Another Brilliant Plan Out of WI

[dellinger63]

The Fed should follow.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Gov. Scott Walker is scheduled to sign into law a bill requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Walker planned to sign the bill Wednesday in the Capitol.

It marks the end of an eight-year push by Republicans to enact the photo ID requirement. They passed it three times when Democrat Jim Doyle was governor, but he vetoed it each time.

Republicans say the requirement is needed to combat voter fraud, while Democrats say it's more about disenfranchising voters.

The requirement to show a photo ID when voting would take effect next year, but other changes affecting absentee voting and the ability to vote take effect immediately and would be in force for recall elections this summer.

I'm confused why Dems feel it would disenfranchise voters? DMV does not ask political affiliation and offices are located in both Rep and Dem leaning communities. Are Dems saying illegals and fraudulent voters will be disenfranchised? I believe they should be.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm confused why Dems feel it would disenfranchise voters?

Because, compared to current voter registration poll ID laws, it amounts to narrower requirements that are essentially a poll tax and screening process.

It requires, for example of students, a school picture photo ID - and not one college in Wisconsin issues one of those, and the Republicans know it (which is why they chose it)

It changes the dates you have to live in an area before voting (again, eliminating students).

It forces more people to vote a provisional ballot, which are normally not counted (unless an election goes to recount)

DMV does not ask political affiliation and offices are located in both Rep and Dem leaning communities.

Not everybody has a car, especially elderly. It costs money to get a DMV photo ID (that's a poll tax)

Your ability to vote is not tied to your ability to drive a car, get to the DVM and be able to afford a non-driver ID, the ability to have a bank account, etc. The Republicans are trying to do that, to eliminate people that generally vote Democratic.

Are Dems saying illegals and fraudulent voters will be disenfranchised? .

No, the Republicans want to disinfranchise students, young new first time voters, etc - those that tend to vote Democratic.

The cases of voter fraud are few and far between, and most have been felons voting when they should not. That's a false reason for changing voting laws.

This isn't a secret Dell - the RGA targeted this action for it's governors before the 2012 election as a necessary Republican goal, and they are doing it in multiple states.

[Antitrust32]

everyone over 18 has access to an ID card. And it is really stupid not to have one (and this has nothing to do with the bill)

I had to show one in FL the last time I voted.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

everyone over 18 has access to an ID card. And it is really stupid not to have one (and this has nothing to do with the bill)

I had to show one in FL the last time I voted.

Yes - right now, dependent upon state, there are a variety of ID's one can show, including ID by a worker who knows you, that enable you to cast a regular vote (not a provisional one).

The Republican plan is to markedly narrow those requirements, and change how people can be registered to vote, eliminate some of the things that enable voting now, and the ways some people can register (for example, you can register to vote at the DMV in most states)

Google voting requirements for your state, and you can read what enables you to vote now.

Narrower voting requirements is being done in an attempt to disinfranchise voters who tend to vote Democratic. The GOP knows this - that's why they are doing it. This is like redistricting - it's strictly an election, political move. The Republicans have been trying it for years, and now with so many GOP govs, they are making an aggressive push to make it harder for citizens to vote before the 2012 fall.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because, compared to current voter registration poll ID laws, it amounts to narrower requirements that are essentially a poll tax and screening process.

It requires, for example of students, a school picture photo ID - and not one college in Wisconsin issues one of those, and the Republicans know it (which is why they chose it)It changes the dates you have to live in an area before voting (again, eliminating students).

It forces more people to vote a provisional ballot, which are normally not counted (unless an election goes to recount)



Not everybody has a car, especially elderly. It costs money to get a DMV photo ID (that's a poll tax)

Your ability to vote is not tied to your ability to drive a car, get to the DVM and be able to afford a non-driver ID, the ability to have a bank account, etc. The Republicans are trying to do that, to eliminate people that generally vote Democratic.



No, the Republicans want to disinfranchise students, young new first time voters, etc - those that tend to vote Democratic.

The cases of voter fraud are few and far between, and most have been felons voting when they should not. That's a false reason for changing voting laws.

This isn't a secret Dell - the RGA targeted this action for it's governors before the 2012 election as a necessary Republican goal, and they are doing it in multiple states.

Actually I believe most universities in the state do have photo ID's. I still have one from UWM and that was over 15 yrs ago. I would be surprised that they do not have photo ID's in the state universities. You usually need it to get into many of the different facilities on campus (ie- health center, gym, library, etc)

If the an elderly person doesn't have a car and can't drive how would they vote? If they can find a way to vote, don't you think they can find a way to get an ID. Actually the state is willing with this bill I believe to pay for the photo ID's for those who supposidely can't afford to pay the $10-25 it would cost to get a state issued ID.

