Voter ID Question

[frank ryan]

Every time I see her talk I get very mad at Joe Biden.

And Jill Biden. I don't know anyone who is excited about Kamala running again. I'd rather have Newsome, as divisive as he can be than her.

[Clark Addison]

And Jill Biden. I don't know anyone who is excited about Kamala running again. I'd rather have Newsome, as divisive as he can be than her.

Yeah, I'm no fan of Newsome, but at least he can string together a complete sentence and make coherent arguments.

There is a lot of blame to go around for Kamala being the nominee, but Joe:

1. Picked her as VP in the first place, in a very odd choice
2. Decided to run again (taking Dr. Jill and others' moronic and self-serving advice)
3. When he finally gave in to reason and bowed out, went against Obama's and others' wishes and made Harris' nomination basically a fait accompli.

As is fairly obvious, I have a bit of bitterness toward Joe.

[PaloAltoCougar]

It did come across that way.

How many of the 83% or whatever understand that the SAVE Act in its current form will do far more to suppress legitimate voters than protect against illegitimate voters? Would you expect anything less from Senator Lee or Rep. Chip Roy?

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article...-the-save-act/

True. That's what makes me less than enthused about voter i.d.., as its biggest proponents, including DJT, claim it's about restoring confidence in the integrity of our elections, when they have done more than anyone in U.S. history to undermine that confidence.

[dabrockster]

I think I’ve given my voter ID position before, but I’ll summarize it here. I’m of the opinion that the place to require ID and prove citizenship is when people register to vote. That gives people a lot of time get everything in order and get the registration done. clean voter rolls is where it’s important. If we had clean voter rolls then id be fine with no ID required to cast a vote. You’d just need to show up (unless you vote by mail) and declare your name an if you are on the registry you get a ballot. If someone votes in your name before you vote, you can cast a provisional ballot and get it figured out later. You’d have to have a way to make sure people only vote once, which is typically done by marking a finger with ink. It’s not perfect but it puts the responsibility of ID on a place that isn’t as subject to time constraints.

Id also be in favor of requiring IDs and documents needed to get them to be given free of charge.

This is how it is currently done in Ohio.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ah, got it. I thought you were taking the position that substantial majority support justifies any proposal.

Well, I certainly wouldn't put it that way. But on the flip side, if you are going to fight against an issue with substantial majority support you ought to have a strong, compelling reason to do so. That is not the case here.

If the democrats had any sense, they would work together to come up with bipartisan voter ID laws at the state level that are workable and do less harm. Instead it appears they are going to fight a losing battle and we may end up with dumb legislation like the SAVE act.

[Northwestcoug]

I would support a bill that gives time for everyone to get their passport or birth certificate ready, and then allow the states how they want to verify that documentation for voter registration. Along with a few billion dollars to implement it.

And then once you're on the records, no further need to provide ID for registration updates like name or address change, etc.

[myboynoah]

I would support a bill that gives time for everyone to get their passport or birth certificate ready, and then allow the states how they want to verify that documentation for voter registration. Along with a few billion dollars to implement it.

And then once you're on the records, no further need to provide ID for registration updates like name or address change, etc.

Sounds fair, but I doubt the repubs will do that. They want to suppress the vote this November.

[Northwestcoug]

Sounds fair, but I doubt the repubs will do that. They want to suppress the vote this November.

I think that is obviously clear. In this era of insignificant voter fraud, this has to be the most logical conclusion.

[myboynoah]

I think that is obviously clear. In this era of insignificant voter fraud, this has to be the most logical conclusion.

I love making obvious points. They are the safest ones to make.

[dabrockster]

Sounds fair, but I doubt the repubs will do that. They want to suppress the vote this November.

Tell me what is bad about the SAVE act?

[myboynoah]

Tell me what is bad about the SAVE act?

In terms of suppressing votes, it would require people to make changes with which they may be uncomfortable and for which they will need to put out money (say, for a passport). It will take time for those voters to prepare for November. Some folks may just opt not to vote given all that. Anything that will suppress the vote is not a good thing IMO.

It's addressing an issue that doesn't exist, a big waste of time and energy.

And states are in charge of voting. Let each state decide how it wants to manage its elections without federal interference. I still don't know if it is constitutional.

Just my opinions. As I've already said, this looks like a political loser for dems, so I think they need to develop a strategy in favor of some elements of the act and get on the positive side of this.

[chrisrenrut]

Tell me what is bad about the SAVE act?

Dude, I know it’s not a Fox News link, but give it a try. Might answer your question.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article...-the-save-act/

[dabrockster]

Dude, I know it’s not a Fox News link, but give it a try. Might answer your question.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article...-the-save-act/

Thank you. That was very informative and what I was looking for (I resent this notion that I only read Fox news.).

I prefer the back-end implementation of this and place the burden on the election officials. However, they need to place monetary funds to support this initiative. I also thought the percentages of voter suppression were going to be much higher than they projected. With time (Even if the burden is on the individual), this can be implemented and the number of reduced voter suppression would be less. The idea of allowing a 1-time pass to accept current methods and assisting the voter with obtaining the proper document is what I would like to see. There are varying paths to do tis. having the paperwork to obtain their birth certificate, or allowing a checkbox to record what is missing and then allowing the Board of Elections to send out the notice and how to obtain their birth certificate, Passport or appropriate document. That way, they will have more than enough time to obtain it for the next election cycle. Again, these need to be supported with funds for the states to implement. Like any new policy there will be hurdles to overcome. I still remember the Obamacare Marketplace rollout website. That was a total cluster...


Voter turnout in comparison tot he population lands at about 50%. Will this reduce that percentage? Yes, but not significantly as I think is being projected. With the slow-rollout and strategic plan, it can have minimal impact.

Lastly, I think this is a non-starter anyway. I do not see this passing the Senate in time for the November elections. The Dems have a chance to use the SAVE Act and modify it and add funds to support this initiative as the public is fully supportive of this. If the House flips, they can enter a new bill in 2027 or amend the SAVE Act if they get it done prior. Or if it does pass the Senate, they can reconcile and make changes. All of these do not look feasible. Since it will likely expire before passed into law.

[Bo Diddley]

The Bipartisan Policy Center has some interesting points, even if I do take issue with some of the ways they characterize things.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article...-the-save-act/

I particularly like the Back-end verification approach they describe.

Back-end verification, where election or other government officials, such as those at the department of motor vehicles, consult existing government data to verify a voter’s citizenship status.

[YOhio]

The Bipartisan Policy Center has some interesting points, even if I do take issue with some of the ways they characterize things.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article...-the-save-act/

I particularly like the Back-end verification approach they describe.

lol. They look at butts.