Every single right privided under the constitution of this nation is dependant upon one single idea; citizenship.

You truly believe that people in this country that cannot prove their citizenship, or are here legally and not citizens have rights, whatsoever?

If that's the case, then someone who is arrested, but doesn't have ID to prove he's a citizen, is not allowed any of the protections of the constitution?

i dunno about md, but here one can buy a damn fine set of well-crafted counterfeit documents (driver's license, ss card & whatever passes for a green card these days--last one i saw was pink) for no more than a couple bills and no less than about $80. same day delivery too.

seems highly unlikely a voter id card is gonna present the fake documents industry any sorta insurmountable difficulties.

dna--or some other biometric identifier--might do the job.

all republicans in favor of government-issued biometric ids and a new federal agency to maintain and control the requisite database containing extremely confidential personal information about each and every voting citizen, please stand up so your political forebears can see you clearly while whippin around n around at about 8000 rpm in their graves.

You truly believe that people in this country that cannot prove their citizenship, or are here legally and not citizens have rights, whatsoever? If that's the case, then someone who is arrested, but doesn't have ID to prove he's a citizen, is not allowed any of the protections of the constitution?

You are using an impertinant argument, as usual. We are discussing voting not the justice system. But to answer your question, no. While we extend certain rights to noncitizens under our justice system and have actually defined some rights for them under that system, our constitution defines the rights of citizens, not noncitizens.

No noncitizen has the right to vote in our country.

I still haven't seen one good reason not to require ID to vote.

I still haven't seen one good reason not to require ID to vote.

OK, ONE MORE TIME...our laws guarantee the right to a secret ballot. some see the ID issue as compromising that secrecy. you or i may or may not agree with that, but it is a legit argument within our laws.

one could also make the point that requiring ID in effect violates our laws which abolished things like literacy tests. i'm not sure if someone could get an ID if they couldn't fill out the form. now, some may think that this should exclude the persons from voting, but there is a whole history of southern states using these tactics, which on the surface, seem racially neutral, but were just ways to intimidate blacks from voting.

not asking you to agree with it, but just cause you don't, that doesn't mean there isn't legitiamte arguments. i believe this is an interesting debate, both on this level and the converse "paper trail" debate. i don't think it is, on either debate, a straight party line thing as was orig. suggested. and i do believe this discussion is an important one. i really just wish some here wouldn't cop the "my way or highway" attitude like is done so often in a knee jerk fashion.

these are important debates that involve our fundamental right to a secret ballot vote. people have been killed, intimidated and whatnot when these rights have been breached in the past and to cavalierly throw partisan spin on it is just plain stupid.

the people against the ID's are not "for voter fraud" as callously remarked, but for protecting people who can hardly defend themselves rights that are guaranteed by us. anytime anyone suggests making the voter more "accountable" careful consideration must be made to ensure that those actions are not, in effect, disenfranchising a segment.

the "can't everyone just get an ID?" question reminds me of the people who were coldly, ignorantly and crassly saying "why don't they just get in their car and get out of new orleans?" last year.

when folks want to seriously consider this issue, perhaps i'll comment more, but until then,,,think i'll move on and look at some other articles.

still haven't seen one good reason not to require ID to vote. OK, ONE MORE TIME...our laws guarantee the right to a secret ballot. some see the ID issue as compromising that secrecy. you or i may or may not agree with that, but it is a legit argument within our laws. one could also make the point that requiring ID in effect violates our laws which abolished things like literacy tests. i'm not sure if someone could get an ID if they couldn't fill out the form. now, some may think that this should exclude the persons from voting, but there is a whole history of southern states using these tactics, which on the surface, seem racially neutral, but were just ways to intimidate blacks from voting. not asking you to agree with it, but just cause you don't, that doesn't mean there isn't legitiamte arguments. i believe this is an interesting debate, both on this level and the converse "paper trail" debate. i don't think it is, on either debate, a straight party line thing as was orig. suggested. and i do believe this discussion is an important one. i really just wish some here wouldn't cop the "my way or highway" attitude like is done so often in a knee jerk fashion. these are important debates that involve our fundamental right to a secret ballot vote. people have been killed, intimidated and whatnot when these rights have been breached in the past and to cavalierly throw partisan spin on it is just plain stupid. the people against the ID's are not "for voter fraud" as callously remarked, but for protecting people who can hardly defend themselves rights that are guaranteed by us. anytime anyone suggests making the voter more "accountable" careful consideration must be made to ensure that those actions are not, in effect, disenfranchising a segment.

No matter how you slice this up, it boils down to the same thing. We need a way to make sure voters only vote "ONCE"! And ID's are the most logical solution. If you have a better one, then lets hear it.

