Law Professor Althouse asks, "So?"
In the comments are a lot of thoughts about why it is important, although the first comment is:
We would first have to pretend there is such a thing as an "impartial judge" to make this an issue, so I understand Ann's "so?"Ouch!
Then, further down, about 2:46 PM, comparing rights:
As I understand the theory, it's that showing a picture ID is an unreasonably burdensome obstacle in the way of exercising a constitutional right.OK, so maybe it is a bit over the top, but it is questions like this that put the issue into some context.
I reflected on that this past weekend when I purchased a pistol at a gunshow. Not only did I need to show a picture ID, but I had to fill out a lengthy questionnaire and wait for the feds to clear me over the phone.
There are people who may not lawfully own firearms. There are people who may not lawfully vote. Why are there different standards for exercising the two rights? Let's hear it for instant background checks for voters.
In Wisconsin, as of 2002, there were some 222,000 eligible voters who lacked ID. That would be just over 5% of the voting age population. I find the number to be surprisingly high, but I then wonder why this large percentage. The data is from a study by Professor John Pawasarat, used in arriving at the decision to issue a temporary injunction.
Finally, who are these people who have no ID and yet wish to vote? They appear to live in a phone booth and not cash checks or use credit cards. Do people bring them food? Are they part of the homeless, and if so, are they not part of the statistical gathering operation, and how does Lowell keep from double counting them, or not counting them at all.
People conjure up our past history of denying Blacks, Irish, sailors and others the right to vote. Today that list is pretty much down to sailors.
Regards — Cliff
7 comments:
Yesterday's Facebook posting
"I voted.. Then I went to the post office to pick up a missed delivery of arthritic medicine for a 12 year old cat, delivery slip in hand. Guess who asked for ID for proof of residence? I understand the pros and cons of an ID law, but it's just really weird not to show I.D., when other benign situations require it."
Can't get my mail from the government, unless I have an I.D. either.
This topic is silly. Should it become law that ID be presented, the goalposts will somehow be moved. The point is not to solve a problem, as no data exists that demonstrates a problem.
Thus, solving the non-problem will invite the fearmongers to blurt things like, "Any high schooler can get a false ID to buy beer. The vote can't be trusted"
The spreaders of electoral FUD care only that you doubt the veracity of the results. That you invalidate those elected, even if only in your mind.
Did "W" steal Florida? Did ACORN cheat?
The elected govern and their opponents squeal.
I am reminded of a comment out of Cook County in 1960, when it was suggested the election there (and in the State) had been stolen for JFK. The Cook County official is reported to have said, "We just stole it back from the people down state." Or maybe that is what Jack just said.
Once upon a time my youngest son, Clifford R R Krieger, lived in our house here in Lowell. He mailed in his voter registration, which appears to have been thrown in the circular file. What would have happened if he and I had walked into the polling place together, since there was only one Clifford R Krieger registered to vote? We didn't and he didn't get to vote and there was no offer of a provisional ballot. He was, needless to say, very unhappy about the whole thing. Did I mention no offer of a provisional ballot? Things can get messed up.
Regards — Cliff
I don't find it silly, just odd. It's important that the person is who they say they are. Isn't?
I've suggested that voters be required to sign in at the polls. Thus, the fabled fraudulent voters would suffer penalties associated to perjury.
However, since the high level proponents of ID req's wish to prevent votes; a post election enforcement tool, simply will not do.
Slanting the playing field with biased regulations does not square with America's brand of democracy.
Jack, I would be fine with a signature. What about invididuals, who can't sign their name? Even those who can not read or write are allowed to vote.
How about I.D. or signature.
How about your recent utility bill? In our Commonwealth that is sufficient, since one is required to have some form of identification at the polling place—not that you are required to "show" it, unless asked for it. You are required to have it with you.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment