Richmond Times Dispatch:

A bill that would require voters who show up at the polls without identification to cast provisional ballots is headed to the House floor after being lambasted by Democrats in a committee hearing Friday.

I have to disagree with the Democrats on this one.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with requiring voter ID.  There are very few rights that an American citizen has to start with.  Legal residents pretty much have the same rights we do other than voting in state and federal elections.  What happens if if a provisional vote is cast?  According to Delegate Albo:

“I’m trying to understand what the controversy of the bill is,” said Del. David B. Albo, R-Fairfax, noting that the provisional ballots are reviewed the day after the election by the local electoral board.

“If they are legit, they get counted,” Albo said. “If they’re not legit, they don’t get counted.”

On Friday afternoon, the ACLU decried the bill as a voter-suppression measure.

Anyone who lacks the proper ID should be able to get one without charge at DMV.  I am surprised that people can register to vote without some form of identification.   In this day and age, how does a person go anywhere or do anything without some form of ID?  Go Republicans!  This is one bill that makes sense in a sea of ones that don’t. 

 

18 Thoughts to “Voter ID bill moves to House floor”

  1. Second Alamo

    As long as the provisional ballots also come in Spanish ; )

  2. This is a major problem all over the United States that seem to be separating R’s and D’s. D’s say it disenfranchises people. R’s say it makes voter fraud less likely to happen.

    I fall in with the Republicans on this one.

    Voting is the only thing that sets citizens apart from non-citizens. I want to make sure one person one vote and that the person is who they say they are.

  3. Pat Herve

    It is a good policy IF a person can get a non driver ID with no charge, otherwise, it is creating a poll tax.

  4. Morris Davis

    Maybe it’s just me … good chance it is … but it’s surprising that the way we vote in 2012 isn’t much different than it was in 1912 (who can vote now versus in 1912 is a different issue). In most jurisdictions you go to the polling place on what is normally a workday, they check you against a roster of registered voters, they give you a ballot, you make your choices, they collect them up and take them to the election headquarters at the end of the day, and the votes are tallied. I can sit here on the same laptop I’m typing this on (or on my iPhone) and move money, refill medications, vote in shareholder elections, pay my taxes, etc… and certainly a lot of critically important things get done in business and government using technology without creating excessive risk. It would seem that there should be a more efficient way of voting, one that saves money (I spoke with a poll worker recently who worked a primary run-off for a local office where they had more poll workers sitting (6) there for 12 hours than they had voters (3) in the entire day) and gives more citizens an opportunity to participate (this is, after all, supposed to be a democracy). That’s not to say it should be all online voting, but in 2012 we should be making better use of technology.

    1. @Moe,

      I have friends wo live in the far lower western part of Washington State. It is very rural. They all vote by absentee ballot and it makes them madder than hell. I am not sure why.

      It seems to me that there is a better way also. Most people could vote online and save millions of man-hours.

  5. Kelly3406

    @Morris Davis

    Technology does not guarantee better or more efficient solutions. The threat of hacking exposes the electoral process to a greater risk of voter fraud. Having taken a look at computer hacking recently, I have concluded that just about anything done online is at risk of compromise.

    The reason that you feel secure in carrying out online transactions is that the sea of data on the internet makes the risk to a particular individual fairly low. But we read on a daily basis that hackers are able to penetrate supposedly secure networks and obtain/manipulate personal data. Many times intrusions are not even detected unless the hacker wants to make a point.

    So I believe the risk to elections (particularly highly contested, close elections) is very real. It would not take a lot to shift the results of an election.

    The cost to pay poll workers is a very good investment to keep elections open, fair, and honest.

  6. A lot needs to be cleaned up in Virginia still. Observers have too much access to voters’ personal information.

    I have made up my mind not to call out my name and address again in front of the world. I will present it on a sheet of paper. If I am denied the right to vote….well… I am sure there are all sorts of junkyard dogs who would take the case.

    Some pretty creepy people sit in the polls and have access to that information.

  7. Scout

    This is one of those modern political hysteria binges that seem to be so popular with elected officials. First you sell the idea that something really horrible is happening, and then create a fix for it with new regulations or restrictions.

    I very much doubt that ineligible voting is very much a problem in the country, although it may be more likely to occur in pockets here and there than it is generally. I haven’t seen any data that indicate that this is a widespread occurrence. The biggest voting problem we have is the large number of people who don’t vote who ARE eligible. Even in those cases where ineligibility does exist, however, I suspect that the ineligibility is caused by failure of otherwise eligible voters to get their acts together to register and then wanting to vote in an election two days away.

    Having said this, it seems I always get asked for an ID to vote as well as for a zillion other things (I love it when they check me for alcohol). If there’s a problem with any of this, it’s finding a system that enables every eligible person to vote if he wants to, but still satisfies the citizenry as a whole that the process is accurate and credible.

    1. @Scout, I don’t think I have ever been checked for alcohol, although I probably should have been the first time I voted.

      I think both extremes are on the hysterical side. I just don’t mind being asked for ID and there is the safety net of a provisional ballot.

      I won’t lose sleep one way or the other. It is rare that I agree with Republicans so this time I will say go for it.

  8. marinm

    Trust me. You don’t want our voting system to be electronic in a way that it can be…influenced one way or the other.

    No system is unbreakable. It will eventually get breached.

    I of course disagree with the main thesis here — showing my ID to an agent of the government. I would rather sign that piece of paper that says they can bring me before a Judge if there is a question on my ballot.

    This is legislation looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.

    1. Marin, how do we keep ineligible people from voting if no ID is required? I have to show one now. Do you not get asked?

      I am more concerned about lurkers having private information than I am a representative of the govt. I don’t think those people would come flatten my tires in the night. There is no reason that my address and middle names should be bellowed all over the voting area.

  9. marinm

    @Moon-howler

    I get asked every time I vote. I then ask to fill out an “Affirmation of ID”, sign it and confirm my address.

    If they’re worried about too many votes being cast lets use ink on peoples fingers so 1 person = 1 vote.

    I agree with the ACLU here that this is legislation looking for a reason to exist. This is not Chicago. We don’t have those voting irregularities here.

    Private information lurkers? Trust me the voting roles are your least concern. 👿

  10. marinm

    *rolls. Oops!!

  11. Censored bybvbl

    Only in the last decade have I been asked for a driver’s license or photo ID in order to vote. Has there been a record of voting fraud to support requiring this additional ID? I can understand supplying the info when one registers. And I can understand supplying the registrar with names of felons not eligible to vote or with death records to strike names from the rolls. Until an ID is easily and freely obtained by all eligible voters, I’m reluctant to require a picture ID.

    1. Not around here, to my knowledge.

      I think the problem has also been dead people. I have heard people complain that no one ever notifies the voting registrar of people who have died. Somehow those people should be in the loop. On the other hand, how would anyone necessarily know where a person was registered to vote? I am thinking of my mother as we speak. I should probably unregister her in Charlottesville.

      I think certainly the picture ID required for voting should be free either where they register to vote or at DMV. I would like original registration to be a little more formal actually. To me it was a big deal. Now it just sort of seems willy nilly. Maybe more people would vote if registering to do it was more of a big deal.

  12. Censored bybvbl

    I wonder if there’s a way to hook up the registrar’s office with whoever maintains the death records and have these counterchecked quarterly or at some regular interval. Maybe it’s already done. I doubt that many family members think of the registrar’s office when they’re putting family papers in order.

  13. marinm

    It does tickle me that the Federales are quite content with a bank statement or a utility bill being used as proof of ID.

    1. Maybe the electric company should be taking pictures and putting them on the bills. @ marin.

Comments are closed.