Ohio approves voter ID law

[WCSox]

OK.

 

How about $20 to go to Church? 

 

You need clothing to go to church. It's the individual's job to pay for that, not the government. Uncle Sam won't fill the collection plate, either.

 

$30 to speak your mind about a politician?

 

It's not the government's job to supply one with a computer and internet connection for blogging.

 

$50 to walk down the street?

 

It's the individual's job to buy their own shoes as well.

 

It's a major tenet of law in this country that RIGHTS are not to be paid for.  That's why poll taxes were struck down.  PRIVILEGES (and driving is, BTW, a privilege in the legal sense, not a right), can be charged for.

 

So, if these same people who can't afford a once-in-a-lifetime $30 payment for an ID card also need a free ride to the voting booth, is it the government's job to supply bus fare as well? Is it also the government's job to also supply them with clothing so that they don't break indecent exposure laws on their way to the voting booth?

[Rex Kickass]

It's legal to walk to the voting booth. That costs nothing. It's legal to wear old clothes to the voting booth (which you can obtain freely if you need it badly enough). It's not legal to ask someone to pay to exercise their right to vote.

 

Is spending 20 bucks to get an ID going to make anyone who votes, not? Probably not. But its the principle of it. You don't make people pay to vote. You just don't.

[WCSox]

It's legal to walk to the voting booth. That costs nothing. It's legal to wear old clothes to the voting booth (which you can obtain freely if you need it badly enough). It's not legal to ask someone to pay to exercise their right to vote.

 

Is spending 20 bucks to get an ID going to make anyone who votes, not? Probably not. But its the principle of it. You don't make people pay to vote. You just don't.

 

Everyone over the age of 20 has to pay to obtain some sort of photo ID necessary to purchase alcoholic beverages (which we have the Constitutional RIGHT to buy/sell/drink). Nobody complains about that.

 

I completely agree that poll taxes are wrong. But if the problem is that poor people can't afford $30 for their voting cards, I'll gladly give them the money out of my own pocket... right after I take back the contribution that my taxes make towards their subsidized housing.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Everyone over the age of 20 has to pay to obtain some sort of photo ID necessary to purchase alcoholic beverages (which we have the Constitutional RIGHT to buy/sell/drink).  Nobody complains about that.

 

I completely agree that poll taxes are wrong.  But if the problem is that poor people can't afford $30 for their voting cards, I'll gladly give them the money out of my own pocket... right after I take back the contribution that my taxes make towards their subsidized housing.

 

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Everyone over the age of 20 has to pay to obtain some sort of photo ID necessary to purchase alcoholic beverages (which we have the Constitutional RIGHT to buy/sell/drink).  Nobody complains about that.

 

I completely agree that poll taxes are wrong.  But if the problem is that poor people can't afford $30 for their voting cards, I'll gladly give them the money out of my own pocket... right after I take back the contribution that my taxes make towards their subsidized housing.

 

How cute. It's not about whether people can or can't afford the card, its the principle of it. It's about requiring ID to vote as a "method" of reform when that was never really one of the big problems with voter fraud in Ohio to begin with.

 

What if it has to be a valid driver's license, and yours happens to expire the day before the election. You forget to renew your driver's license. Should you be denied your right to vote?

[WCSox]

How cute. 

 

Not to mention true. :rolly

 

What if it has to be a valid driver's license, and yours happens to expire the day before the election. You forget to renew your driver's license. Should you be denied your right to vote?

 

That's called negligence. Uncle Sam isn't reponsible for that, either.

[Rex Kickass]

But if the ID is clearly you, identity has been established, why should you be denied your right to vote?

 

Just like if someone goes to their local polling place and doesn't have an ID but the pollworker knows the person, grew up with the person and confirms his identity on behalf of the county or state, why should he be denied his right to vote?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But if the ID is clearly you, identity has been established, why should you be denied your right to vote?

 

Just like if someone goes to their local polling place and doesn't have an ID but the pollworker knows the person, grew up with the  person and confirms his identity on behalf of the county or state, why should he be denied his right to vote?

 

 

You make 1 person show ID then you have to make them all do it, otherwise you can rightfully cry foul.

[NorthSideSox72]

Everyone over the age of 20 has to pay to obtain some sort of photo ID necessary to purchase alcoholic beverages (which we have the Constitutional RIGHT to buy/sell/drink).  Nobody complains about that.

 

I completely agree that poll taxes are wrong.  But if the problem is that poor people can't afford $30 for their voting cards, I'll gladly give them the money out of my own pocket... right after I take back the contribution that my taxes make towards their subsidized housing.

 

Its clear you don't understand what constitutes a legal right. Fortunately, the courts do, which is why every attempt to force any sort of poll tax (even indirect ones) has failed in the courts. A person has to be allowed to vote regardless of financial situation - that's a Constitutional right.

