Texas Man Prevented from Committing Voter Fraud

[Flying Pig]

And if you are homeless, then you don't have a fixed address so you wouldn't be able to register to vote anyway. Are we going to say that voting laws are discriminatory towards the homeless now too?

Well, yes. I don't see any good reason not to allow homeless people the right to register to vote - you could take their biometric details even without a state ID card. Certainly you might argue that you would have less of a homelessness problem if an extra 3.5 million Americans to whom the issue mattered deeply were allowed to vote.

 

[JollyRoger]

Nobody's right to vote has been infringed in Texas and nobody is being unreasonably excluded from voting.

The 93 year old that was registered and had numerous items that proved his identity is having his right to vote infringed.

 

[Antilogic]

Your point? Paying for an ID is not a poll tax no matter how hard to try to try to spin it as such, so this post was irrelevant to the discussion.

My points are 1) modern voter ID schemes burden individual voters more than the illegal poll tax and they shouldn't, and 2) every citizen even if they are homeless is granted and should have the right to participate in the democracy.

I want to vote > Voter ID required > ID costs $20

It directly costs me $20 to vote.

That is a poll tax. No matter how hard you try to spin it as not being one.

Agreed. Seriously, we should start pushing for this and the extra reps in the House more publicly. We could actually get something done.

As a side note: Poll taxes are also not completely unconstitutional either. As it stands, the 24th Amendment only prohibits poll taxes in federal elections, so technically a state or locality could institute a poll tax for any state or local elections.

Yeah, but there is the 14th Amendment has the due process and equal protection clauses that extend constitutional rights from the federal level to the state level. This interpretation is upheld in numerous Supreme Court cases like Gideon v. Wainwright, which extended federal-level guarantees to legal representation to state-level criminal trials.

Well, yes. I don't see any good reason not to allow homeless people the right to register to vote - you could take their biometric details even without a state ID card. Certainly you might argue that you would have less of a homelessness problem if an extra 3.5 million Americans to whom the issue mattered deeply were allowed to vote.

An emphatic agreement here. You don't lose your rights when you are homeless.

 

[Old Hippy]

My points are 1) modern voter ID schemes burden individual voters more than the illegal poll tax and they shouldn't, and 2) every citizen even if they are homeless is granted and should have the right to participate in the democracy.

this seems like a no brainer, we have a state election in a couple of weeks and I've noticed posters at the libary and community centres (and no doudt homeless shelters and dropin centres) saying "homeless? you can register to vote here between ...."
so just in my suburb they are going to about 20 locations just to make sure homeless people have no problem voting, they will do the same thing for the elderly

if your an agency responsible for running an election, your also the agency responsible for making sure people can actually vote, you should not get to pick, we will stop people voting over we will help people to vote...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because an ID card can go a long way to getting that homeless guy back on his feet so he doesn't have to make that choice anymore.

In your part of the world homeless people are required to lay down or sit all the time?

Being homeless and quite happy about it I'm sure glad I don't live there.

By the way, ID cards make very poor canes. If someone has trouble getting on their feet an ID card is not a very good choice for them.

 

[Commodore]

Well, yes. I don't see any good reason not to allow homeless people the right to register to vote - you could take their biometric details even without a state ID card. Certainly you might argue that you would have less of a homelessness problem if an extra 3.5 million Americans to whom the issue mattered deeply were allowed to vote.

Biometrics doesn't prove your place of residence though, it only proves you are who you say you are. I'm asking this next question in all seriousness, not because I'm trying to insult you or make you look stupid: Do you really not know why having a verifiable address is important in elections?

 

[JollyRoger]

A verifiable address is important because if you have an expired ID with an address that matches your address on the voting rolls, you can vote . . . no wait

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Biometrics doesn't prove your place of residence though, it only proves you are who you say you are. I'm asking this next question in all seriousness, not because I'm trying to insult you or make you look stupid: Do you really not know why having a verifiable address is important in elections?

It keeps people from being shuttled en masse into neighboring districts to influence results that are not really their concern. Homeless people, by virtue of being homeless, aren't technically 'tied' to any particular district...so they would just have to claim one when they register.

That issue should not justify the disenfranchisement of homeless people. Of course of all the things the public doesn't want in their district, homeless people are probably right near the top of the list. No doubt there are plenty of people who think only the landed gentry should be entrusted with the vote.

 

[Antilogic]

Biometrics doesn't prove your place of residence though, it only proves you are who you say you are. I'm asking this next question in all seriousness, not because I'm trying to insult you or make you look stupid: Do you really not know why having a verifiable address is important in elections?

