Debate over voter ID opens in Senate

[stevedeshazer]

Source: Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN, Texas — Over vociferous Democratic objections, the Republican-controlled Senate began debating election reforms Tuesday that would require Texans to provide identification papers before voting.

Democrats, comparing the proposal to a modern-day poll tax, tried in vain to delay consideration of the legislation. Republicans say the ID requirements, which would take effect in time for the pivotal 2010 elections, are necessary to stop voter fraud.

The author of the proposal, Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, conjured up images of the old Daley machine in Chicago and of infamous Box 13 — stuffed with votes for Lyndon Johnson in a 1948 Senate race. He says the threat is still there — from non-citizen immigrants, crooks and dead people.

"Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the United States, it's also alive in Texas," Fraser said. "I believe the dangers of voter fraud has threatened the entire electoral process."

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6304339.html

---

This is a classic bait-and-switch tactic by the Republicans -- swapping "voter fraud", which is very rare -- for "election fraud".

Frank Luntz will be handed a big fat check real soon.

[Ian David]

1. Oh, thank god. I thought this was Intelligent Design again. n/t

[elleng]

2. Yea, those dead people are some threat.

Typical rep ploy; use words to confuse, and repeat repeat repeat.

[AndyTiedye]

3. Time for the TX Senate Democrats to Go On Another Out-of-State Holiday

[msongs]

4. wow, in the US AND Texas, Is Texas not in the US? Is this targeting....black people by chance? nt

[Downwinder]

8. No. Seniors! n/t

[MrsBrady]

5. this is about power and keeping it

they don't want minorities or the poor voting....things are starting to turn blue and pink in some places...
they are trying to stop that.

Texas is majority minority, and the repukes are trying to stay in power at all costs.

This will pass the Texas Senate, but let's hope not in the house.
We can hope.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. When I exercise my Supreme Court affirmed individual right

to purchase a firearm I have to present valid photo I.D. and fill out a two page questioner with numerous warnings about prosecution for false information and sign it swearing that all is correct. Then I have to wait while all my information to be called into a Federal data base to verify that all my information is correct and that I do not have anything on my record that would prohibit me from exercising that right.

I suppose that a similar system could be instituted to insure the integrity of our voting system and still be constitutional.

[roseBudd]

16. The difference being you can afford to buy nonessentials like guns, and you want a gun...

being faced with obtaining ID just to vote, when voting doesn't really seem to do much good, especially for the poor, what percentage of the poor will obtain ID just to vote.

They have the right to vote, and it's unequal protection when people who drive cars don't have to do anything extra to vote but the nondriving elderly & poor do.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. They are both rights. There is NO difference. Hell, I can make my on gun

if I want to so your expense argument is specious.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. When I registered to vote I had to assert under penalty of perjury that the info was true.

That's essentially the same way it happened in every state where I've registered. One of the items that I needed to divulge was the most recent place where I was registered -- that's because the new location may notify the old one that I'm no longer eligible to vote there. I was also told that I may be asked to show something that verified that I lived at the address the first time I voted from a location, but that could be something as simple as a utility bill with my name on it.

Why are procedures like this in so many states? Because the risk of denying eligible voters is much higher than the chance of catching someone trying to vote fraudulently. The more barriers placed in front of voters, the more likely they won't be able vote. Voter fraud exists but isn't a big problem and it's certainly not a big enough problem to require everyone to produce ID in order to vote.

Election fraud is a much easier way to rig the vote these days. Rather than putting the onus on voters we would be wise to enact stricter controls on voting systems and tabulations.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. EVERY time you purchase a gun you go through it, not just the one

time you get a permission slip to buy the gun.

I believe that it is wise to enact stricter controls on the voting system as well. But I also believe that the current registration and proof of who you are must be "shored up".

If a person choses to not go through the requirements and not vote that is their choice. Both the right to vote and the right to own firearms are important rights. I believe that both should be held to vigorous standards however.

[Gormy Cuss]

21. With due respect, purchasing a gun and voting aren't even remotely the same.

You may argue that going through the gun registration is unnecessary but it's an entirely different topic than voting. If you choose not to go through the requirements to get a gun, you don't have the immediate effect of losing your voice in governance.

We got rid of poll taxes in this country specifically because they were a barrier to voting to many legitimate citizens. Prior to that citizens chose not to pay the poll taxes so I guess they chose not to vote. Coercive 'choices' have no place in voting guidelines.


on edit: and BTW, every time I vote I am required to sign a voter log and asserts that I am still entitled to vote from this address. If I vote absentee I am required to do the same.

[Hoopla Phil]

22. Then we will have to agree to disagree on the issue. I do not

find it overly intrusive and see it as a way to insure the integrity of our voting system. I also see these two rights in the same light we regard to regulation.

[roseBudd]

23. You think it is not intrusive because you drive a car...

and you probably are not living on less than $10,000 a year

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Both points are irrelevant.