 

And no, you do NOT have the Constitutional right to drink. Read the amendments. Alcohol can rightly be distributed, sold and bought. There is nothing in the Constitution about ensuring that you get a drink every four years. There is something in there about voting.

 

Again, ID at the polls is fine with me, and will be fine with the courts as long as it doesn't place a financial burden on the voter. If anyone wants to place a bet on how this will go over in the courts if they DON'T provide free IDs or an alternative, I'll gladly take you to the cleaners.

[YASNY]

I'm with NorthSideSox 100% on this issue. Once a 'poll tax' is established in any manner or form, then precedent will have been set. Then, theoretically, the financial level can be raised at will to prevent certain citizens from voting.

[jasonxctf]

I'm with NorthSideSox 100% on this issue.  Once a 'poll tax' is established in any manner or form, then precedent will have been set.  Then, theoretically, the financial level can be raised at will to prevent certain citizens from voting.

 

exactly. who's to say that for id/license renewal, the state doesnt decide to raise the amount to $100?

[southsider2k5]

So once again... how do you stop people from committing voter fraud without using IDs?

[WCSox]

Its clear you don't understand what constitutes a legal right.

 

 

And no, you do NOT have the Constitutional right to drink.  Read the amendments.  Alcohol can rightly be distributed, sold and bought.

 

And if I'm of legal age to purchase alcohol but cannot produce proof of my age, I'm denied my Constitutional right to purchase alcohol. There's no difference.

[NorthSideSox72]

So once again... how do you stop people from committing voter fraud without using IDs?

 

You don't.

 

You require IDs, and make sure there is some way to get a free ID.

 

Driving is a privilege, so you can still charge for those. But for those who just want a simple state ID to vote, that should be free.

[NorthSideSox72]

And if I'm of legal age to purchase alcohol but cannot produce proof of my age, I'm denied my Constitutional right to purchase alcohol.  There's no difference.

 

You really think there is no difference, huh? You don't see the difference between the right to PURCHASE alcohol (notice the key verb there) and the right to VOTE (again, key verb)? You see, one requires money. The other does not. if there was a Constitutional right to free, unabated access to alcohol, then they'd be the same thing.

[WCSox]

You really think there is no difference, huh?  You don't see the difference between the right to PURCHASE alcohol (notice the key verb there) and the right to VOTE (again, key verb)?  You see, one requires money.  The other does not.  if there was a Constitutional right to free, unabated access to alcohol, then they'd be the same thing.

 

There's another Constitutional Ammendment that gives Americans the right to bear arms. And in many places, one needs a license to own a firearm. The fact that the government isn't giving out the licenses for free (or the guns, for that matter) is irrelevant.

Edited February 3, 2006 by WCSox

[NorthSideSox72]

There's another Constitutional Ammendment that gives Americans the right to bear arms.  And in many places, one needs a license to own a firearm.  The fact that the government isn't giving out the licenses for free (or the guns, for that matter) is irrelevant.

 

Actually, its highly relevant, and that's a good comparison to make. In fact, if you look at my earlier posts, I made that very comparison (FOID cards). Further, organizations like the NRA who support protecting the second amendment have pointed out this very thing. Again, you cannot charge for a right. And, BTW, mosts states don't - IL is an exception with the FOID card. In most states, you can own at least some types of firearms (shotguns, rifles) as an assumed right.

[WCSox]

Actually, its highly relevant, and that's a good comparison to make.  In fact, if you look at my earlier posts, I made that very comparison (FOID cards).  Further, organizations like the NRA who support protecting the second amendment have pointed out this very thing.  Again, you cannot charge for a right.  And, BTW, mosts states don't - IL is an exception with the FOID card.  In most states, you can own at least some types of firearms (shotguns, rifles) as an assumed right.

 

Aren't guns supposedly illegal within Chicago city limits? I thought I heard something about that once, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

I agree that poll taxes and the rest of that Jim Crow-type crap has no place in America. I just think that the hypocrisy regarding gun permits in some places is laughable. Voter ID cards (or some form of citizenship ID cards) are a great idea. Unfortunatley, it's being turned into a discrimination issue when it really shouldn't be.

[Rex Kickass]

Handguns are illegal. I believe.

 

Voter ID cards are fine. But you can't charge people to get them.

[Mplssoxfan]

Just for the hell of it, I thought I'd post the 24th Amendment.

 

Amendment 24 - Poll tax barred

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

 

Pretty clear language, I think.

[EvilMonkey]

Seriously, who, over the age of 18, doesn't already have SOME form of ID? You have to have it for almost anything you do, so why is it so hard to produce SOMETHING to prove who you are?

[Balta1701]

Seriously, who, over the age of 18, doesn't already have SOME form of ID?  You have to have it for almost anything you do, so why is it so hard to produce SOMETHING to prove who you are?

On average, roughly 10% of American citizens have no form of ID, depending on what state you're in/city you're in/conditions you live in.