I'm asking this next question in all seriousness, not because I'm trying to insult you or make you look stupid: do you think a homeless person should have the right to vote?

 

[Commodore]

It keeps people from being shuttled en masse into neighboring districts to influence results that are not really their concern. Homeless people, by virtue of being homeless, aren't technically 'tied' to any particular district...so they would just have to claim one when they register.

That issue should not justify the disenfranchisement of homeless people. Of course of all the things the public doesn't want in their district, homeless people are probably right near the top of the list. No doubt there are plenty of people who think only the landed gentry should be entrusted with the vote.

But what is the solution? Just having them claim a district won't work because it allows people with no stake in a community to have an impact on those elections. For example there are drifters out there that just travel from town to town for whatever reason. Why should they be allowed to claim residency in whatever district they happen to be passing through at the time of an election and vote in that district's elections when a few days or weeks after the election they will be moving on to someplace else?

And yes, I do think a person should be tied to a particular district to be allowed to vote, at least in a federal system where location of voters actually has a significant impact on the outcome of elections. That is why I support residency requirements before one is eligible to vote in a certain district.

Now onto the part I bolded: Wow, so now we are operating on the assumption that simply having a place to live makes one an elitist snob? You used the term "landed gentry" which is defined as "consisting of land owners who could live entirely off rental income". Not everyone who has a fixed address is necessarily a land owner. A fixed address can be anything from a house, to an apartment, to a homeless shelter.

do you think a homeless person should have the right to vote?

Of course, as long as they are in compliance with all voter registration laws. As I stated above, a homeless shelter fulfills the requirement for a fixed address, so there really isn't any voter requirement that is unreasonably outside of their reach.

And still no one has been able to demonstrate how this law in Texas disenfranchises "large numbers of people" as was claimed.

A verifiable address is important because if you have an expired ID with an address that matches your address on the voting rolls, you can vote . . . no wait

If anything this post actually demonstrates the importance of having a current ID.

 

[filli_noctus]

But what is the solution? Just having them claim a district won't work because it allows people with no stake in a community to have an impact on those elections. For example there are drifters out there that just travel from town to town for whatever reason. Why should they be allowed to claim residency in whatever district they happen to be passing through at the time of an election and vote in that district's elections when a few days or weeks after the election they will be moving on to someplace else?

Should students - who often only spend half the year in the place they're registered - be allowed to vote? What about final year students who are likely to move away at the end of the academic year? For that matter what about people are in the process of selling their house? All of these people have as little stake in the community they're voting in as transients.

 

[Antilogic]

Of course, as long as they are in compliance with all voter registration laws. As I stated above, a homeless shelter fulfills the requirement for a fixed address, so there really isn't any voter requirement that is unreasonably outside of their reach.

How much money is appropriate for the state to charge a homeless person to buy an ID card? Or, if the state tries to weasel out of this question like how they did in NC, how much money should they pay for the supporting documentation required to get their supposedly free ID?

And I'm putting aside the far more interesting question of whether we should have districts in the first place. But whatevs, let's stick to this narrow example.

And still no one has been able to demonstrate how this law in Texas disenfranchises "large numbers of people" as was claimed.

Regarding Texas, this is the first moderate-turnout election we are going to have under the new voting regime, and statistics on people who just stay home instead of dealing with the new requirement will take a few iterations to compile. The number turned away will be relatively easy to calculate on election day if the state is honest, collects such figures, and releases them. Historically, this has not been the case and outside election monitors are going to have to do the grunt work.

Should students - who often only spend half the year in the place they're registered - be allowed to vote? What about final year students who are likely to move away at the end of the academic year? For that matter what about people are in the process of selling their house? All of these people have as little stake in the community they're voting in as transients.

Was going to post something along these lines as well. The "stake in a community" line is incredibly subjective, and there are plenty of examples where it has been used to disenfranchise people. Particularly the poor or renters.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But what is the solution? Just having them claim a district won't work because it allows people with no stake in a community to have an impact on those elections.

So just because I'm homeless I have no stake in the community?

As to the idea that homeless people are 'drifters'...I hadn't really thought of it that way...

James...James!!! Bring the car around! I do believe I'll be moving on now!

Yeah, I hear that a lot from homeless people.

The 'landed gentry' thing wasn't meant to suggest that you had pushed that direction, just that you are using the same argument as people who do. Point of fact a tenant generally has much greater mobility than a homeless person, thus is more capable of 'drifting' out of the district. So when the property owners say the tenants don't 'have a real stake' they are probably closer to correct.

 

[.Shane.]

