you really need to get out more!

registration already requires id

voting is a right , once one is registered, they should not have to continue presenting id if they have a voting card,,,,

Sure, like you have to appear in person to register

Guess somebody doesn't know what a "community organizer" really is huh?

"Are you registered to vote? Just fill out this form."

The organizers (like Obozo) sit around all day ftlling out these forms from death records, immigrant forms, and for non-english speaking people.

The demonrat party would lose 1/2 its voters if voter ID was enforced!

Not to say the Repulsicon party are a better solution

There are only 2 parties in the US....the dems and repubs (one and the same),.....and everyone else

Photo ID with thumbprint.

When they present their ID to sign in, they put their thumbprint next to their signature, or X, whichever they use.

Permanent ink will insure they don't try to reenter.

Cities offer FREE transportation to those who can verify they cannot afford to get themselves there.

The same Liberal buses used to transport the dead and illegal voters could give them a ride.

Hell. We might even see dead thug voting when he turns 18.

Yeah. It should be my "right" to get "MY" money out of my bank, but they make me show my ID.

And I defy you to show any examples where it was proven. I'm sure most countries do have some sort of ID requirements to vote. So does the USA. It comes when you register to vote. They match your data with public records. Good luck registering a deceased person and then if you actually attempt to vote for the deceased, it's very easy to get caught, subject to a $10,000 fine; all for a statistically insignificant ballot.

Good luck with that.

actually, all you need is the card issued when you opened the account,,,,,swipe it with the password you chose,,,

that's it

I was referring to cashing a check at a teller. The need for ID in voting is so obvious. People cheat. People are paid to cheat. The only ones who are against ID are the ones who want the cheating to continue.

The National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter) of 1993 was spearheaded by liberal activists and supported by the Democrats.

The act required states to allow voter registration when a "qualifying" voter applied for or renewed a driver's license or applied for social services.

It also allowed voters to register through the mail.

Unfortunately, the act did not allow in person applications to be challenged or require identification for mail in applications.

Since the Democrats are supporting drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in Maryland, Illinois, and Minnesota, the main question is whether these states can have voter photo ID laws to prevent fraudulent voting. The Motor Voter Act doesn't require proof of citizenship to sign up for voter registration and this may allow illegal immigrants to vote in elections.

The Democrats are supporting immigration reform but are doing so in an ambiguous way. While the DNC states that the immigrants should learn English, pay penalties, and "get right" for their illegal immigration, the DNC refuses to make a statement regarding voter fraud from illegal immigrants.

The ultimate conclusion is that Democrats want to use loopholes in the Motor Voter Act to swell their ranks. By supporting illegal immigrants, Democrats want to increase their support based onquid pro quo rather than on ideological merits. Illegal immigrants can count on Democrats to support them and, in return, illegals can support the Democrats no matter what the issue.

Okay, I'm slightly confused here.

If I'm wrong, MsHarmony, please forgive me. Are you really arguing AGAINST voter ID? You actually OPPOSE a person having to show a picture ID to vote legally?

You seem to agree you should need ID to register, correct? But yet you don't want them to give you a specific voter ID WHEN you register, one with YOUR picture on it, and YOUR signature on it, so that when you show up to actually vote at your precinct, the officials can compare your picture to your person and verify your identity? Instead you argue that you should just show the ID when you register and get a card that is basically worthless as far as identifying an individual. I could give my card to any female and she could say she was me and how would they know at the precinct? They wouldn't. Not that I would ever do that but with the current system, I could! That certainly doesn't seem right. I just don't see how it's discriminatory to anyone to require ID to vote.

I have to show an ID to cash a check anywhere. I have to have picture ID to board an airplane. You're okay with having to show photo ID to GET a non-photo voter card, but not with getting an actual photo voter ID? And I wonder why I work myself into a tizzy trying to figure things out...

bnks and check csshing are not constitutional rights,, they require fees as well as card renewals and fees to vote are illegal

as far as a voter id, ,that is not what is being proposed

if you are speaking about an id when one registers with their picture on It, I am ALL FOR IT

however, what is proposed is photo ids at the EXPENSE and INCONVENIENCE of a voter EVERY TIME they vote in an election,,,,,voters who don't all have convenient locations or finances by which to get to offices like social security or birth/death records, to OBTAIN a photo id from the state

we are talking about a RECURRING expense to be able to vote, which is classist and unconstitutional,,,,,


an actual VOTER ID, issued when one registers, which has no expiration or renewal fees,,,all for it

why don't you suggest that to the people trying to make urban, impoverished, and elderly pay repeatedly throughout life to exercise their right to vote?

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to eliminate discriminatory election practices….It was needed then because existing federal anti-discrimination laws were not able to handle the strong resistance by "certain" states, cities, and counties to enforcement of the 15th amendment…During that time, voting discrimination practices had to be dealt with on a case by case basis, every time a case was proven unconstitutional, states would just substitute it with a new discriminatory practice …In June of this year, the Supreme Court basically struck down the most important section of that act by freeing 9 states to change their election laws WITHOUT advance federal approval…THIS WAS A GOOD THING because the Voting Rights Act is antiquated and should not have been renewed for 25 years!! in 1982!…The supreme court vote was 5 to 4 and the biggest disagreement was (IS) about whether or not racial minorities CONTINUE to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination…It was decided they DO NOT...Voter fraud is the reason for Voter ID, not discrimination....