How would an requiring an ID compromise the secrecy of their vote? ID's would do only 2 things.

a) make sure the person has the "right" to vote (no illegal aliens allowed).

used to make sure voter has "not" already voted. The actual casting of the ballot would not be known.

ok, let's say i'm an american citizen. i am illiterate. i turn 18 and i see a place where i can register to vote. i take in my birth cirtificate, take it to the registration site, where someone fills out the form for me, i sign it as best i can, now i am registered.

election day comes, and i have no id except my birth cirtificate. yet i am an american citizen, and had the nec. id required to register. should i be denied my right to vote because i don't have a driver liscense or state issued photo id?

are not my fundamental voting rights, guaranteed under ammendment 15 of the US constitution being denied? i believe this is a debate that is about the rights of the state and candidates to hold a fair elevtion vs. the inherent right of any citizen to be able to vote without undue "requirements" and burdens being put upon the voter. i do think that some in this debate are using this as a "code" against hispanic voting and their views on the larger immigration debates we are having. i'm not accusing you or anyone in particular of that. in fact, i really don't think you are coming from that perspective.

another "analogous" look at it, away from statutes and legal interpretations might be this. the mafia has a saying "if you are not stealing a little, you are stealing a lot." this perspective could be applied to voting. voting fraud probably happens in many more elections than we care to admit. when i was a judge of elections, there was an attempt to rig an election by switching the actual machines between 2 districts and some other inproprieties. fortunately, when inspecting the machines before the election, i discovered the plot. everything was corrected by the time the polls opened later that morning.

but anyway, like i said, fraud happens in many forms in many elections. the "having dead people vote" and such has gone back to my ancestors roots when irish politicians were famous for it. the italians did the same thing with their immigrants, just as every major ethnic group has probably done throughout time.

these things didn't do democracy any service, but they hardly destroyed our democracy. in fact, in all the posts here, i have yet to see (maybe i missed something) anyone complain about the fraud that brought many prominent politicians to power that was done by our ancestors of european descent. and that fraud had no predjudices when it came to any party lines.

but like the mafia says, when talking about theft and fraud, that stuff is small potatoes when compared to electronic voting machines that can be haccked to rig entire elections. and i think that some may be resisting the ID stuff because they want the electronic issues resolved 1st. much in the way that some want immigration to deal with border control before any citizenship plans are even discussed.

thank you for explaining your side, which i believe holds some water as well dr miler. we both know you and i won't agree on much, but having an intelligent conversation instead of poo pooing the other side here is a positive step in any debate.

and almost all debates have at least 2 sides to them. it's important that we look at every side before simply declaring who is "right and wrong" which in most cases, isn't so clearly defined.

thank you again dr.

take care:)

My position in this debate is this: a state issued picture id should be required to obtain the ballot or access to a voting machine. This state issued id could be a drivers license or a non-drivers ID.

Now, how does this get around the "OMG! They'll know how I voted!!" question? Easy. The table where they verify that you are a registered voter and you are who you say you are is away from the voting machines. Easy enough.

In Virginia, it's real simple. You show up at the polling place. Stand in line before a table. The poll workers sit behind the table with the roll of registered voters. If you're not on the list, you have to vote with a provisional ballot. To determine who's on the list, they require a picture ID. No ID, no vote. It's that simple. Once they verify a) that you are who you say you are, that you're registered to vote, and c) registered IN THAT PRECINCT, you get waved to one of the voting machines. These machines have curtain that draws across the opening when you pull the big red lever (okay, this part varies from precinct to precinct), but the expectation of privacy is still there.

At no point can the poll workers actually see how you are voting. They are registering that you VOTED, but not how. That is still secret.

Who does this affect? Mainly it affects those who are too lazy to wander down to any of the Department of Motor Vehicles offices (scattered across the area) and get the picture id. Don't speak English but are a citizen? No problem. Translation services are available. Can't see? No problem. Again, assistance is available. Illiterate? No problem. Assistance is available to get a photo id. Too old to get there by yourself? No problem. Organizations exist just to help with this problem. No transportation to get there yourself (for what ever reason)? Again, organizations exist to deal with this problem.

Too lazy to get off your duff and take care of the problem? Sorry. That's your problem. Odds are, if you're too lazy to go get the id, you're too lazy to drag yourself down to the polling place to vote.

without undue "requirements" and burdens being put upon the voter

And here is the crux of the matter. You believe that having to prove that you are the individual who registered to vote in that precinct is an undue burden upon the citizen.

Personally, I do not believe that having to prove that I am who I say I am in order to vote (and incidently, prove that I have the right and obligation to vote in that election) is an undue burden. Given the intended purpose to to prevent others from cheating the system and thus weaken or invalidate my vote, I'll provide the picture ID to show I am who I say I am.