[roseBudd]

28. No they are not, voting is a right extended to all, even the indigent

[Hoopla Phil]

30. Yes. and your points have nothing to do with that. They ARE entitled to

vote. BUT they should be able to prove who they are each and every time they do it. It is NOT unconstitutional to have them do so.

[roseBudd]

34. And what part of documentation is neither free, easily obtainable or even available do you not

understand.

You can not obtain a government provided photo ID without documentation that proves your birth.

That documentation is not free, may not exist, elderly rural, or be difficult to obtain, out of state or the courthose burned down.

If you can't see why the GOP would prefer a certain percentage of elderly, minority and poor citizens not exercise the franchise you have not figured out why the GOP tries so hard to pass photo ID laws. In Indiana elderly nuns were prevented from voting in the primary. Yet you believe people who have no need for a photo ID because they don't drive, fly, cash checks or buy gund should be required to acquire photo ID just to vote.

Since you are so paranoid about people pretending to be someone they are not, just so they can cast an extra vote, I am surprised you have not considered how a baby footprint proves anything about anybody. All the 9/11 hijackers had phony drivers licenses.

When I register voters they provide me with the last 4 digits of their social, their address, and change of address if appropriate and their birth date. They also provide a signature which poll workers then watch voters sign in so they can detect non matches.

[Hoopla Phil]

36. So what? My point is that those requirements are imposed on one

right, the right to have firearms, and as such may be applied to another right - the right to vote.

You do an admirable job of casting specious arguments but they are just that, specious. The expense is irrelevant, the difficulty in obtaining the proof is also irrelevant. You tossing in the 9/11 hijackers is just laughable in it's irrelevance. Your description of how easy it is for you to register voters only highlights the need to put something much better in place.

[roseBudd]

38. In the scheme of things your precious guns are not nearly as important to democracy as you fantasize

And your "so what" is so callous it is quite telling how you feel about the people who are too poor to ever drive, fly and their rights to vote.

There was a thing called a poll tax. And if you can't figure out why it was deemed unconstitutional, then you don't really get democracy.

When I call my bank the last 4 digits of my social and birth date are sufficient.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. I simply refuse to be baited into a discussion not relevant to the OP.

Despite your insults. You have given no valid reason NOT to institute better voter identification. Rather your try to shift the topic to something else and now have resorted to personnel insults. If you do not want to do the very best at identifying who a person is in order to protect our voting system then you really don't get democracy at all.

[roseBudd]

40. Senate Democrats sought to question AG Greg Abbott on the $1.4 million his office spent

investigating voter fraud – without finding a single case where someone tried to impersonate an eligible voter at a polling place.

• 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a felony offense.

• Only two states - Maine and Vermont - permit inmates to vote.

• 35 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole and 30 of these states exclude felony probationers as well.

• Two states deny the right to vote to all ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. Nine others disenfranchise certain categories of ex-offenders and/or permit application for restoration of rights for specified offenses after a waiting period (e.g., five years in Delaware and Wyoming, and two years in Nebraska).


• Each state has developed its own process of restoring voting rights to ex-offenders but most of these restoration processes are so cumbersome that few ex-offenders are able to take advantage of them.

[Hoopla Phil]

41. Has nothing to do with the O.P. Sorry, try again.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

43. LOL HaHaHa. You so funny. Please keep your comments to the O.P.

[roseBudd]

24. Mentally unstable voters don't kill people with their ballots

[Hoopla Phil]

26. Not the point. Is it reasonable to institute such a procedure before walking into the

polling booth as purchasing a firearm. I believe so. It would go a long way in protecting the integrity of our election system.

[roseBudd]

27. I don't, everyone, even the homeless has a right to vote, the mentally unstable & felons

do not have a right to buy a firearm.

It is unequal because people who drive don't have to do a damn thing to vote besides get in the car and drive to the polling location.

[Hoopla Phil]

31. We'll have to agree to disagree here. You are wrong in one point though

Felons do not have a right to vote.

Weather a person has a car is not germain to the right to vote. People did it often before there were cars. LOL

[roseBudd]

32. Felons do have a right to vote in the majority of states, it is the Jim Crow South for the most

part that practices felon disenfranchisement and it was used as a tool in 2000 to disenfranchise African Americans in Florida to benefit George W. Bush

[Hoopla Phil]

37. Correction - most states do not allow felons to vote.

Now if you want to discuss that issue please start a different post as it is not germain to the O.P. You are very masterful at attempting to divert from the topic though, I'll give you that. I would suspect that your next post would be to site my assertion. Ha Ha. You made the initial assertion so it is up to you to site but I will not ask for such a thing as most here on D.U. know the status of felons and voting rights. LOL

[Downwinder]

7. How many bad checks are passed every day

by people with picture IDs?