I can understand how it might disenfranchise "some" black voters, especially considering the fact that these 9 states will no longer need federal approval for redistricting….Fact is, it might disenfranchise "some" white voters …It might also disenfranchise "some" hispanic and latino voters…Maybe it will even disenfranchise "some" Asian, American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander voters…But you hear who is crying the loudest don't you?…Botching about how Voter ID requirements will disenfranchise "some" voters is not nearly as relevant as what the law suits and political back biting example about our federal government… It paints a clear picture which shows how government interference continues to usurp our rights by muddying the waters with law after law after law….If congress wants to DIVIDE the states, they need to start by basing their actions on the present, not the past….The same goes for blacks, if they want to blame their problems on racism, institutional or otherwise, they need to equate them to the present, not the past…Screw Holder, he's probably just trying to beef up his chances for a win in 2016...

Not all states are the same. They don't issue voting cards.
What's the difference if you have to show ID to register then your ID is your "voter card"

In WI we don't have voter cards. I showed ID when I registered at my precinct. Now all I do is walk in and tell them my name, they find it in their books mark me off and I sign. No ID no voter card nothing.

the difference is voting shouldn't have to have a continual COST,, its a right

if voting ids are going be given FREE OF CHARGE upon registration, that is one thing

if people are going to be asked to repeatedly go through expense and travel of traveling and paying for state ids or drivers licenses, which have expiration dates,,,,and charges attached

I say that's a classist and bs way of obstructing what is supposed to be RIGHT regardless of financial status,,,,,

The National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter) of 1993 was spearheaded by liberal activists and supported by the Democrats.

The act required states to allow voter registration when a "qualifying" voter applied for or renewed a driver's license or applied for social services.

It also allowed voters to register through the mail.

Unfortunately, the act did not allow in person applications to be challenged or require identification for mail in applications.

Since the Democrats are supporting drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in Maryland, Illinois, and Minnesota, the main question is whether these states can have voter photo ID laws to prevent fraudulent voting. The Motor Voter Act doesn't require proof of citizenship to sign up for voter registration and this may allow illegal immigrants to vote in elections.

The Democrats are supporting immigration reform but are doing so in an ambiguous way. While the DNC states that the immigrants should learn English, pay penalties, and "get right" for their illegal immigration, the DNC refuses to make a statement regarding voter fraud from illegal immigrants.

The ultimate conclusion is that Democrats want to use loopholes in the Motor Voter Act to swell their ranks. By supporting illegal immigrants, Democrats want to increase their support based onquid pro quo rather than on ideological merits. Illegal immigrants can count on Democrats to support them and, in return, illegals can support the Democrats no matter what the issue.

Millions more reasons for Voter ID


There are zero intelligent arguments against voter ID laws. There is not a single gibmedat that votes that doesn't have an ID, otherwise they wouldn't be gettin their gibmees.
So the absurd argument that it "disenfranchises" black people and latinos we have heard over and over again is about as racist as it gets. Do Democrats just assume that blacks and latino people are too stupid to know how to get an ID?

im democrat
I don't support giving driver license to those who are not citizen

my whole family is democrat, none of them support it

none of the democrats we know support it

as to the 'coincidence',, its a 'coincidence' that all FOUR of the states that require id, Georgia, Indiana, ks and tennesse is not a coincidence, judging by history

Georgia has been reliably Republican since, except when a southern Democrat was on the ticket – Georgians sided with homegrown Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992. In 2004, George Bush easily defeated John Kerry by 58% to 41%, but the Republican margins have been more narrow since then

Indiana joined the Union in December 1816. It has been primarily Republican throughout its history, and today is the “reddest” state in the Midwest. Since 1940, it has only voted Democratic in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won a landslide over Barry Goldwater and again in 2008, when Barack Obama edged John McCain in the 3rd closest race of that election (behind Missouri and North Carolina)

KANSS: The state is strongly Republican in presidential elections; it hasn’t voted for a Democrat since 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won in a landslide.


TN: Since the 1950s, Republicans have usually won here, although there have been a few exceptions, most recently Bill Clinton (with home-state Senator Al Gore as vice president) in 1992 and 1996.

http://www.270towin.com/states/Tennessee''''


not much of coincidence to fuss over,, all FOUR states which happen to require photo id happen to be republican states which usually DONT VOTE DEMOCRAT

So just to clarify because I don't want to assume things here...

You need to show documents that confirm your identity to get the voter card (birth certificate, passport, SS card, photo driver license, etc.) but then you have to keep these documents somewhere and show them again at the next election to get a new voter card for that election? Is that how it would work under the proposed plan? How does that make it a recurring expense? I'm still not following...you have the original documents you used to get the voter card in the first place so why would you have to go get them again at an additional expense the next year? Sure, you'd have to get a new card but are they asking us to pay for the new voter card each year?

They can't make me pay to vote, I'm almost certain of this, but I think it's fair they make me confirm who I am before I vote. I admittedly don't know all the details on the proposed plan and maybe I'm just obtuse but it seems to me that issuing a photo voter ID card when you register would be the way to go.

no, picture ids cost money, and they expire,, whether they are state id or drivers license ,, they expire and cost to be renewed

the right to vote doesn't have to be 'renewed',,,,

that means people will have to PAY to use their right to vote indefinitely,, everytime their state id expires,,, they will have to have the cost of a new id in order to exercise their right to vote

contrary to what many believe there are MANY MANY americans who have no ids, don't use bank accounts (Because they are poor) and don't have transportation nor live near places which issue ids,,,,

its an exhorbinant obstacle and unfair disadvantage based in class that is not constitutional,, imho

voting shouldn't be something we have to keep PAYING for throughout our lives

So far, Ms Wright, the only ones against Voters Identifying themselves are the ones who feel they have to cheat to win.

I am still waiting to see someone come on here with an intelligent argument against identifying oneself at the polls.

To get on welfare, to get SSI/SSD ya' need and ID.

If they get those things, they have what it takes to get a voter identification.