Can we achieve it politically? No. Is it worth doing? No. You can achieve the same result by not requiring an id to vote.
      - 3JPLW 7y ago
        In the US passports — our only national photo ID — are $145.
        ghaff 7y ago
        Passport cards are $65. But the cost is somewhat a red herring. There's nothing to keep the US from issuing a free voter identification card but issues of appropriate identification and the effort involved exist outside of out-of-pocket cost. [ADDED: And, of course, concerns about slippery slopes to national IDs which Europeans in particular may consider silly but nonetheless we're all allowed our hangups.]
  - cmiles74 7y ago
    The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices. Keep in mind that DMV and RMV office _assume_ that people have vehicles. In the case of voters this is not the case. It's like gerrymandering but in this case what's being manipulated is the ability of voters to get these cards. In many cases it is racist.
    - ryanmarsh 7y ago
      This seems like something that could be mitigated by legislating where voter registration offices are located (based on census data perhaps) and their hours of operation and documentation requirements, including an appeals process.
      - cmiles74 7y ago
        I agree. I think the fact that these aren't discussion points is important. Steps could be taken to ensure that everyone entitled to a card gets one but I suspect there is a significant cost associated with that. So far cost hasn't really been a big part of the discussion. As an aside, in the US, there's a history of not needing papers to get around or prove who you are. My grandfather fought in World War II and this was an important issue for him. There likely are people in the US opposed to a national ID card for similar reasons, fear that police will start demanding you carry your card at all times. I have no idea if they might be numerous or not.
        18pfsmt 7y ago
        The welfare state was much smaller in the 40s. Things have changed, and people need to be "means tested" in order to implement these government programs.
    - wang_li 7y ago
      >The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices. Getting a photo ID is a infrequent event. That makes gaming the ID acquisition process a means of disenfranchising voters ineffective.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    If there was already a universal ID everyone has, it wouldn't be racist to require it in connection with voting, but there isn't a universal ID everyone already has. It's easy to forget that about one in seven or eight adult americans don't have a driver's license.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
blfr 7y ago
Even the libertarian wing of the Republican party doesn't really believe that anyone can live without an ID nowadays. I'm not an American and while I rarely have to produce an ID, going without one entirely would be impossible. Also illegal here in Poland but this law is not enforced because it's hugely impractical long before you run into any legal issues.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>I always find it ironic that the Republican party--the party of limited government--wants people to have to go to the bastion of efficiency known as the DMV (!!!) in order to vote. Even worse is that there is wide bi-partisan support to require people to go through the DMV for the ability to drive on public roads, something that impacts a person's day to day life far more than voting. This is especially true of the poor who cannot afford to uber and those located in areas without public transport.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ghaff 7y ago
  I'm pretty libertarian. And, admittedly, the "licensing" requirements associated with driver's licenses in the US are fairly minimal. But are you suggesting that literally anyone ought to be able to hop in a car and drive it around public streets?
  - mffnbs 7y ago
    I had my license suspended once and at the time I lived in a city with mild public transit. To go get it renewed was a 6 hour ordeal that I can't imagine having to do if I were living paycheck to paycheck. Spend an entire day not making money so you can spend another days earnings so that you can go vote, all because of a political agenda, not any real issue.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Well, the parent comment was specifically about a license for driving. I actually agree that requiring an ID that may require significant effort to obtain for voting is not reasonable.
      - mffnbs 7y ago
        Right, I was making the assumption in this case that a driver's license would be sufficient for voter identification and that if someone didn't have a driver's license, then obtaining one or an equivalent is a burden that many poor people cannot afford.
WillPostForFood 7y ago
I always find it ironic that the Republican party--the party of limited government--wants people to have to go to the bastion of efficiency known as the DMV (!!!) in order to vote. Is it ironic? Republicans aren't calling for the abolishment of the DMV for driver's licenses. Requiring ID to vote is inline with requiring ID to drive. I find it interesting the Democrats seem to idolize European governance, except for the part where requiring ID to vote is the norm. edit: fixed typo - requiring id to vote is inline with requiring id to drive
- Kevin_S 7y ago
  Dems problem with requiring ID is that it just so happens that those proposals are always alongside attempts to make it more difficult for poor people to get IDs in the first place. Dems would have no issue requiring ID if republicans would agree to give every US citizen an ID for free. Voter ID laws are simply an attempt to keep poor people and minorities from voting and honestly it's sickening.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    They are also an attempt to keep ineligible people from voting. There are positives to the argument that you can only ignore if you want to vilify the person making it.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      >They are also an attempt to keep ineligible people from voting. Which is not a problem. There were less than 100 cases of voter fraud in the last twenty years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/the-disconnect-between-voter-id-laws-and-voter-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/th... Preventing ineligible voting is red herring for suppressing legitimate voters, by creating extra hoops to jump through for certain classes of citizens.
    - rectang 7y ago
      I vilify the argument that voter fraud of the kind which would be addressed by voter ID exists at any meaningful scale in the US. It is putrid. Used as an justification for mass disenfranchisement, it is repugnant.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cmiles74 7y ago
If the federal government was serious about these voter ID cards and the goal truly was more reliable elections then we would be seeing real conversations about cost and a deployment strategy. The very fact that they are trying to do this nearly for free is, to my mind, proof positive that they have the same goals as the politicians who are agressively gerrymandering: fewer people voting. What is the overlap between people who drive and people who can vote? How were the location of DMV and RMV offices chosen, were they selected to be accessible to every citizen? Who trains people at the voting locations to validate ID cards? Is there a physical device that scans and helps validate these ID cards? What does that cost? Post offices make much more sense, they tend to be accessible by nearly everyone. But there has been no talk of providing these cards through post offices. Partly because of cost, training and the increased workload on the post office. Partly because the goal is to prevent voters from lawfully voting. Even if you feel that the DMV or RMV is a reasonable place to issue these cards, where is the pushback from states who have to staff up in order to provide these cards? How long will these cards last before expiration? In MA, a driver's license only lasts two years, ID cards last five. The whole thing, in my opinion, is an obvious sham.
- areyousure 7y ago
  > In MA, a driver's license only lasts two years, ID cards last five. "Your Massachusetts driver’s license is valid for five years, unless it is your first license which expires on your fifth birthday after the date of issue, or until the end of your authorized stay in the U.S. (whichever comes first)." https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/02/chapter_1.pdf https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/02/chapter_1.pd...

