Poll: Voter ID? (1 Viewer)

[MaxThreshold]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

 

[Lutherman2112]

If the left is so concerned, then they can start a "get an ID" drive

I believe there have been some efforts like this. But it isn't quite as easy as picking someone up and taking them to the voting booth. If you look at the Wisconsin stories Maurile linked to, a lot of the people don't have the paperwork that they would need to get the ID in the first place. Helping someone might not be easy.

I don't buy it. There is ALWAYS a way - for some it might be harder but my guess is that it CAN be done and the gubment would be more than willing to work with those people. To me it sounds like those people just don't want to put in the effort.

Seriously, this is an ID we're talking about. We're not asking them to climb Mt. Everest.

Start on page 22 here, and read through section "B. The Burdens Imposed by Act 23"

I've heard the arguments before and, again, I think they're weak.

All you had to say was "I didn't read it."

 

[MaxThreshold]

If the left is so concerned, then they can start a "get an ID" drive

I believe there have been some efforts like this. But it isn't quite as easy as picking someone up and taking them to the voting booth. If you look at the Wisconsin stories Maurile linked to, a lot of the people don't have the paperwork that they would need to get the ID in the first place. Helping someone might not be easy.

I don't buy it. There is ALWAYS a way - for some it might be harder but my guess is that it CAN be done and the gubment would be more than willing to work with those people. To me it sounds like those people just don't want to put in the effort.

Seriously, this is an ID we're talking about. We're not asking them to climb Mt. Everest.

Start on page 22 here, and read through section "B. The Burdens Imposed by Act 23"

I've heard the arguments before and, again, I think they're weak.

All you had to say was "I didn't read it."

But I did read it and I told you I'm not buying it. Sounds like a lot of excuse-making.

 

[Jim11]

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

What has anyone gained if there is "no discernible effect"?

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

If you can stop a bunch of Democrats from voting, that helps Republicans win elections.

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

What has anyone gained if there is "no discernible effect"?

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

If you can stop a bunch of Democrats from voting, that helps Republicans win elections.

How does that compute? You said there was no discernible effect.

 

[Todd Andrews]

When Americans vote, Republicans lose.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

What has anyone gained if there is "no discernible effect"?

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

If you can stop a bunch of Democrats from voting, that helps Republicans win elections.

How does that compute? You said there was no discernible effect.

No he didn't...

I think Koya understands that voter ID laws are likely to have no discernible effect on voter fraud.

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

 

[MaxThreshold]

When Americans vote, Republicans lose.

"This lefty rant is easily debunked" say the good people of WI.

 

[Jim11]

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

What has anyone gained if there is "no discernible effect"?

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

If you can stop a bunch of Democrats from voting, that helps Republicans win elections.

How does that compute? You said there was no discernible effect.

No he didn't...

I think Koya understands that voter ID laws are likely to have no discernible effect on voter fraud.

It's about partisan gain because most people without qualifying IDs belong to demographics that lean heavily Democrat.

Pardon me, I thought that the letters bolded above made up words which stated that "voter ID laws are likely to have no discernible effect on voter fraud". Evidently they are instead some kind of secret code.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Pardon me, I thought that the letters bolded above made up words which stated that "voter ID laws are likely to have no discernible effect on voter fraud". Evidently they are instead some kind of secret code.

Voter ID laws are likely to have no discernible effect on voter fraud.

Voter ID laws are likely to have a substantial effect on the outcomes of various elections.

Is that what was confusing you?

 

[joffer]

Pardon me, I thought that the letters bolded above made up words which stated that "voter ID laws are likely to have no discernible effect on voter fraud". Evidently they are instead some kind of secret code.

Voter ID laws are likely to have no discernible effect on voter fraud.

Voter ID laws are likely to have a substantial effect on the outcome of various elections.

Is that what was confusing you?

**** and Jane confuses him

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

Why do you think "it can be done" is such a good argument?

 

[Todd Andrews]

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

Why do you think "it can be done" is such a good argument?

MaxKooK thinks some Americans shouldnt be allowed to vote.

 

[jon_mx]

Look at all the things peole who don't have ID (mostly poor minorities) can't do (from Washington Examiner). I am outraged at all this blantant discrimination against minorities. We need to ban all forms of identification to end these atrocities! Why do Americans hate poor minorities so much?? 1. Alcohol 2. Cigarettes3. Opening a bank account

4. Apply for food stamps

5. Apply for welfare

6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

7. Apply for unemployment or a job

8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage

9. Drive/buy/rent a car

10. Get on an airplane

11. Get married

12. Purchase a gun

13. Adopt a pet

14. Rent a hotel room

15. Apply for a hunting license

16. Apply for a fishing license

17. Buy a cell phone

18. Visit a casino

19. Pick up a prescription

20. Hold a rally or protest

21. Blood donations

22. Buy an "M" rated video game

23. Purchase nail polish at CVS

24. Purchase certain cold medicines

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And that judge you keep referring to - Lynn Adelman - was an uber-liberal when he was in the WI legislature. I fully expect his judgement to be overturned on appeal.

The judge didn't make up the stories about individuals who lacked IDs. Maurile is citing him for the factual information in the opinion, not for his legal reasoning.

