Should voter ID laws be repealed?

[Big Money]

There have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in a conviction.


Per federal law, first-time voters who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement.


Indiana in 2006 became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that was upheld two years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.


How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?


In late September, an analysis by Reuters and research firm Ipsos of data culled from 20,000 voter interviews found that those lacking proper ID were less likely to vote anyway, “regardless of state law changes.”


Among those who said they were “certain to vote,” only 1 percent said they did not have proper ID while another 1 percent said they were uncertain whether they had the proper ID.


In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.


As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by the New York Times estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent.





http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws

 

[Liberty]

There have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in a conviction.


Per federal law, first-time voters who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement.


Indiana in 2006 became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that was upheld two years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.


How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?


In late September, an analysis by Reuters and research firm Ipsos of data culled from 20,000 voter interviews found that those lacking proper ID were less likely to vote anyway, “regardless of state law changes.”


Among those who said they were “certain to vote,” only 1 percent said they did not have proper ID while another 1 percent said they were uncertain whether they had the proper ID.


In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.


As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by the New York Times estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent.





http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws

I voted no.

Anyone notice how Dantes doesn't like to debate with people who don't agree with her/him?

 

[Big Money]

I voted no. Anyone notice how Dantes doesn't like to debate with people who don't agree with her/him?

Thanks for your vote.

And yes, I noticed.

6 registered JPP voters say NO so far.


Keep those ballots coming...don't let the other side win!


Remember, you had to show ID to vote in this poll.

 

[zappasguitar]

Thanks for your vote.

And yes, I noticed.

6 registered JPP voters say NO so far.


Keep those ballots coming...don't let the other side win!


Remember, you had to show ID to vote in this poll.

ROTFLMAO!

Clueless Republican thinks voting here and voting for President are comparable.

Pitiful troll...it's no wonder all he ever brings to the discussion is more anger.

 

[Big Money]

9 registered JPP voters say NO so far.


Keep those ballots coming...don't let the other side win!


Remember, you had to show ID to vote in this poll.

 

[anatta]

add me in as a "no", not buying into the "decrease voter turnout", nor do I particurally think voter fraud is a big deal.

I would like to let the states run their own elections, its a component of Federalism ; albeit the Voting Rights Act run around Holder is trying to do.

SCOTUS was pretty clear on this - no feeling to do the heavy research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_3429810.html

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, the provision of the landmark civil rights law that designates which parts of the country must have changes to their voting laws cleared by the federal government or in federal court.

The 5-4 ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that “things have changed dramatically” in the South in the nearly 50 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed in 1965.

The court’s opinion said it did not strike down the act of Congress “lightly,” and said it “took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act” in a separate case back in 2009. “Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [Section 4] unconstitutional. The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”

 

[Big Money]

It's funny how no dishonest Democrats have voted for option 2....