Sen. Joe Manchin said this morning that he won't change his mind on supporting the filibuster:
But he added that he would be open to Democrats passing more important legislation like voting reforms by a party-line vote — if senators are given ample space for bipartisan negotiation first....“It takes listening to the minority to make sure the majority is getting it right.”
Does this make any sense? The only way to pass voting reform on a party-line basis—i.e., with 50 votes—is to kill the filibuster. Does Manchin mean that he might be open to that after all, but only if Republicans are given plenty of opportunity to negotiate first? Or what?
It's too bad that Manchin has been so public about "never" changing his mind on the filibuster. Even if he feels that way, Democrats would have more leverage if Republicans were afraid he might vote to eliminate the filibuster if they didn't play ball.
Speaking of which, here's my wildly unpopular voting rights proposal:
- All Americans get a national ID card free of charge.¹ It would look something like this:
- In-person voting would require you to show this ID.
- Early voting, mail voting, Sunday voting, etc. are standardized at some reasonable compromise level.
- Redistricting is handed over to a nonpartisan national commission.
- The end.
Republicans get photo ID voting and Democrats get photo ID voting that doesn't favor any particular constituency. The country gets standardized rules for early voting etc., which makes things easier for all and doesn't have much partisan effect regardless of what the rules are. And gerrymandering, which entered a whole new age of corruption with the advent of computerized GIS tools, is finally put to rest.
As near as I can tell, various parts of my plan are hated by Democrats, Republicans, socialists, libertarians, conservatives, liberals, rank-and-file voters, and political elites. Other than that, though, it's great.
¹No, it wouldn't turn us into a "papers please" police state. No, it wouldn't do anything that we haven't already done in a chaotic way already. But it would provide everyone with reliable ID, which would help with voting, legal employment, the unbanked, etc. More here.
Isn't the more interesting part about Manchin's statements the bit that sounds like support for reinstating the talking filibuster? If he (and hopefully Sinema) truly supports such a change to filibuster rules, that would be a very big deal and effectively compel more bipartisan negotiation.
As far as your idea for a national ID card goes, I'm fully on board with it. It has the advantage of forcing Republicans to show how serious they really are about fighting "voter fraud" with one of their favorite policies (photo ID).
I think that you and Kevin are missing the point on the voter ID thing. Republicans aren’t actually concerned about fraudulent votes. The real virtue of these proposals for Republicans is that people who are indisputably eligible to vote would not be able obtain Kevin’s proposed national identity card for the same reasons they can’t obtain state issued identity cards now, namely, they don’t have the required breeder documents.
The effect of Kevin’s proposal would be to permanently disenfranchise a lot of poor and minority people who typically vote Democratic.
Of course Republicans aren't really concerned about fraudulent votes. The national ID wouldn't be optional. If you are a citizen you will be required to have one.* This is how it works in most developed countries. The beauty of the proposal is that it "solves" two big, current GOP issues -- voter fraud and illegal immigration -- so any opposition would just highlight their own hypocrisy.
* See bharshaw's comment below. As a part of any ID proposal, current barriers would be dealt with to insure every adult citizen has one.
But what would be the mechanism for supplying people who don’t have breeder documents or driving licenses or passports? There’s huge numbers of rural people (particularly in the south, Texas, and New Mexico) who weren’t born in hospitals and lack a certificate of live birth.
There’s millions of Americans who don’t have the forms of government issued identification because they can’t get it. Yet this proposal assumes that everyone has those things and so it’s just a question of data input.
How would you get those people national identity cards?
Millions of people's birth records have been lost from wars and other catastrophes in countries where just such IDs are now commonplace. I don't know the specifics about how this problem was dealt with in determining citizenship, but the fact that it was dealt with should be enough to show that the problem is solvable.
It’s never been dealt with in this country. Other countries that have traditionally had national identity cards have also had relatively little immigration from places where it’s impossible to obtain breeder documents.
I know that as of the 1990’s there were people living in Louisiana and Mississippi who either didn’t have a certificate of live birth because they weren’t born in a hospital or couldn’t get one because of sloppy record keeping, particularly in black hospitals. How exactly are you going to get these people national identity cards ?
Mitch - it was Jim Crow policy to deny certificates of live birth to African Americans in many southern states. Not sure when the practice ended. So the ID requirements are designed to cut them out of voting as well as other poor folks who don't drive.
For many African Americans who weren’t born in a hospital and for many Latinos living along the border, the problem continued at least into the 1990 when I encountered a number of people for whom no breeder documents exist.