 

[Rich Conway]

But we need to implement any national ID program properly and equitably before any requirements of the same.

Why would a national ID program be required? Why can't states do this themselves?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Look at all the things peole who don't have ID (mostly poor minorities) can't do (from Washington Examiner). I am outraged at all this blantant discrimination against minorities. We need to ban all forms of identification to end these atrocities! Why do Americans hate poor minorities so much?? 1. Alcohol 2. Cigarettes

3. Opening a bank account

4. Apply for food stamps

5. Apply for welfare

6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security

7. Apply for unemployment or a job

8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage

9. Drive/buy/rent a car

10. Get on an airplane

11. Get married

12. Purchase a gun

13. Adopt a pet

14. Rent a hotel room

15. Apply for a hunting license

16. Apply for a fishing license

17. Buy a cell phone

18. Visit a casino

19. Pick up a prescription

20. Hold a rally or protest

21. Blood donations

22. Buy an "M" rated video game

23. Purchase nail polish at CVS

24. Purchase certain cold medicines

So these laws are to address these issues?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And that judge you keep referring to - Lynn Adelman - was an uber-liberal when he was in the WI legislature. I fully expect his judgement to be overturned on appeal.

The judge didn't make up the stories about individuals who lacked IDs. Maurile is citing him for the factual information in the opinion, not for his legal reasoning.

Facts? What do they have to do with anything?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Look at all the things peole who don't have ID (mostly poor minorities) can't do (from Washington Examiner). I am outraged at all this blantant discrimination against minorities. We need to ban all forms of identification to end these atrocities! Why do Americans hate poor minorities so much??

1. Alcohol

2. Cigarettes

3. Opening a bank account - One in nine American households do not have checking account.

4. Apply for food stamps - “The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card.

5. Apply for welfare - Proof of your identity such as driver's license, library card, voter's registration

6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security - Documents You May Need To Apply:

- your original birth certificate or other proof of birth [more info] (You may also submit a copy of your birth certificate certified by the issuing agency);

- proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful alien status if you were not born in the United States [more info];
- a copy of your U.S. military service paper(s) (e.g., DD-214 - Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) if you had military service before 1968; [more info]; and
- a copy of your W-2 form(s) [more info] and/or self-employment tax return [more info] for last year.
7. Apply for unemployment or a job - Information Required to File an Unemployment Claim

• Your Social Security number.
• Your driver's license or motor vehicle ID card number (if you have one).
• .....

8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage

9. Drive/buy/rent a car

10. Get on an airplane

11. Get married

12. Purchase a gun

13. Adopt a pet - adopt a shelter animal, you mean

14. Rent a hotel room - No law requires US domestic travelers to carry photo ID. Hotels and hotel chains cannot assume that a person making a reservation will bring a photo ID. Given guests’ real concern these days about identity theft if the hotel records information on an ID, hotels should offer written privacy policies and should not be allowed to make or retain copies of the ID as a condition of admittance.

15. Apply for a hunting license

16. Apply for a fishing license

17. Buy a cell phone - LOL - you need an ID to buy a tracfon?

18. Visit a casino - unless you look underage, you do not need an ID to "visit" a casino. Collect winnings over $1200, yes ID needed.

19. Pick up a prescription - Not completely true

20. Hold a rally or protest - permit not required for demonstrations that don't "realistically present serious traffic, safety, and competing-use concerns beyond those presented on a daily basis by ordinary use of the streets and sidewalks."

21. Blood donations - What form of identification is needed to donate: Driver's license, State-issued ID card, Student identification card, Passport, Visa or green card, Personal verification of donor identity

22. Buy an "M" rated video game

23. Purchase nail polish at CVS - actually it was nail polish remover, but CVS drop that after a week

24. Purchase certain cold medicines - 3 drugs are behind the counter: Pseudoephedrine, Ephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine

 

[The Commish]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

Good luck with that here. Discussing having an ID is purely political in nature. If you removed politics all together, there is little, if any, negative to having the IDs. For there even to be a debate, it needs to be framed in politics. There's a reason other biometrics (like finger prints) are ignored in this these threads every time they are brought up.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

Good luck with that here. Discussing having an ID is purely political in nature. If you removed politics all together, there is little, if any, negative to having the IDs. For there even to be a debate, it needs to be framed in politics. There's a reason other biometrics (like finger prints) are ignored in this these threads every time they are brought up.

As in "politics" you mean disenfranchising a segment of the population that is different from "the real Americans"? Other than that little detail, I don't care at all.(And my mother doesn't drive and I witnessed how not having a driver's licensed creates hardships. Most of that time my mother did have a Maryland state issued photo id which next to no one recognized anyway. However her experience after retiring to Florida with Florida non drivers id has been different. So I'm all for getting other valid (and recognized) forms of photo ids to those that don't drive. Such a shame that none of these proposals are about this.}

 

[The Commish]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

Good luck with that here. Discussing having an ID is purely political in nature. If you removed politics all together, there is little, if any, negative to having the IDs. For there even to be a debate, it needs to be framed in politics. There's a reason other biometrics (like finger prints) are ignored in this these threads every time they are brought up.