rtkwe 7y ago

Also some states have restricted early voting times and reduced the number of polling places open in some (typically poor non-white communities that vote more democrat) as a way of making it harder for certain minorities to vote. [0] > The U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed a Republican bid to revive a strict North Carolina voter-identification law that a lower court found deliberately discriminated against black voters, handing a victory to Democrats and civil rights groups. > The appeals court found that the law’s provisions “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” concluding that the Republican-led legislature enacted it “with discriminatory intent.” [0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/

codedokode 7y ago

In Russia we use an internal passport to vote. So the voter doesn't need any special documents.

the_narrator 7y ago
that seems logical; I fail to understand the argument that some form of voter identification like this is 'racist'
- mffnbs 7y ago
  Not directly racist, but it costs money and time to obtain a passport.
  - tooop 7y ago
    Passport for a regular person in my country costs 30$, for children, people under 20 or over 65 and disabled persons it is 15$, and it is valid for 10 years. You literally have 10 years to put down 0.25$ per month. P.S. You must have a valid passport when you reach a certain age.
    - mffnbs 7y ago
      The US does not have a law requiring you to have an id. Requiring people to have one is making the assumption that every person in the US can afford the time and money to obtain one, as well as the physical ability to do so. If you cannot make this assumption, then you are actively disenfranchising people.
      - tooop 7y ago
        Sounds a bit backwards when one of the most powerful countries in the world cannot afford to issue its poor citizens passports...
        mffnbs 7y ago
        We can afford to do that, easily. Can we achieve it politically? No. Is it worth doing? No. You can achieve the same result by not requiring an id to vote.
    - 3JPLW 7y ago
      In the US passports — our only national photo ID — are $145.
      - ghaff 7y ago
        Passport cards are $65. But the cost is somewhat a red herring. There's nothing to keep the US from issuing a free voter identification card but issues of appropriate identification and the effort involved exist outside of out-of-pocket cost. [ADDED: And, of course, concerns about slippery slopes to national IDs which Europeans in particular may consider silly but nonetheless we're all allowed our hangups.]
- cmiles74 7y ago
  The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices. Keep in mind that DMV and RMV office _assume_ that people have vehicles. In the case of voters this is not the case. It's like gerrymandering but in this case what's being manipulated is the ability of voters to get these cards. In many cases it is racist.
  - ryanmarsh 7y ago
    This seems like something that could be mitigated by legislating where voter registration offices are located (based on census data perhaps) and their hours of operation and documentation requirements, including an appeals process.
    - cmiles74 7y ago
      I agree. I think the fact that these aren't discussion points is important. Steps could be taken to ensure that everyone entitled to a card gets one but I suspect there is a significant cost associated with that. So far cost hasn't really been a big part of the discussion. As an aside, in the US, there's a history of not needing papers to get around or prove who you are. My grandfather fought in World War II and this was an important issue for him. There likely are people in the US opposed to a national ID card for similar reasons, fear that police will start demanding you carry your card at all times. I have no idea if they might be numerous or not.
      - 18pfsmt 7y ago
        The welfare state was much smaller in the 40s. Things have changed, and people need to be "means tested" in order to implement these government programs.
  - wang_li 7y ago
    >The opposing party (in the US) will make the offices where identification is offered difficult to get to. Times when the DMV or RMV is open will shrink, some states will require an extreme amount of paperwork in order to get identification. We might see some states close some DMV or RMV offices. Getting a photo ID is a infrequent event. That makes gaming the ID acquisition process a means of disenfranchising voters ineffective.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  If there was already a universal ID everyone has, it wouldn't be racist to require it in connection with voting, but there isn't a universal ID everyone already has. It's easy to forget that about one in seven or eight adult americans don't have a driver's license.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