This.

Conservatives should be up in arms.

You have that backwards. At least in US politics.

 

[Commodore]

How much money is appropriate for the state to charge a homeless person to buy an ID card? Or, if the state tries to weasel out of this question like how they did in NC, how much money should they pay for the supporting documentation required to get their supposedly free ID?

And I'm putting aside the far more interesting question of whether we should have districts in the first place. But whatevs, let's stick to this narrow example.

The supporting documentation needed to get a state-issued ID is usually a birth certificate and a social security card. Your parents should have paid for those when you were born and given them to you once you became an adult, thus you should not have to pay for them. If you lost your birth certificate or your social security card then, again, I have no sympathy for you if you have to pay to replace them. If your parents lost them or did not provide you with those documents upon reaching adulthood, then you should be mad at them, not at the state for charging you to obtain them.

And the appropriate amount to charge would be however much it costs the state to retrieve those documents or produce that ID for you. Most state right now actually charge below that cost and so actually take a small loss on the IDs they produce.

As to the question of whether or not we should have districts: Of course we should. The only election where the case could be made that place of residence doesn't matter is the presidential election. All other elections require districts for a myriad of reasons.

 

[JollyRoger]

If anything this post actually demonstrates the importance of having a current ID.

If the man doesn't need current id for any other purpose, an expired id that verifies who he is should be enough to confirm right to vote - especially if the address on the id matches with the one on the voter rolls.

 

[Tee Kay]

As to the question of whether or not we should have districts: Of course we should.

Except the way a large number of districts are drawn in the US effectively disenfranchises a large proportion of the community.

Behold the real electoral fraud problem:

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So if my driver's license expires the photo on it turns into someone else? Or do I? Any hints who I might turn into, because if it's someone really cool I might just let it expire...

I had an interesting situation with credit cards. Zellers accepted my ALCB card as valid photo ID (issued by the provincial government and I still look like the picture, even though it was taken in 1987). Other places refuse to take that as a valid ID "because it doesn't expire."

If a state wants to enforce voter id, it should provide a free photo id upon registration to vote.

Agreed. This is a point that has come up time and again with Stephen Harper's so-called "Fair Elections Act" that is supposedly meant to prevent voter fraud, but is really meant to disenfranchise people who are poor, homeless, disabled, students, and elderly - make it difficult or impossible to get what is considered a valid photo ID, and you eliminate those pesky people who are unlikely to vote Conservative.

Because an ID card can go a long way to getting that homeless guy back on his feet so he doesn't have to make that choice anymore.

And if you are homeless, then you don't have a fixed address so you wouldn't be able to register to vote anyway. Are we going to say that voting laws are discriminatory towards the homeless now too?

Yes. They definitely are, if they prevent homeless people from voting.

Should students - who often only spend half the year in the place they're registered - be allowed to vote? What about final year students who are likely to move away at the end of the academic year? For that matter what about people are in the process of selling their house? All of these people have as little stake in the community they're voting in as transients.

Shades of the Quebec premier who felt students from out-of-province shouldn't be allowed to vote because they might not stay in Quebec. As far as I'm concerned, if a student is spending 4 years studying at a university, living in the riding, spending money in the riding, and working in the riding, that student should damn well be allowed to vote in that riding. After all, that's where they live.

The eligibility to vote in Alberta is this: Canadian citizen 18 years or older, resident in the riding in which he/she votes on the actual day of the election. The eligibility requirements regarding provincial residency used to be 6 months; I'm not sure if that's changed. There is not one syllable about if someone might dare to sneak out of the riding on some future date, and thus have no "stake" in the future of that riding.

 

[Commodore]

Except the way a large number of districts are drawn in the US effectively disenfranchises a large proportion of the community.

Behold the real electoral fraud problem:

Agreed. Gerrymandering is a huge problem, but the solution is not to get rid of voting districts, because they are actually pretty important for Congressional, local, and state elections.

I think proportional representation would actually be the best solution to gerrymandering problems in US elections. It is a bit of a long read, but I found this a while back and it explains how proportional representation would eliminate gerrymandering.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Agreed. Gerrymandering is a huge problem, but the solution is not to get rid of voting districts, because they are actually pretty important for Congressional, local, and state elections.

I think proportional representation would actually be the best solution to gerrymandering problems in US elections. It is a bit of a long read, but I found this a while back and it explains how proportional representation would eliminate gerrymandering.

Proportional representation fixes gerrymandering...therefore good.

Proportional representation requires either a large cut in the number of districts or a large increase in the number of representatives. Both of those paths present difficulties in following them.