It amazes me that the people that can't seem to afford the ID's or would be disenfranchised by this can find a way to get thru all the red tape and obtain food stamps and other governement entitlement programs, which are much harder to obtain then simply getting a photo ID.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Actually I believe most universities in the state do have photo ID's.

The news is saying they do not, and it would cost millions to change them over. So? Don't know. I was surprised about the no photo thing.

If the an elderly person doesn't have a car and can't drive how would they vote?

Absentee. They have changed the time frame on being able to do that, to make that more restrictive. And I know that around here, there are buses that bring the elderly to the polls to vote.

If they can find a way to vote, don't you think they can find a way to get an ID. Actually the state is willing with this bill I believe to pay for the photo ID's for those who supposidely can't afford to pay the $10-25 it would cost to get a state issued ID.

It amazes me that the people that can't seem to afford the ID's or would be disenfranchised by this can find a way to get thru all the red tape and obtain food stamps and other governement entitlement programs, which are much harder to obtain then simply getting a photo ID.

This is a blatent attempt to disinfranchise and make voting rights more restrictive. They've been trying to do so for years without success. I would think every American would be against that. Especially the most conservative folks. It's been proven that "voter fraud" isn't a big problem anywhere. So why should any of this be changed in the first place? Why is it justified to change the law in the face of ... not a problem currently? The RGA admits that this will make it harder for voters that tend to lean Democratic to vote. That is the whole point of doing it, and everyone knows it. It's a political ploy.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

The news is saying they do not, and it would cost millions to change them over. So? Don't know. I was surprised about the no photo thing.



Absentee. They have changed the time frame on being able to do that, to make that more restrictive. And I know that around here, there are buses that bring the elderly to the polls to vote.



This is a blatent attempt to disinfranchise and make voting rights more restrictive. They've been trying to do so for years without success. I would think every American would be against that. Especially the most conservative folks. It's been proven that "voter fraud" isn't a big problem anywhere. So why should any of this be changed in the first place? Why is it justified to change the law in the face of ... not a problem currently? The RGA admits that this will make it harder for voters that tend to lean Democratic to vote. That is the whole point of doing it, and everyone knows it. It's a political ploy.

Because voter fraud is very hard to prove. There have been many stories of political groups going around and giving smokes or cash to people if they go and vote. There is nothing restrictive about showing a photo ID. If the government is willing to pay for everyone to have a photo ID what is the issue? You need a photo ID to buy cough syrup. How else can you prove that the person that actually voted is the same person recorded in voting records? How would you know there is fraud if there is no way to prove the fraud? Is your real name Lena Taylor?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Because voter fraud is very hard to prove. There have been many stories of political groups going around and giving smokes or cash to people if they go and vote.

That wouldn't be corrected by showing a photo ID, would it?

If those people are registered voters, that's electioneering. Not voter fraud. They are absolutely entitled to vote.

And if they are not registered to vote, they can't vote - can they? - unless they follow the current voter law for provisional voting.

Face it - voter fraud is a red herring for this change.

There is nothing restrictive about showing a photo ID.

When the current ID types available to enable one to vote are arbitrarily changed so that only one or two types of ID are now required, and it's markedly more restrictive, that take a particular effort or cost (poll tax) obtain, that's absolutely a restriction of voting rights with the purposeful attempt to disinfranchise particular groups of voters.

Not to mention the changing of dates to register, the residence requirements, etc.

This is a blatent attack on the voting rights of American citizens, certain demographics deliberately targeted by the RGA, and everyone knows it - it is no secret.

If the government is willing to pay for everyone to have a photo ID what is the issue? You need a photo ID to buy cough syrup. How else can you prove that the person that actually voted is the same person recorded in voting records?

Gee - the very way we do it now?

How would you know there is fraud if there is no way to prove the fraud? Is your real name Lena Taylor?

How would you know there is fraud when you don't see it? Imaginary boogeymen?

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

That wouldn't be corrected by showing a photo ID, would it?

If those people are registered voters, that's electioneering. Not voter fraud. They are absolutely entitled to vote.

And if they are not registered to vote, they can't vote - can they? - unless they follow the current voter law for provisional voting.

Face it - voter fraud is a red herring for this change.



When the current ID types available to enable one to vote are arbitrarily changed so that only one or two types of ID are now required, and it's markedly more restrictive, that take a particular effort or cost (poll tax) obtain, that's absolutely a restriction of voting rights with the purposeful attempt to disinfranchise particular groups of voters.

Not to mention the changing of dates to register, the residence requirements, etc. This is a blatent attack on voting rights of American citizens, certain demographics deliberately targeted by the RGA, and everyone knows it - it is no secret.



Gee - the very way we do it now?



How would you know there is fraud when you don't see it? Imaginary boogeymen?

In WI you can register to vote day of the election at the polling place.
So bribing people to go vote is electioneering, but requiring them to show a photo id is disenfranchising. I get it now. Thanks

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

In WI you can register to vote day of the election at the polling place.

