5 ms·

I would love to test this theory. Imagine a state completely waives their fees for a State ID (usually only $10-20 anyway) in exchange for Voter ID laws. Do yo

I would love to test this theory. Imagine a state completely waives their fees for a State ID (usually only $10-20 anyway) in exchange for Voter ID laws. Do you think progressives could support it then? Would you?

hakfoo 6y ago
Even aside from the fee, there's the time involved, which is an indirect burden on many people. For whatever historical reason, we've entrusted the DMV with validating everyone's identity. The one which is open 9-4 M-F in the best conditions, and has been basically shuttered since Coronavirus. In some states, you can go to 'third-party offices' which are privately run and offer longer hours, but it's still a several hour endeavour (and then you're paying $30 extra for their services).
cmorgan31 6y ago
Sure, just don’t make the waiver some joke that requires as many hoops to jump through as possible to discourage voters. Voter fraud isn’t as significant an issue as electioneering but if an ID makes one side of the fence happy I’ll support it so long as it remains free and universally available.
slg 6y ago
I said free and easy to acquire. It wouldn't be enough for states to waive the fees if there are still hoops to jump through to acquire it. Getting an ID in many states requires spending hours at a DMV office that is probably only open during business hours and might be in the next county over from you. Voting should be an easy and seamless process. It shouldn't require hours of administrative prep work beforehand.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  Getting a driver license the first time requires hours of sitting at the DMV. When I first moved to Texas, I had to do it twice in fact. It sounds like your criticism is of government (or at least DMV) complexity/ineffectiveness in general, not the ID laws specifically.
  - slg 6y ago
    Voting is one of the few government services that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I can stomach complexities and ineffectiveness when it comes to something like acquiring a drivers license. I can't stomach anything that puts unnecessary obstacles between a US citizen and the ability to quickly and easily vote. If you want to require voter ID to vote, that is fine by me as long as you also take on the responsibility of ensuring every citizen has an ID.
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      I suspect you should check your sources. This was my first result searching for "us constitution voting" https://www.votefortheconstitution.com/voting---what-does-the-constitution-say.html https://www.votefortheconstitution.com/voting---what-does-th...
      - slg 6y ago
        I'm not sure your point here. The Amendments are generally included when someone refers to the Constitution. Several of the Amendments are directly related to protecting the right to vote.
        burfog 6y ago
        I like that logic. It works great for the 2nd amendment. You'll agree that an ID requirement for firearms is unacceptable, yes? Constitutional protections for voting are far more limited.
        slg 6y ago
        This thread is already on the verge of being too political for HN. I'm not going to take the bait and get into a debate about something that is not even tangentially related to the topic of the link.
        caseysoftware 6y ago
        > Voting is one of the few government services that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Voting is not defined as a "government service" and voting itself is barely defined at all in the Constitution or any Amendment. The Amendments assert a right to vote but the means, methods, and even timing are left heavily up to the discretion of the Legislative branches (Congress or State). Therefore, the vast majority of existing election law can be changed as easily as legislators pass any other law versus the complexity+effort+time of a Constitutional Amendment.
birken 6y ago
Question: Why does Texas allow a Texas Handgun License as an acceptable form of photo ID but not a University of Texas Student ID? It seems if we are so concerned about voting being easy with those IDs, we should let all the students with state issued photo IDs use them. As for your question, supporting or not supporting voter ID is less about how difficult the IDs are to get, but rather that it is creating a requirement that makes both the act of voting and the preparation for voting much more time intensive. And this is all to solve a problem, voter fraud, that nobody has any evidence occurs at any appreciable volume. But I'll just say, if a system existed where I could get a photo ID with no fees and no wait times, and I could do it on election day, then I'd be much more willing to support voter ID laws.
- refurb 6y ago
  Probably because one goes through rigorous validation and one is just printed by a private organization?
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    The University of Texas is part of the state government. 25 of the 34 states with voter ID requirements even accept private student IDs.[1] [1] https://www.campusvoteproject.org/student-id-as-voter-id https://www.campusvoteproject.org/student-id-as-voter-id
    - refurb 6y ago
      I don’t see that in your link. Maybe I’m overlooking it? I see that 10 states will accept student ID, but there are restrictions on which IDs. For example, it has to have your signature on the card, etc.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        The legend says green and yellow states accept student IDs. Stripes mean they only accept public student IDs. 27 states are green or yellow and only 2 have stripes.
heavyset_go 6y ago
The real question is why voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday. Whenever voter license legislation is proposed, there are no efforts to make sure every eligible voter is able to exercise their right to vote.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  I think you responded to the wrong person. I didn't take any position related to or even reference anything you describe here. Good luck finding your right thread though.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Cute, but my response was received by its intended recipient. You can choose to respond to it, or continue dismissing it.
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      At first glance, I'm fine with that. I hope whoever took the opposing position responds to you though.
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        I'm unsure why you think I'm addressing someone with the opposing position when I merely stated a rhetorical question: > The real question is why voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday Why is it that voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday? It's frequently brought up in response to voter license legislation, but it is never incorporated into their proposed legislation. Why is that?
        merpnderp 6y ago
        First, no one is for voter licensing, a person is 'licensed' by being a citizen. The two (honest) sides of the argument are: ID is required to keep elections honest and requiring ID's keeps people from voting by being too onerous to acquire. The ugly truth is democrats know that sloppy voting tends to fall their way and republicans know that voter id laws tend to fall their way. A good compromise would be free ID's for everyone, but neither side wants this and would rather keep fighting the id battle, because like most battles, its only purpose is to keep the people divided and easy to manipulate.
mulderc 6y ago
I would completely support voter ID laws if everyone could walk into any post office and easily get a passport for free. Ok I sort of am lying since vote by mail is pretty much the only system I support and voter ID laws make no sense for that.
PeterisP 6y ago
Waiving the fees isn't sufficient to make the ID ubiquitous immediately, so it won't remove that argument, at least not right away. It would be a step in the right direction, but the concept of a universal ID requires everyone (well, except outlaws in hiding) to have it - if it's mandatory, then it becomes legally reasonable to require it for receiving all kinds of services as you can answer "How do I do X if I don't have a valid ID?" with "Step 1: Get the ID renewed/replaced/made" and "How do I do X without ever getting an ID" with "Sorry, that won't be possible, not ever getting an ID is not a valid option", like it is currently the case in many other countries. In essence, if instead of "just" making it easy to have ID even for poor and disenfranchised people you go out of your way to ensure that it's weird for them to not have ID, then ID requirements won't suppress voters.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > Waiving the fees is sufficient to make the ID ubiquitous immediately, No, it's not. Many people have difficulty finding the documents that will get them an ID. There are plenty of people working illegal jobs who are trying to figure out how to get a birth certificate, social security card or prove residence. This was even more common when more people were born at home. I had a hard time getting ID when I was a teenager, and I needed it for migrant agricultural labor (to work on a legal crew doing corn detasseling.) Luckily, I got arrested a week before we were scheduled to leave, and I was able to con the DMV into issuing an ID based on my jail papers (although the clerk at the jail wrote down whatever I told them.) The reason requiring ID is a problem is because there's no widespread voter fraud, and declaring that you're someone else is very difficult without that person agreeing not to go vote. It's a requirement whose administration cost dwarfs by orders of magnitude any benefit. The intention is to exclude people who have ID problems, not the people who don't believe it's possible that anyone could possibly have ID problems. Also, just let felons vote. Put voting booths in prisons. If your population is so prisoner-heavy that they make a significant difference in the outcome, your society is broken.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Ouch, sorry, of course I meant that waiving the fees isn't sufficient to make it ubiquitous immediately, I fixed the typo.