To arbitrarily say that a large block of our CITIZEN'S cannot get a State ID because they are too stupid to do so is an insult to our people.

To address the other issue that Mr. Conners brings up - accountability of the individual vote in an electronic machine.

I agree that something should be in place to reconstruct votes in the case that something catastrophic happens. A small printout at the time of voting to give to the voter to turn in to a SEPERATE, LOCKED box only to be used in a catastrophic breakdown of the system. Additionally, a printer, that prints a continous output of all votes cast on that machine, in a locked, internal space (to the machine) would be sufficient. Both methods, used in tandom, could provide the audit trail and the sealed fall back option in the case of a catastrophic failure. To alleviate problems with the fall back methods - the totals from the audit must match the totals from the slips in the locked box for that precinct before the results from the failsafe count can be ratified as official.

As far as the hacking of the machines, a secure, sealed machine (similar to an ATM machine) would be a good place to start. Yes, I know that ATM machines have been hacked. Additionally, the vote machines should be under armed guard (private, bonded security guards with a HIGH bond required or uniformed cops provided by the local PD). That would go a long way towards providing skeptics with some reassurance that the machines are secure enough to not be tampered with.

Sean Connors:

OK, ONE MORE TIME...our laws guarantee the right to a secret ballot. some see the ID issue as compromising that secrecy. you or i may or may not agree with that, but it is a legit argument within our laws.

You might have a point here, if we already didnt' have to identify ourselves to recieve a ballot. When we walk up to the table, we are asked our names, the poll worker then checks a list of names and, if they find ours, marks it off.

What is the difference between that and having to show an ID? There is no connection made between the ID and the ballot or how it's marked.

The way it is now, there is nothing stopping a person from going from poll to poll, voting as often as they want. If there was a state issued ID, with a voter number on it, then that number could be part of a state data base, ensuring the person doesn't "vote early, vote often".

I guess we could also try a stain for the thumb too... that seemed to work.

there is nothing stopping a person from going from poll to poll, voting as often as they want.

nothing? can you describe a plausible scenario in which your hypothetical wandering multivoter is able to walk in, make up a name and get a ballot?

democrats want a paper trail. republicans don't. does that mean the GOP is supporting fraud? or are they trying to protect the annonymity of the voter?

Except in Maryland you would have mixed up the parties completely - in Maryland the GOP wants the paper trail, the Democrats are blocking it. The GOP Governor wants paper ballots rather than the touchscreen voting machines and ooops, again the Democrats that control the elections boards and control the legislature are blocking it.

Who was it again that supports fraud?!

nothing? can you describe a plausible scenario in which your hypothetical wandering multivoter is able to walk in, make up a name and get a ballot?

You scoff and yet it has happened in precincts in Maryland before, and is suspected of happening in elections in the Philly area back in the 2000 election among others.

Whenever people have been permitted to vote without having to show ID and prove they were registered voters by having their name show up on the list of registered voters there's the possibility of it happening.

Again, I'd love to see us go with an ink mark on the person somewhere that designates that someone has voted. It would prevent the nice folks in the Baltimore area from loading up the vans full of homeless folks that are then chauffered from point to point to get some votes in. Of course that would mean those poor homeless folks don't get the promised money/food that they would otherwise get, but it would also mean that they get to vote once and only once per election.

I'm sure that the ACLU would intervene though and decry the fact that using permanent ink marks on the person would discriminate against people that don't have an arm or something like that and it would get tossed because of such discrimination.

OK, ONE MORE TIME...our laws guarantee the right to a secret ballot. some see the ID issue as compromising that secrecy. you or i may or may not agree with that, but it is a legit argument within our laws.

Ok, maybe you don't undertand the concept of secret ballot. It means that only you know whom you voted for, not whether or not you voted. Yours is a stupid argument. Requiring a voter ID does not in any way violate the concept of a secret ballot.

nothing? can you describe a plausible scenario in which your hypothetical wandering multivoter is able to walk in, make up a name and get a ballot?

You weren't paying attention. It's called a "provisional ballot". If you're not on the voting roster for the area you're in, you get one. What's to stop someone from going to another polling place and obtaining a "second" provisional ballot? They do not need to make up a false name. Without the ID system in place, the second area would not know that you already voted and give you the second provisional ballot.

Kingbee:

nothing? can you describe a plausible scenario in which your hypothetical wandering multivoter is able to walk in, make up a name and get a ballot?