The "old Daley machine in Chicago and of infamous Box 13 — stuffed with votes for Lyndon Johnson in a 1948 Senate race." were all insider fraud. Where is the open source code for the voting machines? Sun light is the best disinfectant, where is the transparency?

[w4rma]

9. Republicans aren't interested in doing away with election fraud. They just want hurdles to voting.nt

[struggle4progress]

10. Texas Senate sharply debates voter ID bill

Source: The Dallas Morning News

12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, March 11, 2009
By TERRENCE STUTZ

AUSTIN – Democratic and Republican senators skirmished Tuesday over legislation that would require Texans to show a photo ID before voting – but the debate was mainly for show, as the measure was expected to win approval.

From the moment the Senate convened Tuesday morning to consider the GOP-backed voter ID bill, it was obvious that any important votes would wind up 19-12, the exact partisan split in the chamber ...

Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio cited a study indicating that about 1 million of the state's 13.5 million registered voters lack a photo ID and would be harmed by the proposal ...

Senate passage of the measure was assured during the first week of the legislative session in January, when Republican senators pushed through a change in rules that exempted the bill from the so-called two-thirds requirement. Under that rule, no bill can come up for debate unless two-thirds of Senate members agree – a provision that allowed Democrats to kill the proposal two years ago ...

Read more: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-voterid_11tex.ART0.State.Edition2.4ac6919.html

---

The Rs must really be afraid of losing ground in Texas, unless they can disenfranchise a number of Democratic voters

[last_texas_dem]

11. Good to see the R's engaging in one of their favorite, time-honored tactics

Propose and try to ram through legislation to "solve" a situation in which a real problem doesn't even exist. Even better, this pointless attempt to complicate the voting process can be passed off as a "good government" measure, and will likely be interpreted as such by the general public.

[silverojo]

12. I've always had to show photo ID when I voted, and I don't mind

I mean, you have to show ID to cash a $5 check at the bank. Of course you should have to show ID to do something as important as voting.

[DUlover2909]

14. I'm gonna be nice, but others probably won't.

People get a card in the mail that allows them to vote based on their residence in a district. To get that card, the voter simply has to demonstrate citizenship and residence. A photo ID can be used as a replacement for the card when voting, but some people only use the card because they do not have a photo ID for any of several reasons, and most of those people are Democrats. The Repuklicans know this. That's why they are shoving this nonsense down our throats. First Delay illegally works with Texas legislators to gerrymander our districts, and now this? If these shenanigans hadn't taken place, Texas wouldn't be such a damned conservative red state.

[last_texas_dem]

15. I just fail to see the problem of fraudulent voting under the current system

Voting by using one's voter registration card or, if not, an alternative form of ID such as a driver's license seems to have worked pretty well. Check this from the article:

>>>Senate Democrats sought to question Attorney General Greg Abbott on the $1.4 million his office spent investigating voter fraud – without finding a single case where someone tried to impersonate an eligible voter at a polling place.>>>

Yup, those Repugs certainly demonstrated the great *need* for this legislation in TX. This is all about disenfranchising Democratic voters and has nothing to do with R's being concerned about the value of voting.

[marshall]

17. I can understand how it COULD happen, but it seems unlikely to happen

I can see the possibility of people registering under false names, deceased names, etc., collecting the cards and then voting multiple times under numerous activities. But in practical terms how often is that likely to happen? Who is going to have the time to do something like as well as circumvent the possibility that people at the polls are going to recognize them as already having voted? So not only are these phantom voters registering and spending all day going from poll to poll and back again under different identities, but they are also disguising themselves so as not to be recognized? It just doesn't see like it's that likely an event to happen.

The more likely event, and the one Republicans probably are trying to suppress, is the borderline voter who doesn't really have that much invested in voting because they don't feel like their vote has much influence. But they are coaxed into voting by a friend, family, or acquaintance. They concede to vote because it is relatively easy to do so, but put too many roadblocks in their way and it's not worth the trouble in their frame of reference.

[roseBudd]

29. In person voting fraud does not happen because it's not worth it, a person voting

twice adds just one extra vote to a candidates total, the risk is jail and the payoff is so miniscule if the desired result is wining an election a candidate would otherwise lose.

[DUlover2909]

13. I'm a Texan and I say, "FUCK THAT!"

Fuckin stupid asshole redneck white bread fuckwit pricks! They changed the rules so they could cram a crappy piece of legislation through? I say sue their asses in federal court. Can we do that? ACLU? Please, someone help!:kick: :shrug: :patriot: :dem: :grr: :wtf: :puke: :mad:

I'm white, by the way, so I can call them racial stuff, etc. when I'm really really mad. Please excuse me.

[New Dawn]

33. Those fascists are just trying to prevent the poor from voting.

That is all that this "voter ID" nonsense is really about.

[KamaAina]

35. That's funny. I read "Daley machine" as "DeLay machine".

:eyes: