ID required to vote in Colorado

[SteveStromberg]

Finally some common sense

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?sid=1290709

[bryanthompson]

Woohoo! Let's hope the rest of the country follows.

I've been in favor of a _free_ temporary identification card for the sole purpose of voting, for those people who *can't* get an ID. Why they can't, i have no idea. I couldn't name a single 14 year old in my area that doesn't have an ID. Apparently, according to democrats, blacks and minorities can't afford an ID.

[bryanthompson]

I've been looking, but are there any other states that require IDs?

[UconnTim97]

I took it for granted, and thought all states would require ID to vote.....silly me

[fintstone]

Don't have to in the land of voter fraud...NM. Democrats take it to court and get it killed every time it comes up.

[Neilk]

I agree with ID requirements, but what is a valid ID? Would an expired DL count?

I just became a US citizen and I did voted early today and found it surprising that you could just show a voter registration card. So if I find a voter registration card and was dishonest, I could use it to vote. That seems wrong.

[jyl]

Under the Federal "Help America Vote Act" of 2002 (HAVA), all States must require some form of voter ID. It seems like some States are having trouble complying exactly with the requirements, because the necessary databases have not been created. But I would think that before too long, ID requirements will be generally enforced.

I think citizens should be required to show driver's licenses or state ID cards in order to vote. Really, how many American citizens over the age of 18 don't have a driver's license or state ID card and, for some good reason, are unable to get one? 100?

In general, I think all the voting procedures should be tightened up. For decades, elections have at best been sort of a sleepy backwater of local government, staffed by blue-haired old ladies and run by officials who weren't, shall we say, the sharpest tools in the shed. The technology was decrepit, the controls weak. I think local governments need to make their election organizations much more professional, and I think there should be serious consequences for failure. When an election gets botched - not enough ballots, voters improperly turned away, etc - heads should roll. The person who designed the butterfly ballot shouldn't have remained in her job. And election tampering of any sort should be treated as a serious crime. Shred a voter registration (or conspire to do so), go to jail for multiple years.

For more on HAVA
http://new.mynevadacounty.com/elections/index.cfm?ccs=761

What the Act Requires

The ID requirements apply to both polling places and voting by mail. The Act states that if an individual registers by mail and has not previously voted in an election for federal office in the jurisdiction, then (a) if the person votes in person, the voter must show photo ID or a document that indicates both the voter's name and residence address, (b) if the voter votes by mail, the voter must submit a copy of a photo ID or a document with both the voter's name and residence address. This provision goes into effect for the March 2, 2004 election. If the voter provides their driver's license number when they register to vote, and the number is able to be matched to a state record, then the voter will not be required to show ID when they vote.

Requirements Contingent Upon Implementation of Statewide Database

Under HAVA, voter registration applicants are required to either provide a valid driver's license number, or, for applicants who do not have a valid driver's license number, the last four digits of his/her Social Security number. These requirements are contingent upon the implementation of a statewide computerized database of voters which we anticipate being in place in 2006. With all voters in one database, with a unique identifier for each voter--driver's license number or last four digits of the Social Security number--elections officials will be able to identify any duplicate voters and determine any prior voting history at the voter's same address in a federal election. If prior voting history in a federal election is established, then the voter is exempt from the requirements to show identification when he/she votes.
Moreover, California currently does not have a statewide voter database that meets the requirements of HAVA.

What Election Officials Are Doing Today

Elections officials have been advised by the California Secretary of State's Office to maximize the collection of driver's license numbers at the point of registration in order to minimize the administrative problems and possible voter disenfranchisement issues with ID at the point of voting.

At this time, using a voter's driver's license number is preferred over the last four digits of a Social Security number because of the existing CalVoter system and the state's current voter registration card that utilizes the driver's license number if provided. Once the statewide voter database mandated by HAVA is implemented, then the plan is to have a mechanism for tracking and confirming the last four digits of a voter's Social Security number in addition to the driver's license number.

Therefore, voter registration cards completed without a driver's license number are being added to the voter file. These voters, however, are being sent a letter asking them to provide their driver's license number and are being reassured that this ID number is confidential. If a voter chooses not to provide his/her driver's license number, it will not affect the voter's registration status, but it will affect what he/she must do in order to cast a ballot. The next time these voters vote in a statewide election, they may have to vote a Provisional Ballot at the polls or provide ID at the polls or in their vote-by-mail ballot.

