Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[mom45]

What type of ID does one need to submit an absentee ballot?

The same one they submit for any other method for voting. A valid, government/state issued photo ID.

 

[terrehautian]

IF voter ID law is unfair, just remember that next time you go to the bank and they ask for you id. Why make it harder to use the bank.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Didn't your older article say that upwards of 10% of those that didn't vote claimed to not have the required documents. And 5% saying that that discouraged them from voting? One can only assume that they didn't have traditional identification documents, but held obscure forms which they werent aware qualified. So would say that this, especially given that this occurred in Texas (who got the crackdown for voter suppression before) was by design.

Yes it did say that. Although none of the forms accepted are "obscure". Drivers license, ID, Voter ID, military ID, passport, license to carry, and US citizenship certificate w/photo. Well the last one might be a bit obscure if you don't have it. And it's the laws fault that people can't be bothered to find out what is acceptable?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Texas DPS issues driver's licenses, non-driving IDs, and election certificates, and charges no fee for the latter.

Being required to have a (free) ID discouraged some people from voting? I couldn't care less. Voting is as much a responsibility as it is a right. I hold no sympathy for those who choose to remain low-information.

One could say all rights carry responsibilities. But a free citizen isn't bound to responsible as long as his actions are legal; especially concerning ones right to choose how they will be governed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

IF voter ID law is unfair, just remember that next time you go to the bank and they ask for you id. Why make it harder to use the bank.

How about you remember the difference between private business and govt?

 

[chipbennett]

One could say all rights carry responsibilities. But a free citizen isn't bound to responsible as long as his actions are legal; especially concerning ones right to choose how they will be governed.

Those who participate in the democratic processes have the right and expectation that their vote is counted appropriately: i.e. one vote for every one eligible person who chooses to participate. The only way to ensure that right and expectation is met is to require ID of everyone who participates, to ensure each participant is eligible and casts only one vote.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

But a free citizen isn't bound to responsible as long as his actions are legal; especially concerning ones right to choose how they will be governed.

It seems the people did choose, and got voter ID out of it.

How about you remember the difference between private business and govt?

iirc Photo ID is required by law when opening an account.

 

[2A_Tom]

I get that, but some would say it to disenfranchise particular groups. And I think both have merit. The firearm analogy is solid. Some would say the main point of common sense gun laws is to keep guns out of the hands of the ineligible, other would say it's to keep guns out of the hands of everybody. Voter fraud is FAR less common than firearm crime... FAR, FAR less. Firearm owners don't believe that they should have to prove anything to express a "right," so why should the right to choose how one is ruled be any different? And before you say because of those who abuse the system, ask yourself if the onus should be on the law abiding to prove their worthiness to express said right. The law is there, concerning voter fraud, as are the penalties. Enforce the law, make the attempt to defraud the electorate distasteful... but after 150 years of the system working, let's not create additional hoops for the law abiding to jump through, to observe a right.

It is a bit more evident that an unlawful use of a firearm has occurred than if you already voted at three other polling places. No?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes it did say that. Although none of the forms accepted are "obscure". Drivers license, ID, Voter ID, military ID, passport, license to carry, and US citizenship certificate w/photo. Well the last one might be a bit obscure if you don't have it. And it's the laws fault that people can't be bothered to find out what is acceptable?

Should a law have the ability to deny one a right?

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is a bit more evident that an unlawful use of a firearm has occurred than if you already voted at three other polling places. No?

Probably because voter fraud is ridiculously rare.

 

[2A_Tom]

Should a law have the ability to deny one a right?

You are only allowed to vote if you are a citizen. I am a citizen and I can prove it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Should a law have the ability to deny one a right?

Isn't that pretty much the definition of a law? I have a right to drive a car except that the state has created laws that prescribe under which conditions I can exercise that right. I have a right to open and run a business but the Feds and the state have created laws that deny me the right to run it the way I might prefer. And so forth.

 

[chipbennett]

Should a law have the ability to deny one a right?

Voting is not a right - at least, not a constitutionally protected right.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The same one they submit for any other method for voting. A valid, government/state issued photo ID.

When did that change?
Voter ID Laws | Long Distance Voter - The Absentee Ballot Experts

 

[HoughMade]

Probably because voter fraud is ridiculously rare.

What you mean is cases of voter fraud investigated and pursued to charges is rare. After all, we have no idea how rare it is when it is not discovered.

Personally, I think voting should be at least a little inconvenient, and given that the legal standard is "undue burden", I think the law agrees with me.

"Voter suppression" is a real thing, at least it was and I'm taking for granted it still exists.

Voting not being supremely easy is not voter suppression.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Voting is not a right - at least, not a constitutionally protected right.

I see what you did there.... and I knew someone would eventually go there, so I purposefully worded it as "the right to choose how one will be governed," which is most assuredly a right.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Voting is not a right - at least, not a constitutionally protected right.

If the Constitution had language for voting like it did for the 2A (eg. 'Shall not be infringed') Kut would have a point. But it doesn't. IIRC, it has some prohibitions but it does not prohibit all infringements like the 2A and the 1A does.

 

[2A_Tom]

Probably because voter fraud is ridiculously rare.

Please clarify, I think you are saying that anyone who walks in to the poll and says that they are John Smith and live at 26 Front Street can vote if there is a John Smith listed at 26 Front street.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What you mean is cases of voter fraud investigated and pursued to charges is rare. After all, we have no idea how rare it is when it is not discovered.

Personally, I think voting should be at least a little inconvenient, and given that the legal standard is "undue burden", I think the law agrees with me.

"Voter suppression" is a real thing, at least it was and I'm taking for granted it still exists.

Voting not being supremely easy is not voter suppression.

Hmmm.... i won't contest this

 

[Kutnupe14]

If the Constitution had language for voting like it did for the 2A (eg. 'Shall not be infringed') Kut would have a point. But it doesn't. IIRC, it has some prohibitions but it does not prohibit all infringements like the 2A and the 1A does.

Don't get caught up in the trap of thinking that the only rights we have are those listed in the BoRs.