It happened a lot in Milwaukee County in 2004. Remember, in Wisconsin you get to register to vote at the time of voting. Mark Belling (local talk show host) identified over 100 registration addresses that were vacant lots or businesses. Federal investigators identified over 500 counts of double voting. And we all know about the (much celebrated, but then denied) college students who bragged about voting 10 or 15 times.

Only the totally blind (or those with reason to celebrate fraud) can miss it.

prove they were registered voters by having their name show up on the list of registered voters

exactly!

anyone unable to provide a name and local address not on the roll--whether or not they have a photo id--should be refused a ballot.

anyone capable of scamming precint workers into handing him or her a ballot by providing a name that's NOT on the registered voter roster aint gonna find it difficult to acquire voter photo id cards showing their face but another's name.

if he or she has access to voter registration rolls, only a lack of determination or skill stands in the way of creating counterfeit cards.

as i said earlier, photo ids are way too easily faked. ever seen samples of id documents produced by allied pows in camps using nothing but improvised resources? imagine what they could do with the technology available today.

are you willing to submit a dna sample (or whatever else might be required for a biometric id) and trust its safekeeping to the state? admittedly the resulting database would significantly improve the accuracy, efficiency and vastly increase the scope of census data collection.

over 100 registration addresses that were vacant lots or businesses. Federal investigators identified over 500 counts of double voting.

any halfway decent realtor has all the information needed to prevent that vacant lot thing from happening. as does every tax assessor.

lots of clever 15-year-olds can churn out nearly flawless fake foto ids. just ask the next group of drunk teens you encounter.

Without the ID system in place, the second area would not know that you already voted and give you the second provisional ballot.

with the id system in place, the second area would not know someone with a counterfeit card had already voted and give them a second provisional ballot.

all republicans in favor of government-issued biometric ids and a new federal agency to maintain and control the requisite database containing extremely confidential personal information about each and every voting citizen, please stand up so your political forebears can see you clearly while whippin around n around at about 8000 rpm in their graves.

This is absurd beyond belief. What do you think a photograph is? It's a form of biometric ID. So what is the difference if they used a fingerprint instead? The justice system already uses them for ID. Many banks now require them for cashing checks. How is this in any way a violation of any right?

Nothing in our constitution grants the right to not provide proof of identity and only someone who has reason to hide their identity would have any reason to object to such identification.

I still have seen not a single legitimate reason for blocking a voter ID program, only hyperbole and straw man arguments. Whether it's a photograph or a fingerprint, voter ID does not in any way threaten anyone's rights.

This is absurd beyond belief

perhaps...but only in today's 180° polar-shifted political environment.

until about 30 years ago, conservatives stood steadfast as our sole defense against even the most benign or beneficial program enabling government to transform each and every one of us into numbers with names.

thus, my invitation to yall to please stand up so your political forebears can see you clearly while whippin around n around at about 8000 rpm in their graves

Kingbee, you make some decent points against IDs, but I'd like to find any examples of Democrats backing ANY anti fraud legislation. I know in Wisconsin, King Doyle even blocked measures that would allow the state to compare names from all the precints. Of course, he is also the governor who (along with his lackies on the Wisconsin State Election Board) have no problem changing rules for his opponent (Mark Green) but not for himself or any other candidate. But that's a whole different form of election corruption.

Funny how, after over 200 years of voting we still haven't figured out that a simple stained thumb goes a long way. :~D

nothing? can you describe a plausible scenario in which your hypothetical wandering multivoter is able to walk in, make up a name and get a ballot?

Chicago.

Here's another one Kingbee...

Members of a community go door to door, they ask the people at the door if they are planning on voting in the upcoming election. If they say they aren't, the good members hand them the form for an absentee ballot. They are then given an envelope with an address on it, asking them to send the blank absentee ballot... they are then told that if they do, they will get some kind of reward for doing so...

Another example...

The local high school officials plan a "civic duty" object lesson. During school time, the students will take part in a project to "canvas the neighborhoods". The school officials say that it's a great, non-partisan way to get the kids involved. The project is cancelled after a local talk show host points out that every neighborhood "canvased" is a predominantly democrat neighborhood... also that most of the neighborhoods to be "canvased" aren't even in the school's area.

And the fraud beat goes on....

so any document that can be faked just shouldnt be required?

if the type of voting fraud being discussed here--people voting early & often, votes being cast by people who are ineligible or prohibited from doing so--is so problematic (and i'm not convinced it is, but...) it requires enacting new laws, policies and procedures, pretending to fix the problem seems to me a waste of time, money and energy.

confirming identity and eligibility using fingerprint matching would prolly do the trick; dna technology could make fraud difficult to the point of near impossibility.

you may be cool with making it easier for the state to keep tabs on you and/or discover very sensitive personal data, stuff about you about which you may be totally unaware.

i'm not.