blfr 7y ago

Even the libertarian wing of the Republican party doesn't really believe that anyone can live without an ID nowadays. I'm not an American and while I rarely have to produce an ID, going without one entirely would be impossible. Also illegal here in Poland but this law is not enforced because it's hugely impractical long before you run into any legal issues.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>I always find it ironic that the Republican party--the party of limited government--wants people to have to go to the bastion of efficiency known as the DMV (!!!) in order to vote. Even worse is that there is wide bi-partisan support to require people to go through the DMV for the ability to drive on public roads, something that impacts a person's day to day life far more than voting. This is especially true of the poor who cannot afford to uber and those located in areas without public transport.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 7y ago
I'm pretty libertarian. And, admittedly, the "licensing" requirements associated with driver's licenses in the US are fairly minimal. But are you suggesting that literally anyone ought to be able to hop in a car and drive it around public streets?
- mffnbs 7y ago
  I had my license suspended once and at the time I lived in a city with mild public transit. To go get it renewed was a 6 hour ordeal that I can't imagine having to do if I were living paycheck to paycheck. Spend an entire day not making money so you can spend another days earnings so that you can go vote, all because of a political agenda, not any real issue.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Well, the parent comment was specifically about a license for driving. I actually agree that requiring an ID that may require significant effort to obtain for voting is not reasonable.
    - mffnbs 7y ago
      Right, I was making the assumption in this case that a driver's license would be sufficient for voter identification and that if someone didn't have a driver's license, then obtaining one or an equivalent is a burden that many poor people cannot afford.

WillPostForFood 7y ago

I always find it ironic that the Republican party--the party of limited government--wants people to have to go to the bastion of efficiency known as the DMV (!!!) in order to vote. Is it ironic? Republicans aren't calling for the abolishment of the DMV for driver's licenses. Requiring ID to vote is inline with requiring ID to drive. I find it interesting the Democrats seem to idolize European governance, except for the part where requiring ID to vote is the norm. edit: fixed typo - requiring id to vote is inline with requiring id to drive

Kevin_S 7y ago
Dems problem with requiring ID is that it just so happens that those proposals are always alongside attempts to make it more difficult for poor people to get IDs in the first place. Dems would have no issue requiring ID if republicans would agree to give every US citizen an ID for free. Voter ID laws are simply an attempt to keep poor people and minorities from voting and honestly it's sickening.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  They are also an attempt to keep ineligible people from voting. There are positives to the argument that you can only ignore if you want to vilify the person making it.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    >They are also an attempt to keep ineligible people from voting. Which is not a problem. There were less than 100 cases of voter fraud in the last twenty years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/the-disconnect-between-voter-id-laws-and-voter-fraud/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/th... Preventing ineligible voting is red herring for suppressing legitimate voters, by creating extra hoops to jump through for certain classes of citizens.
  - rectang 7y ago
    I vilify the argument that voter fraud of the kind which would be addressed by voter ID exists at any meaningful scale in the US. It is putrid. Used as an justification for mass disenfranchisement, it is repugnant.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cmiles74 7y ago

If the federal government was serious about these voter ID cards and the goal truly was more reliable elections then we would be seeing real conversations about cost and a deployment strategy. The very fact that they are trying to do this nearly for free is, to my mind, proof positive that they have the same goals as the politicians who are agressively gerrymandering: fewer people voting. What is the overlap between people who drive and people who can vote? How were the location of DMV and RMV offices chosen, were they selected to be accessible to every citizen? Who trains people at the voting locations to validate ID cards? Is there a physical device that scans and helps validate these ID cards? What does that cost? Post offices make much more sense, they tend to be accessible by nearly everyone. But there has been no talk of providing these cards through post offices. Partly because of cost, training and the increased workload on the post office. Partly because the goal is to prevent voters from lawfully voting. Even if you feel that the DMV or RMV is a reasonable place to issue these cards, where is the pushback from states who have to staff up in order to provide these cards? How long will these cards last before expiration? In MA, a driver's license only lasts two years, ID cards last five. The whole thing, in my opinion, is an obvious sham.

areyousure 7y ago
> In MA, a driver's license only lasts two years, ID cards last five. "Your Massachusetts driver’s license is valid for five years, unless it is your first license which expires on your fifth birthday after the date of issue, or until the end of your authorized stay in the U.S. (whichever comes first)." https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/02/chapter_1.pdf https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/02/chapter_1.pd...