As in "politics" you mean disenfranchising a segment of the population that is different from "the real Americans"? Other than that little detail, I don't care at all.(And my mother doesn't drive and I witnessed how not having a driver's licensed creates hardships. Most of that time my mother did have a Maryland state issued photo id which next to no one recognized anyway. However her experience after retiring to Florida with Florida non drivers id has been different. So I'm all for getting other valid (and recognized) forms of photo ids to those that don't drive. Such a shame that none of these proposals are about this.}

I personally think the "disenfranchising" shtick is purely political. It'd be relatively simple to collect a person's identity at the polling place.

 

[Koya]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

And many of us would be fine with this approach.

But let's not pretend that much of the CURRENT efforts are disingenuous, which is why there is such concern. Today, people are trying to rush through laws to lower the vote counts of specific voting blocks. That's as anti-American as I can think.

If we just take a step back and find a way to do this fairly, then there primary criticism of Voter ID, imo, will be taken away.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

And many of us would be fine with this approach.

But let's not pretend that much of the CURRENT efforts are disingenuous, which is why there is such concern. Today, people are trying to rush through laws to lower the vote counts of specific voting blocks. That's as anti-American as I can think.

If we just take a step back and find a way to do this fairly, then there primary criticism of Voter ID, imo, will be taken away.

Is there an actual practical example of how this might work without a DL or state ID?

In LA we receive a voter registration card. Is everyone ok with that?

Here's the thing about just comparing signatures that bothers me - why can't that be used to disenfranchise voters? Maybe "Mean evil partisan" manning the table could decide that "Honest well meaning voter without ID" has a signature that is not close enough. Or maybe after the fact your Party Minded Sec.of State could do a a review of signatures and decide that some aren't close enough. This seems like it creates opportunity to disenfranchise, not ensure rights.

 

[The Commish]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

And many of us would be fine with this approach.

But let's not pretend that much of the CURRENT efforts are disingenuous, which is why there is such concern. Today, people are trying to rush through laws to lower the vote counts of specific voting blocks. That's as anti-American as I can think.

If we just take a step back and find a way to do this fairly, then there primary criticism of Voter ID, imo, will be taken away.

Is there an actual practical example of how this might work without a DL or state ID?

In LA we receive a voter registration card. Is everyone ok with that?

Here's the thing about just comparing signatures that bothers me - why can't that be used to disenfranchise voters? Maybe "Mean evil partisan" manning the table could decide that "Honest well meaning voter without ID" has a signature that is not close enough. Or maybe after the fact your Party Minded Sec.of State could do a a review of signatures and decide that some aren't close enough. This seems like it creates opportunity to disenfranchise, not ensure rights.

Take their fingerprint and be done with it, but make sure you have some wet wipes available to clean their fingers.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

And many of us would be fine with this approach.

But let's not pretend that much of the CURRENT efforts are disingenuous, which is why there is such concern. Today, people are trying to rush through laws to lower the vote counts of specific voting blocks. That's as anti-American as I can think.

If we just take a step back and find a way to do this fairly, then there primary criticism of Voter ID, imo, will be taken away.

Is there an actual practical example of how this might work without a DL or state ID?

In LA we receive a voter registration card. Is everyone ok with that?

Here's the thing about just comparing signatures that bothers me - why can't that be used to disenfranchise voters? Maybe "Mean evil partisan" manning the table could decide that "Honest well meaning voter without ID" has a signature that is not close enough. Or maybe after the fact your Party Minded Sec.of State could do a a review of signatures and decide that some aren't close enough. This seems like it creates opportunity to disenfranchise, not ensure rights.

Take their fingerprint and be done with it, but make sure you have some wet wipes available to clean their fingers.

Not being facetious when I ask this - Are you kidding or serious?

ETA: Ok I take it that was a joke. No, let's not do that.

 

[The Commish]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

And many of us would be fine with this approach.

But let's not pretend that much of the CURRENT efforts are disingenuous, which is why there is such concern. Today, people are trying to rush through laws to lower the vote counts of specific voting blocks. That's as anti-American as I can think.

If we just take a step back and find a way to do this fairly, then there primary criticism of Voter ID, imo, will be taken away.

Is there an actual practical example of how this might work without a DL or state ID?

In LA we receive a voter registration card. Is everyone ok with that?

Here's the thing about just comparing signatures that bothers me - why can't that be used to disenfranchise voters? Maybe "Mean evil partisan" manning the table could decide that "Honest well meaning voter without ID" has a signature that is not close enough. Or maybe after the fact your Party Minded Sec.of State could do a a review of signatures and decide that some aren't close enough. This seems like it creates opportunity to disenfranchise, not ensure rights.

Take their fingerprint and be done with it, but make sure you have some wet wipes available to clean their fingers.

Not being facetious when I ask this - Are you kidding or serious?

ETA: Ok I take it that was a joke. No, let's not do that.

why not?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

And many of us would be fine with this approach.

But let's not pretend that much of the CURRENT efforts are disingenuous, which is why there is such concern. Today, people are trying to rush through laws to lower the vote counts of specific voting blocks. That's as anti-American as I can think.

If we just take a step back and find a way to do this fairly, then there primary criticism of Voter ID, imo, will be taken away.

Is there an actual practical example of how this might work without a DL or state ID?

In LA we receive a voter registration card. Is everyone ok with that?

Here's the thing about just comparing signatures that bothers me - why can't that be used to disenfranchise voters? Maybe "Mean evil partisan" manning the table could decide that "Honest well meaning voter without ID" has a signature that is not close enough. Or maybe after the fact your Party Minded Sec.of State could do a a review of signatures and decide that some aren't close enough. This seems like it creates opportunity to disenfranchise, not ensure rights.

Take their fingerprint and be done with it, but make sure you have some wet wipes available to clean their fingers.

Not being facetious when I ask this - Are you kidding or serious?

ETA: Ok I take it that was a joke. No, let's not do that.

why not?

Because it would require all voters either be fingerprinted in advance of the vote, or be given notice after the fact that they are being un-counted and thus would have to come forward after the election to prove their vote. I personally would say both options are undesirable.

 

[The Commish]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

And many of us would be fine with this approach.

But let's not pretend that much of the CURRENT efforts are disingenuous, which is why there is such concern. Today, people are trying to rush through laws to lower the vote counts of specific voting blocks. That's as anti-American as I can think.

If we just take a step back and find a way to do this fairly, then there primary criticism of Voter ID, imo, will be taken away.

Is there an actual practical example of how this might work without a DL or state ID?

In LA we receive a voter registration card. Is everyone ok with that?

Here's the thing about just comparing signatures that bothers me - why can't that be used to disenfranchise voters? Maybe "Mean evil partisan" manning the table could decide that "Honest well meaning voter without ID" has a signature that is not close enough. Or maybe after the fact your Party Minded Sec.of State could do a a review of signatures and decide that some aren't close enough. This seems like it creates opportunity to disenfranchise, not ensure rights.

Take their fingerprint and be done with it, but make sure you have some wet wipes available to clean their fingers.

Not being facetious when I ask this - Are you kidding or serious?

ETA: Ok I take it that was a joke. No, let's not do that.

why not?

Because it would require all voters either be fingerprinted in advance of the vote, or be given notice after the fact that they are being un-counted and thus would have to come forward after the election to prove their vote. I personally would say both options are undesirable.

Not following at all. There is virtually no accountability today. The goal is for that to change, so you use election events to collect fingerprints. Over time, you develop a database of your voting population. Eventually, it would be real time where you scan your fingerprint in. The only time "uncounted" comes up is if your fingerprint is identified as one that's already voted that day....outside of politics (which is how this particular series of responses started) there's nothing wrong with it. The "requirements" placed on people are to show up to the voting sites. If they are afraid of "wait times" they can cure that with early voting and/or a few days of voting.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

And many of us would be fine with this approach.

But let's not pretend that much of the CURRENT efforts are disingenuous, which is why there is such concern. Today, people are trying to rush through laws to lower the vote counts of specific voting blocks. That's as anti-American as I can think.

If we just take a step back and find a way to do this fairly, then there primary criticism of Voter ID, imo, will be taken away.

Is there an actual practical example of how this might work without a DL or state ID?

In LA we receive a voter registration card. Is everyone ok with that?

Here's the thing about just comparing signatures that bothers me - why can't that be used to disenfranchise voters? Maybe "Mean evil partisan" manning the table could decide that "Honest well meaning voter without ID" has a signature that is not close enough. Or maybe after the fact your Party Minded Sec.of State could do a a review of signatures and decide that some aren't close enough. This seems like it creates opportunity to disenfranchise, not ensure rights.

Take their fingerprint and be done with it, but make sure you have some wet wipes available to clean their fingers.

Not being facetious when I ask this - Are you kidding or serious?

ETA: Ok I take it that was a joke. No, let's not do that.

why not?

Because it would require all voters either be fingerprinted in advance of the vote, or be given notice after the fact that they are being un-counted and thus would have to come forward after the election to prove their vote. I personally would say both options are undesirable.

Not following at all. There is virtually no accountability today. The goal is for that to change, so you use election events to collect fingerprints. Over time, you develop a database of your voting population. Eventually, it would be real time where you scan your fingerprint in. The only time "uncounted" comes up is if your fingerprint is identified as one that's already voted that day....outside of politics (which is how this particular series of responses started) there's nothing wrong with it. The "requirements" placed on people are to show up to the voting sites. If they are afraid of "wait times" they can cure that with early voting and/or a few days of voting.

I appreciate the goal, ie accountability.

But this:

Over time, you develop a database of your voting population. Eventually, it would be real time where you scan your fingerprint in.

This I cannot get with.

Why not just send a voter identification card?

 

[The Commish]

I appreciate the goal, ie accountability.
But this:

Over time, you develop a database of your voting population. Eventually, it would be real time where you scan your fingerprint in.

This I cannot get with.

Why not just send a voter identification card?

Why?

To your last question....how do you think they're going to produce "voter identification cards"? Chances are there's a database for that too....just not as accurate. Heck....I'm willing to bet they use a database to print the "voting record" at a lot of precincts today.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I appreciate the goal, ie accountability.
But this:

Over time, you develop a database of your voting population. Eventually, it would be real time where you scan your fingerprint in.

This I cannot get with.

Why not just send a voter identification card?

Why?

To your last question....how do you think they're going to produce "voter identification cards"? Chances are there's a database for that too....just not as accurate. Heck....I'm willing to bet they use a database to print the "voting record" at a lot of precincts today.

As to the 'why', I'm not particularly a fan of the government fingerprinting everyone as a practical matter. I'd say that's a bridge too far, but maybe that's just me.

As for the voter ID cards, Louisiana uses this method. I get one like everyone else here.

We get green voter identification cards, it shows precinct, district, home address, and that kind of thing. No photo. You can provide this when you go to vote in lieu of a driver's license or state photo ID.

Every person on the rolls gets a card; if you're not on the rolls you don't get a card. Voter signs in just like everyone else. This takes care of elderly people who don't have DL's for instance.

Seems pretty simple. - Though I would guess that LA is probably one of the states that rank high on voter fraud, if such things are looked at independently. I just don't have a problem with this system as a matter of principle, I guess because I think it has more to do with our political culture than our system.

I do believe whether individuals do vote is tracked, because when politicians run for office every so often there's an accusation that one hasn't voted in so many elections.

 

[The Commish]

I appreciate the goal, ie accountability.
But this:

Over time, you develop a database of your voting population. Eventually, it would be real time where you scan your fingerprint in.

This I cannot get with.

Why not just send a voter identification card?

Why?

To your last question....how do you think they're going to produce "voter identification cards"? Chances are there's a database for that too....just not as accurate. Heck....I'm willing to bet they use a database to print the "voting record" at a lot of precincts today.

As to the 'why', I'm not particularly a fan of the government fingerprinting everyone as a practical matter. I'd say that's a bridge too far, but maybe that's just me.

As for the voter ID cards, Louisiana uses this method. I get one like everyone else here.

We get green voter identification cards, it shows precinct, district, home address, and that kind of thing. No photo. You can provide this when you go to vote in lieu of a driver's license or state photo ID.

Every person on the rolls gets a card; if you're not on the rolls you don't get a card. Voter signs in just like everyone else. This takes care of elderly people who don't have DL's for instance.

Seems pretty simple. - Though I would guess that LA is probably one of the states that rank high on voter fraud, if such things are looked at independently. I just don't have a problem with this system as a matter of principle, I guess because I think it has more to do with our political culture than our system.

I do believe whether individuals do vote is tracked, because when politicians run for office every so often there's an accusation that one hasn't voted in so many elections.

So, how do they know that person showing the card is the person on the card? We have something similar here in SC, but it's a waste of money. There's nothing to tell the precinct I am actually the person the card says. I'd rather they not do anything than what they are doing right now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I appreciate the goal, ie accountability.
But this:

Over time, you develop a database of your voting population. Eventually, it would be real time where you scan your fingerprint in.

This I cannot get with.

Why not just send a voter identification card?

Why?

To your last question....how do you think they're going to produce "voter identification cards"? Chances are there's a database for that too....just not as accurate. Heck....I'm willing to bet they use a database to print the "voting record" at a lot of precincts today.

As to the 'why', I'm not particularly a fan of the government fingerprinting everyone as a practical matter. I'd say that's a bridge too far, but maybe that's just me.

As for the voter ID cards, Louisiana uses this method. I get one like everyone else here.

We get green voter identification cards, it shows precinct, district, home address, and that kind of thing. No photo. You can provide this when you go to vote in lieu of a driver's license or state photo ID.

Every person on the rolls gets a card; if you're not on the rolls you don't get a card. Voter signs in just like everyone else. This takes care of elderly people who don't have DL's for instance.

Seems pretty simple. - Though I would guess that LA is probably one of the states that rank high on voter fraud, if such things are looked at independently. I just don't have a problem with this system as a matter of principle, I guess because I think it has more to do with our political culture than our system.

I do believe whether individuals do vote is tracked, because when politicians run for office every so often there's an accusation that one hasn't voted in so many elections.

So, how do they know that person showing the card is the person on the card? We have something similar here in SC, but it's a waste of money. There's nothing to tell the precinct I am actually the person the card says. I'd rather they not do anything than what they are doing right now.

Well presumably the person would not have the card unless they themselves had received it from the state. It just seems to make large scale fraud a tad more difficult. Alternatively, the cards in LA are pretty cheap, flimsy card stock and hypothetically would be easy to reproduce.

However, obviously Jindal is governor here and the GOP nowadays tends to run the legislature, I'm trying to understand where the dispute is if this is what flies in places like LA and SC. Do Democrats/liberals/progs want something easier and even less verifiable than this? Or are GOP/conservatives looking for something more stringent than LA/SC?

 

[The Commish]

I appreciate the goal, ie accountability.
But this:

Over time, you develop a database of your voting population. Eventually, it would be real time where you scan your fingerprint in.

This I cannot get with.

Why not just send a voter identification card?

Why?

To your last question....how do you think they're going to produce "voter identification cards"? Chances are there's a database for that too....just not as accurate. Heck....I'm willing to bet they use a database to print the "voting record" at a lot of precincts today.

As to the 'why', I'm not particularly a fan of the government fingerprinting everyone as a practical matter. I'd say that's a bridge too far, but maybe that's just me.

As for the voter ID cards, Louisiana uses this method. I get one like everyone else here.

We get green voter identification cards, it shows precinct, district, home address, and that kind of thing. No photo. You can provide this when you go to vote in lieu of a driver's license or state photo ID.

Every person on the rolls gets a card; if you're not on the rolls you don't get a card. Voter signs in just like everyone else. This takes care of elderly people who don't have DL's for instance.

Seems pretty simple. - Though I would guess that LA is probably one of the states that rank high on voter fraud, if such things are looked at independently. I just don't have a problem with this system as a matter of principle, I guess because I think it has more to do with our political culture than our system.

I do believe whether individuals do vote is tracked, because when politicians run for office every so often there's an accusation that one hasn't voted in so many elections.

So, how do they know that person showing the card is the person on the card? We have something similar here in SC, but it's a waste of money. There's nothing to tell the precinct I am actually the person the card says. I'd rather they not do anything than what they are doing right now.

Well presumably the person would not have the card unless they themselves had received it from the state. It just seems to make large scale fraud a tad more difficult. Alternatively, the cards in LA are pretty cheap, flimsy card stock and hypothetically would be easy to reproduce.

However, obviously Jindal is governor here and the GOP nowadays tends to run the legislature, I'm trying to understand where the dispute is if this is what flies in places like LA and SC. Do Democrats/liberals/progs want something easier and even less verifiable than this? Or are GOP/conservatives looking for something more stringent than LA/SC?

Not sure what they want....I'd imagine they want whatever gets them more votes, not what makes the process the most sound it can be. This isn't an issue that ranks really high on my list of "problems" with our government, but I do think there's an issue there and "because no one has exploited it yet" and "It will piss people off" aren't good enough reasons to ignore it IMO. The reality is, there is a hole in the system and it should be fixed. Most push back I get for that position is that it's "too expensive". I find that kinda funny given all the things our gov't already spends money on that are far less important than our voting process.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This is what I've been trying to get across - it CAN be done if the will is there TO get it done.

Why do you think "it can be done" is such a good argument?

MaxKooK thinks some Americans shouldnt be allowed to vot

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

Good luck with that here. Discussing having an ID is purely political in nature. If you removed politics all together, there is little, if any, negative to having the IDs. For there even to be a debate, it needs to be framed in politics. There's a reason other biometrics (like finger prints) are ignored in this these threads every time they are brought up.

As in "politics" you mean disenfranchising a segment of the population that is different from "the real Americans"? Other than that little detail, I don't care at all.(And my mother doesn't drive and I witnessed how not having a driver's licensed creates hardships. Most of that time my mother did have a Maryland state issued photo id which next to no one recognized anyway. However her experience after retiring to Florida with Florida non drivers id has been different. So I'm all for getting other valid (and recognized) forms of photo ids to those that don't drive. Such a shame that none of these proposals are about this.}

Seems like you think that constantly repeating this falsehood makes it true. You and ToddAndrews must get along quite well.

If we told those same people they had a $1K tax refund waiting for them and all they needed was ID to pick it up you better believe they would find a way to get an ID. You can take that to the bank, brohans.

 

[Lutherman2112]

I got a great idea.

Let's start charging $100,000 to individual voters that are mega-millionaires donating huge to candidates, political parties, PACs, etc. Maybe scale it...you give $50 in donations, you pay $5 to vote.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I got a great idea.

Let's start charging $100,000 to individual voters that are mega-millionaires donating huge to candidates, political parties, PACs, etc. Maybe scale it...you give $50 in donations, you pay $5 to vote.

Speaking of which - I don't think it makes sense that you have to pay typically in the $500-$1500 range I'm guessing in most districts to run for office. If voting is free so should being a candidate.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I got a great idea.

Let's start charging $100,000 to individual voters that are mega-millionaires donating huge to candidates, political parties, PACs, etc. Maybe scale it...you give $50 in donations, you pay $5 to vote.

Just individuals? How about any individual or group?

 

[Koya]

I got a great idea.

Let's start charging $100,000 to individual voters that are mega-millionaires donating huge to candidates, political parties, PACs, etc. Maybe scale it...you give $50 in donations, you pay $5 to vote.

Just individuals? How about any individual or group?

Heck, since corporations are citizens, let them run for office!

GM vs Apple for Senate!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I got a great idea.

Let's start charging $100,000 to individual voters that are mega-millionaires donating huge to candidates, political parties, PACs, etc. Maybe scale it...you give $50 in donations, you pay $5 to vote.

Just individuals? How about any individual or group?

Heck, since corporations are citizens, let them run for office!

GM vs Apple for Senate!

Too late - the DNC Services Corporation already exists.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/122/122257.html

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I am trying my best to take this argument away from R vs D and into a ID discussion. It is not that difficult to get the backing documents to prove who you are. Given some unusual circumstances, perhaps they can come up with an acceptable method for certain folks. I work in a bank and have to make people go and get non driver ID from the motor vehicles all the time and I understand how tough it is for a senior to get simple things like a birth certificate (since they want an official one in NJ) and things of that sort. And guess what--without fail the people I tell that they need it get up and go do it. Sometimes it takes them a bit of time and effort, but it gets done.

Now perhaps we can offer up some assistance or an easier way for someone who is destitute or unable to travel to get one. I would be for that totally.

Good luck with that here. Discussing having an ID is purely political in nature. If you removed politics all together, there is little, if any, negative to having the IDs. For there even to be a debate, it needs to be framed in politics. There's a reason other biometrics (like finger prints) are ignored in this these threads every time they are brought up.

As in "politics" you mean disenfranchising a segment of the population that is different from "the real Americans"? Other than that little detail, I don't care at all.(And my mother doesn't drive and I witnessed how not having a driver's licensed creates hardships. Most of that time my mother did have a Maryland state issued photo id which next to no one recognized anyway. However her experience after retiring to Florida with Florida non drivers id has been different. So I'm all for getting other valid (and recognized) forms of photo ids to those that don't drive. Such a shame that none of these proposals are about this.}

I personally think the "disenfranchising" shtick is purely political. It'd be relatively simple to collect a person's identity at the polling place.

I have no idea what this means? We already identify people at the polling place, just not using methods that would weed out a certain group of voters (like in the good ol' days).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seems like you think that constantly repeating this falsehood makes it true. You and ToddAndrews must get along quite well.

If we told those same people they had a $1K tax refund waiting for them and all they needed was ID to pick it up you better believe they would find a way to get an ID. You can take that to the bank, brohans.

Seems like you think that if you just dismiss the facts that have been presented to you several times in this thread that it means they don't exists. You and reality have never really gotten along quite well.And if you want to propose a no strings attached $1000 tax credit for those that don't currently have preferred forms of identification to obtain one, I don't think you will have many on the left complaining.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Take their fingerprint and be done with it, but make sure you have some wet wipes available to clean their fingers.

Like I have said in the past, you aren't in the middle like you pretend but to the crazy side of wing nuts.It is bad enough that there are those proposing costly solutions to non existent problems, but you want to go one step further and create a database for the government of law abiding citizens' finger prints. Insanely stupid!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As for the voter ID cards, Louisiana uses this method. I get one like everyone else here.

We get green voter identification cards, it shows precinct, district, home address, and that kind of thing. No photo. You can provide this when you go to vote in lieu of a driver's license or state photo ID.

Every person on the rolls gets a card; if you're not on the rolls you don't get a card. Voter signs in just like everyone else. This takes care of elderly people who don't have DL's for instance.

Seems pretty simple. - Though I would guess that LA is probably one of the states that rank high on voter fraud, if such things are looked at independently. I just don't have a problem with this system as a matter of principle, I guess because I think it has more to do with our political culture than our system.

I do believe whether individuals do vote is tracked, because when politicians run for office every so often there's an accusation that one hasn't voted in so many elections.

Nothing I have read from you or the article I linked or a few other articles I read to respond to you suggest that in implementation the Louisiana "voter id" law is any different than non voter id states other than asking for id. Maybe in the nitty gritty there are other details that differ, but at the end of the day it seems like you just need to sign that you are who you say you are without the need for the ID to vote. If that is true no one is really answering your questions because there is no difference. I think this is also why you don't see the challenges to your state's law - at least high profile ones.

 

[Rayderr]

How about we just have the states adapt the voter ID law that the blue state of Hawaii has been using since 1978? Surely no one will have a problem with that. The right gets their voter ID, and the left has it implemented in a system that they've been fine with for the past 35 years.

 

[Lutherman2112]

How about we just have the states adapt the voter ID law that the blue state of Hawaii has been using since 1978? Surely no one will have a problem with that. The right gets their voter ID, and the left has it implemented in a system that they've been fine with for the past 35 years.

X

"Verify your identity. In order to expedite voting at your polling place, please be prepared to verify your identity, preferably with a photo ID. In the alternative, you can provide a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and address."

 

[The Commish]

Take their fingerprint and be done with it, but make sure you have some wet wipes available to clean their fingers.

Like I have said in the past, you aren't in the middle like you pretend but to the crazy side of wing nuts.It is bad enough that there are those proposing costly solutions to non existent problems, but you want to go one step further and create a database for the government of law abiding citizens' finger prints. Insanely stupid!

I have liberal views and I have conservative views....I've never claimed otherwise. You can call me whatever names you want. In my state, there's nothing left to create. We already have the "database" that I'm sure they've spent millions on and it does nothing but spit out voter ID cards that may or may not be used by the right person. As I said before, I'd rather they do nothing than that. It's a simple waste of money. If you think it's "extreme" that I think we should have legit identification (beyond the veil of the honor system) for one of the cornerstones of our democratic process, sobeit. In my state, we have databases full of fingerprints. I don't really get the "fear" of another for voting...heck, they could probably tap into an existing one and not reinvent the wheel.

 

[Rayderr]

How about we just have the states adapt the voter ID law that the blue state of Hawaii has been using since 1978? Surely no one will have a problem with that. The right gets their voter ID, and the left has it implemented in a system that they've been fine with for the past 35 years.

X

"Verify your identity. In order to expedite voting at your polling place, please be prepared to verify your identity, preferably with a photo ID. In the alternative, you can provide a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and address."

Where do I vote?You will be notified of your polling place with the Notice of Voter Registration and Address Confirmation (NVRAC) card which your county clerk will mail to you.

Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. You may also absentee vote at absentee walk-in polling places or by mailing in an absentee ballot if you are unable to make it to the polls on election day.

Be sure to have your picture ID with a signature on it for verification of your identity. You will be asked to sign a poll book to record that you voted at that polling place. Your Voter Registration Notice is NOT an acceptable form of identification.

 

[Lutherman2112]

How about we just have the states adapt the voter ID law that the blue state of Hawaii has been using since 1978? Surely no one will have a problem with that. The right gets their voter ID, and the left has it implemented in a system that they've been fine with for the past 35 years.

X

"Verify your identity. In order to expedite voting at your polling place, please be prepared to verify your identity, preferably with a photo ID. In the alternative, you can provide a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and address."

Where do I vote?You will be notified of your polling place with the Notice of Voter Registration and Address Confirmation (NVRAC) card which your county clerk will mail to you.

Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. You may also absentee vote at absentee walk-in polling places or by mailing in an absentee ballot if you are unable to make it to the polls on election day.

Be sure to have your picture ID with a signature on it for verification of your identity. You will be asked to sign a poll book to record that you voted at that polling place. Your Voter Registration Notice is NOT an acceptable form of identification.

XX

§11-136 Poll book, identification, voting. Every person upon applying to vote shall sign the person's name in the poll book prepared for that purpose. This requirement may be waived by the chairperson of the precinct officials if for reasons of illiteracy or blindness or other physical disability the voter is unable to write. Every person shall provide identification if so requested by a precinct official. A poll book shall not contain the social security number of any person.

After signing the poll book and receiving the voter's ballot, the voter shall proceed to the voting booth to vote according to the voting system in use in the voter's precinct. The precinct official may, and upon request shall, explain to the voter the mode of voting.

A bill from 2012 that failed to receive a single hearing:

SECTION 1. The legislature finds that section 11-136, Hawaii Revised Statutes, does not explicitly require the presentation of photo identification by every person applying to vote when signing the person’s name in the poll book prepared for that purpose.

The legislature furtherfinds that while section 11-136, Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires a person to provide identification if so requested by an official, it does not explicitly define acceptable forms of voter identification. The lack of any requirement that a voter confirm his or her identity to a precinct official is a serious defect in our voting process. The current law must be changed in order to protect against voter fraud and ensure fair elections.

The purpose of this Act is to require the presentation of an acceptable form of photo identification by every person applying to vote prior to signing the person’s name in the poll book prepared for that purpose.

...

 

[Rayderr]

How about we just have the states adapt the voter ID law that the blue state of Hawaii has been using since 1978? Surely no one will have a problem with that. The right gets their voter ID, and the left has it implemented in a system that they've been fine with for the past 35 years.

X

"Verify your identity. In order to expedite voting at your polling place, please be prepared to verify your identity, preferably with a photo ID. In the alternative, you can provide a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows your name and address."

Where do I vote?You will be notified of your polling place with the Notice of Voter Registration and Address Confirmation (NVRAC) card which your county clerk will mail to you.

Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. You may also absentee vote at absentee walk-in polling places or by mailing in an absentee ballot if you are unable to make it to the polls on election day.

Be sure to have your picture ID with a signature on it for verification of your identity. You will be asked to sign a poll book to record that you voted at that polling place. Your Voter Registration Notice is NOT an acceptable form of identification.

XX

§11-136 Poll book, identification, voting. Every person upon applying to vote shall sign the person's name in the poll book prepared for that purpose. This requirement may be waived by the chairperson of the precinct officials if for reasons of illiteracy or blindness or other physical disability the voter is unable to write. Every person shall provide identification if so requested by a precinct official. A poll book shall not contain the social security number of any person.

After signing the poll book and receiving the voter's ballot, the voter shall proceed to the voting booth to vote according to the voting system in use in the voter's precinct. The precinct official may, and upon request shall, explain to the voter the mode of voting.

A bill from 2012 that failed to receive a single hearing:

SECTION 1. The legislature finds that section 11-136, Hawaii Revised Statutes, does not explicitly require the presentation of photo identification by every person applying to vote when signing the person’s name in the poll book prepared for that purpose.

The legislature furtherfinds that while section 11-136, Hawaii Revised Statutes, requires a person to provide identification if so requested by an official, it does not explicitly define acceptable forms of voter identification. The lack of any requirement that a voter confirm his or her identity to a precinct official is a serious defect in our voting process. The current law must be changed in order to protect against voter fraud and ensure fair elections.

The purpose of this Act is to require the presentation of an acceptable form of photo identification by every person applying to vote prior to signing the person’s name in the poll book prepared for that purpose.

...

So why are you guys trying to disenfranchise voters by putting on the website that photo ID is required?