Voter ID laws and Marriage

[Heywood]

I agree voter ID laws do not take away a person's right to vote, but they can burden it substantially. In the case of persons who would be required to pay for and get a photo ID just for the purpose of voting, that is a substantial burden. Given the energy levels of the elderly, and the transportation, time and income restraints of the working poor, it might very well prevent some voters.

If the poor are working, they have ID. You can't be legally employed in this country without providing ID proving who you are and your eligibility to work.

There are a variety of possible protections in lieu of ID. Oregon mails ballots to the voters address and compares the voter's signature on the ballot envelope with the signature on file with the voter registration.
Comparing signatures at the polling place might be a substitute for ID. Voters might even choose which of the two methods to use so the line slowed by checking everyone's signature.

If you forget or lose your ID you might still be able to board an airplane. The TSA has other methods of verifying your ID. I don't see why the same methods they use can't be used in elections. The point is if it is not unreasonable burden to ask for a person's ID in order to allow them to board an airplane, or get married, or buy cough syrup, or get a job, etc....it is not unreasonable to ask for a person's ID in order to vote.

Fingerprint ID taken at the time of registration and compared electronically at the time of voting would be very secure.

Finger print ID would disenfranchise the finger-less.....and we can't have that. Better that we create an opportunity for voter fraud than implement some law that disenfranchises even one finger-less voter. Would you buy that argument? I wouldn't. You can't cater to everyone

In my mind if you are going to have some controls to insure a fair election the people can take confidence in....somebody is going to get disenfranchised. Nirvana is not for this world....and no amount of legislation will ever bring it. You just have to accept that reality is a question of trade offs. Who should decide what an is an acceptable trade off? In my mind it is the electorate.

No, but they are time sensitive events. And they can create a time crunch for voters who have just moved. Recently, ID laws imposed weeks before the election have allowed little time at all.

The reason laws are implement recently is because the courts have issued injunctions and then removed those injunctions. If someone is disenfranchised because the law was recently implemented just before an election....blame the people who sought the injunction...blame the judge who issued it....and blame the judge who rescinded it prior to the election. Don't blame the people who advocate voter ID laws....because if they had their way such laws would be implemented well before an election.

Frankly, I prefer to do away with ID requirements for cough syrup, if indeed there are any in your state.

I agree

I doubt those too poor or too infirm to easily obtain a photo ID, fly very often if at all.

I doubt those too poor or too infirm to easily obtain a photo ID vote very often at all.

And again, voting is the right from which all other rights not constitutionally protected flow.

A fraudulent vote cast cancels out and thus disenfranchises a legitimate vote cast. Everyone has a vested interest in insuring our elections are fair and honest and can be held with confidence.