And what happens to that vote? Depends on what the election is for, right? You might check out your own election laws. They are on the internet, just google "voting requirement Wisconsin".

So bribing people to go vote is electioneering, but requiring them to show a photo id is disenfranchising. I get it now. Thanks

They have to show ID now. Maybe you should go read your current voting laws before you change them.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

And what happens to that vote? Depends on what the election is for, right? You might check out your own election laws. They are on the internet, just google "voting requirement Wisconsin".



They have to show ID now. Maybe you should go read your current voting laws before you change them.

No you do not have to show ID to vote. You don't have to show an ID to register to vote either. You do have to show something with your address on it to register to vote, but once registered you do not have to show anything to vote. That person could have moved, etc and could be voting twice

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

It requires, for example of students, a school picture photo ID - and not one college in Wisconsin issues one of those, and the Republicans know it (which is why they chose it)

Marquette had photo IDs as recently as when I went there...unless they changed it since.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

No you do not have to show ID to vote. You don't have to show an ID to register to vote either. You do have to show something with your address on it to register to vote, but once registered you do not have to show anything to vote. That person could have moved, etc and could be voting twice

The incidences of voter fraud in your state are very low.

To vote on day of election, or to register to vote, you have to provide the following (this is only part of the requirements, there are residency time requirements, too): (and if you do not show these, you can only cast a provision ballot in the federal election only that is not automatically counted)

from Wis.gov

Acceptable documents for proof of Wisconsin residency

Documents presented as proof must be original. Photocopies and account statements printed online are not acceptable.

The following documents are acceptable proof of Wisconsin residency when they include your name and current Wisconsin residence street address:

* Employee photo identification card issued by your current employer, containing your employer's name and address. Your employer's telephone number may be required for verification.

* Pay check or stub with your name and Wisconsin address, and your employer's name and address. Your employer's telephone number may be required for verification.

* A utility bill for water, gas, electricity or land-line telephone service at least 30 days old.

* An account statement at least 30 days old from a Wisconsin financial institution. The account statement must show activity.

* Wisconsin Quest Card (acceptable for proof of Wisconsin residency without your residence street address on it).

* Forward Wisconsin ID Medical Assistance Card (acceptable for proof of Wisconsin residency without your residence street address on it).

* Certified school record or transcript.

* Mortgage documents for a residential property in Wisconsin.

The department will decline to accept any document presented if it does not provide conclusive proof of residency.

Documents presented as proof must be original. Photocopies are not acceptable. Documents with a photograph of a person will be accepted only when the person is readily recognizable from the photograph. The department will decline to accept any document presented if it has reason to suspect the authenticity of the document. Questionable documents may require additional review.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Marquette had photo IDs as recently as when I went there...unless they changed it since.

pretty much all colleges issue photo ID's. I'm not sure where she pulled that one from.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

pretty much all colleges issue photo ID's. I'm not sure where she pulled that one from.

From repeated press reports on the subject. From members in the Wisc assembly. One of the television stations even had an administration official from one of the colleges interviewed (I don't know if it's U Wisconsin, or what) that said no, they don't give photo id's that would meet the requirements.

Maybe it's that they only have a photo with no address or signature, etc. I do know the Republicans deliberately wrote the law so that current school id's in Wisconsin cannot be used.

Sigh .. off to google.

BTW, Walker already signed it today, and it will be challenged constitutionally, of course

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...122588869.html

[Antitrust32]

thats right, i forgot, Republicans are evil.

...and Google is good. They aren't evil scum.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

The incidences of voter fraud in your state are very low.

To vote on day of election, or to register to vote, you have to provide the following (this is only part of the requirements, there are residency time requirements, too): (and if you do not show these, you can only cast a provision ballot in the federal election only that is not automatically counted)

from Wis.gov

So if a person is registered to vote in Milwaukee, but moves to Waukesha 60 days ago and has a utility bill in Waukesha now they could vote in both Milwaukee where they are currently registered and in Waukesha where they now have a utility bill in since they could register the day of the election. Someone else could be voting under someone else's name that is a registered voter as well if they knew their name and address since we don't require proof that they are the person they say they are.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by wiphan

So if a person is registered to vote in Milwaukee, but moves to Waukesha 60 days ago and has a utility bill in Waukesha now they could vote in both Milwaukee where they are currently registered and in Waukesha where they now have a utility bill in since they could register the day of the election. Someone else could be voting under someone else's name that is a registered voter as well if they knew their name and address since we don't require proof that they are the person they say they are.

Here's a thought... if you dont have an photo ID card, and you want to vote, how about go and get a photo ID? I mean they have a year to prepare for this. If voting is important to you, all you have to do is bring a valid form of identification.

I had to show it here in Florida, and the world didnt end. At least not yet.

Should be a requirement you have to show the electronic long form birth certificate...not the physical copy. They'll believe it.