A Provisional Ballot is a ballot that is not counted on Election Night with the rest of the ballots. Instead, election officials research the voter's eligibility, residency requirements, and other issues before a decision is made whether the ballot may be legally counted.

What Happens in 2006?

If California has the statewide voter database as required by HAVA, then all new registrants will be required to provide either their driver's license number, if they have one, or the last four digits of their Social Security number on their voter's registration card.

If voters DO NOT HAVE either ID, HAVA instructs the elections official to assign a unique identifier. A system is not in place for doing this at this time, but the statewide voter database will be able to confirm ID numbers through DMV or Social Security, which will also be the mechanism to confirm a person's denial of such ID.

So, for Now

If a voter chooses at this time to withhold providing his/her driver's license number, or last four digits of their Social Security Number, it will not affect their voter registration status. It may, though, affect what that voter must do in order to cast their ballot at the next election.

[fintstone]

Yep...you could register as Mickey Mouse and show up and vote with the card. The only possible reason the Democrats could be so strident about not requiring ID is because they intend to commit voter fraud....as usual.

[mikester]

There is some inclination to believe (in the liberal mind) that by requiring an actual ID other than the voter registration card is a way to inhibit minority votes.

Let's take Florida for example since I did some growing up there and am familiar with their voting history. They are one of the only states that doesn't automagically give their felons the right to vote back when they have served their time in prision/parol. That law dates back to when blacks were first given the right to vote in this country. States were allowed to pass laws outlining certain requirements (that varied and made much less sense than requiring a simple valid picture ID) that a person had to meet to cast a ballot. In fact at one point the law was repealed that prevented felons from regaining their rights to vote upon completion of their sentences but this law was reinstated within the past 40 years. It's an old law with roots in discrimination - it serves no valid purpose to prevent someone with a felony conviction who has served their time their rights as defined in the constitution.

Requirements such as knowing how to read...

Well...that one for example we don't require now and couldn't because it would (in theory) inhibit upon those who can't read for whatever reason. We don't want that of course - everyone has the right to vote more or less.

Personally I don't think that a legal ID would inhibit me from voting in any way and I have been asked for my ID in the past few elections here in SoCal. Of course - I'm your average white dude.

It seems to be a perception by those who we have factually oppressed in the past that keeps us from enforcing the laws as written (in my opinion).

There is still a lot of bigotry in the south - no matter what "they" claim - I have lived there half my life and it was not hidden in any way. You can say what you want about liberl voter fraud but I will stand by my statement that every American who is in good standing with the government should not be required to show anything more than their picture ID and their voter registration card. Regardless of past convictions.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by mikester
.........
- it serves no valid purpose to prevent someone with a felony conviction who has served their time their rights as defined in the constitution.

That is assuming, of course, that the Constitution provides the right to vote for anyone in paticular. It does not.

[mikester]

Originally posted by fintstone
That is assuming, of course, that the Constitution provides the right to vote for anyone in paticular. It does not.

The 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to our Constitution refer to a right to vote in the course of prohibiting voting discrimination based on one's race, sex, or (adult) age, but those protections are hollow because governments may disenfranchise (strip of voting privileges) all citizens, so long as it is done without bias which is the key - all these laws seem to have a bias.

Again - I am for requiring valid picture ID.

Incidentally I believe there is another measure on CO's ballot that would if passed give proportional electoral votes to whomever was voted for based on the popular vote in that state. It as little chance of passing and it certainly would be challenged if it did pass but it is still there.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by mikester
The 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments to our Constitution refer to a right to vote in the course of prohibiting voting discrimination based on one's race, sex, or (adult) age, but those protections are hollow because governments may disenfranchise (strip of voting privileges) all citizens, so long as it is done without bias which is the key - all these laws seem to have a bias.

........

Agreed...and that is my point. Noone is guaranteed the right to vote....only not to be prevented from voting due to to race, sex, etc. So a state could keep any group of people..like a felon, poor person, rich person, etc from voting.