hakfoo 6y ago

Even aside from the fee, there's the time involved, which is an indirect burden on many people. For whatever historical reason, we've entrusted the DMV with validating everyone's identity. The one which is open 9-4 M-F in the best conditions, and has been basically shuttered since Coronavirus. In some states, you can go to 'third-party offices' which are privately run and offer longer hours, but it's still a several hour endeavour (and then you're paying $30 extra for their services).

cmorgan31 6y ago

Sure, just don’t make the waiver some joke that requires as many hoops to jump through as possible to discourage voters. Voter fraud isn’t as significant an issue as electioneering but if an ID makes one side of the fence happy I’ll support it so long as it remains free and universally available.

slg 6y ago

I said free and easy to acquire. It wouldn't be enough for states to waive the fees if there are still hoops to jump through to acquire it. Getting an ID in many states requires spending hours at a DMV office that is probably only open during business hours and might be in the next county over from you. Voting should be an easy and seamless process. It shouldn't require hours of administrative prep work beforehand.

caseysoftware 6y ago
Getting a driver license the first time requires hours of sitting at the DMV. When I first moved to Texas, I had to do it twice in fact. It sounds like your criticism is of government (or at least DMV) complexity/ineffectiveness in general, not the ID laws specifically.
- slg 6y ago
  Voting is one of the few government services that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I can stomach complexities and ineffectiveness when it comes to something like acquiring a drivers license. I can't stomach anything that puts unnecessary obstacles between a US citizen and the ability to quickly and easily vote. If you want to require voter ID to vote, that is fine by me as long as you also take on the responsibility of ensuring every citizen has an ID.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    I suspect you should check your sources. This was my first result searching for "us constitution voting" https://www.votefortheconstitution.com/voting---what-does-the-constitution-say.html https://www.votefortheconstitution.com/voting---what-does-th...
    - slg 6y ago
      I'm not sure your point here. The Amendments are generally included when someone refers to the Constitution. Several of the Amendments are directly related to protecting the right to vote.
      - burfog 6y ago
        I like that logic. It works great for the 2nd amendment. You'll agree that an ID requirement for firearms is unacceptable, yes? Constitutional protections for voting are far more limited.
        slg 6y ago
        This thread is already on the verge of being too political for HN. I'm not going to take the bait and get into a debate about something that is not even tangentially related to the topic of the link.
      - caseysoftware 6y ago
        > Voting is one of the few government services that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Voting is not defined as a "government service" and voting itself is barely defined at all in the Constitution or any Amendment. The Amendments assert a right to vote but the means, methods, and even timing are left heavily up to the discretion of the Legislative branches (Congress or State). Therefore, the vast majority of existing election law can be changed as easily as legislators pass any other law versus the complexity+effort+time of a Constitutional Amendment.

birken 6y ago

Question: Why does Texas allow a Texas Handgun License as an acceptable form of photo ID but not a University of Texas Student ID? It seems if we are so concerned about voting being easy with those IDs, we should let all the students with state issued photo IDs use them. As for your question, supporting or not supporting voter ID is less about how difficult the IDs are to get, but rather that it is creating a requirement that makes both the act of voting and the preparation for voting much more time intensive. And this is all to solve a problem, voter fraud, that nobody has any evidence occurs at any appreciable volume. But I'll just say, if a system existed where I could get a photo ID with no fees and no wait times, and I could do it on election day, then I'd be much more willing to support voter ID laws.

refurb 6y ago
Probably because one goes through rigorous validation and one is just printed by a private organization?
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  The University of Texas is part of the state government. 25 of the 34 states with voter ID requirements even accept private student IDs.[1] [1] https://www.campusvoteproject.org/student-id-as-voter-id https://www.campusvoteproject.org/student-id-as-voter-id
  - refurb 6y ago
    I don’t see that in your link. Maybe I’m overlooking it? I see that 10 states will accept student ID, but there are restrictions on which IDs. For example, it has to have your signature on the card, etc.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      The legend says green and yellow states accept student IDs. Stripes mean they only accept public student IDs. 27 states are green or yellow and only 2 have stripes.

heavyset_go 6y ago

The real question is why voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday. Whenever voter license legislation is proposed, there are no efforts to make sure every eligible voter is able to exercise their right to vote.

caseysoftware 6y ago
I think you responded to the wrong person. I didn't take any position related to or even reference anything you describe here. Good luck finding your right thread though.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Cute, but my response was received by its intended recipient. You can choose to respond to it, or continue dismissing it.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    At first glance, I'm fine with that. I hope whoever took the opposing position responds to you though.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      I'm unsure why you think I'm addressing someone with the opposing position when I merely stated a rhetorical question: > The real question is why voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday Why is it that voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday? It's frequently brought up in response to voter license legislation, but it is never incorporated into their proposed legislation. Why is that?
      - merpnderp 6y ago
        First, no one is for voter licensing, a person is 'licensed' by being a citizen. The two (honest) sides of the argument are: ID is required to keep elections honest and requiring ID's keeps people from voting by being too onerous to acquire. The ugly truth is democrats know that sloppy voting tends to fall their way and republicans know that voter id laws tend to fall their way. A good compromise would be free ID's for everyone, but neither side wants this and would rather keep fighting the id battle, because like most battles, its only purpose is to keep the people divided and easy to manipulate.

mulderc 6y ago

I would completely support voter ID laws if everyone could walk into any post office and easily get a passport for free. Ok I sort of am lying since vote by mail is pretty much the only system I support and voter ID laws make no sense for that.

PeterisP 6y ago

Waiving the fees isn't sufficient to make the ID ubiquitous immediately, so it won't remove that argument, at least not right away. It would be a step in the right direction, but the concept of a universal ID requires everyone (well, except outlaws in hiding) to have it - if it's mandatory, then it becomes legally reasonable to require it for receiving all kinds of services as you can answer "How do I do X if I don't have a valid ID?" with "Step 1: Get the ID renewed/replaced/made" and "How do I do X without ever getting an ID" with "Sorry, that won't be possible, not ever getting an ID is not a valid option", like it is currently the case in many other countries. In essence, if instead of "just" making it easy to have ID even for poor and disenfranchised people you go out of your way to ensure that it's weird for them to not have ID, then ID requirements won't suppress voters.

pessimizer 6y ago
> Waiving the fees is sufficient to make the ID ubiquitous immediately, No, it's not. Many people have difficulty finding the documents that will get them an ID. There are plenty of people working illegal jobs who are trying to figure out how to get a birth certificate, social security card or prove residence. This was even more common when more people were born at home. I had a hard time getting ID when I was a teenager, and I needed it for migrant agricultural labor (to work on a legal crew doing corn detasseling.) Luckily, I got arrested a week before we were scheduled to leave, and I was able to con the DMV into issuing an ID based on my jail papers (although the clerk at the jail wrote down whatever I told them.) The reason requiring ID is a problem is because there's no widespread voter fraud, and declaring that you're someone else is very difficult without that person agreeing not to go vote. It's a requirement whose administration cost dwarfs by orders of magnitude any benefit. The intention is to exclude people who have ID problems, not the people who don't believe it's possible that anyone could possibly have ID problems. Also, just let felons vote. Put voting booths in prisons. If your population is so prisoner-heavy that they make a significant difference in the outcome, your society is broken.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Ouch, sorry, of course I meant that waiving the fees isn't sufficient to make it ubiquitous immediately, I fixed the typo.