As you pointed out, there are a lot of people who simply don’t have access to the documents necessary to get things like driving licenses and bank accounts. The Republicans know this and know that these people are overwhelmingly Democratic and so are using voter identification as a ruse to keep those people from voting even though it’s clear that they’re entitled to vote.
Now if only we had some models of national ID systems in poorer countries with documentary gaps....
Ah heaven forbid, it's just impossible...
Perhaps you could suggest one so that we could discuss its adaptability to our situation in which a very large number of people lack access to the basic documents that are necessary to obtain a driving license.
You might also consider explaining why enormous resources should be squandered on a national identity card since it would not meet republican’s objections even if successfully implemented. The republicans understand that’s there’s no problem with voter fraud. They don’t want to allow these people to vote and they’ll simply find another patently false reason for doing that.
Let’s address that problem instead of becoming sidetracked with a red herring.
Given an administration genuinely committed to solving the problem, it could be solved. The relatively small number of people who cannot currently produce identity documents could be given background checks. It would require a bit of effort by investigators and it wouldn't be entirely foolproof. An older person might not be traceable all the way back to birth, and collecting evidence that they had lived in the USA for only thirty or forty years might result in some very long term unofficial residents being given citizenship that they're not formally entitled to. For Republicans, that would be a show stopper. For any sensible person, giving a person who has resided in the US, however unofficially, for thirty or forty years citizenship should be a non-issue.
Yes and actually how it works in ... almost all countries except the most dirt-poor.
Of course a national ID card shouldn't disenfranchise anyone really, it rather should be enabling (as having identification in a modern society opens up pathways more than it closes)
And where is it that people would get these ID cards? (And what other ID must they have to present in order to get one?) Poor people, especially in rural areas, already have big problems just going to vote, never mind all the other things one has to go to "the city" to do.
This is one of those ideas that sounds just peachy keen to people of a little means who live in urban areas. For everybody else, not so much.
I think you'd phase it in over a few years. First step would be to transfer DMV data/photo to your national ID. Second would be to compare that data against social security and IRS data to identify omissions and process to eliminate (realistically reduce) duplications. Then mail the people for whom you have records but no photo a voucher for a national ID card when returned with a photo. Work with Native American tribes (and others) on the process of getting the photos.
There's currently a lot of cross-checking of national databases. The State Department's passport process allows for taking your own picture and sending it in with a renewal.
The key for Kevin's proposal to work is processing the photos--IMO you'd need to ensure each photo is of a unique person. There's likely too much duplication if you simply concatenate existing databases and only rely on SSN and address to eliminate duplications. (That's a problem in existing efforts to ensure voter registration rolls don't allow a person to vote in more than one locale/state.)
It seems to work just fine in nearly every other developed country of the world.
We're not every other country alas. Elderly African Americans born in the South were denied birth certificates so they don't have proof of identity. Also some folks born near the US border are having trouble proofing US citizenship because some doctors faked documents for $$$ to allow Mexican born kids to be American born on paper.
There's other folks trapped in a nether world due to problems obtaining documents that provide proof of identity many due to name changes or even typos on their SSN card or Birth Certificate.
Those are issues which can be addressed in any ID proposal. Due to war and other catastrophes, the problem is also one that other countries have had to deal with. It is solvable.
Can they? To date it's been a nightmare for this slice of the population post 9/11 and the GOP has made it harder not easier for folks to run the gambit through obtaining documentation and getting to the sparse locations usually in white suburbs to get an ID or drivers license. Also the fees involved to get the documentation and license or ID are a de facto poll tax.
It's funny how Lefties head straight toward American Exceptionalism in their own way....
Lots of Developing as well as Developed countries have rather successfully dealt with documentary gaps. It's not a new nor an insummountable problem - unless you are really bought into blocking the idea and of course letting a limited number of edge cases block any progress, in a perfect example of Absolute Perfection being the enemy of Good Steps to Progress.
FMIAS - The exceptionalism is on the Conservative side, they are the roadblock, they don't actually want these folks to be able to obtain an ID, they want to both require folks have an ID and make it as hard as possible to obtain one. It's a way to have a poll tax that the conservative courts have been hunky dory with.
Actually, it worked well before the Second World War but with declining functionality ever since. The French system, for example, was very simple because it relied upon officials in cities and even the smallest of hamlets to register births and generally keep track of locals. Do you had a solid base for your identity cards.
Over time, however, there’s been a huge influx of immigrants and refugees starting with stateless people after the Second World War and continuing to the present massive influx of immigrants and refugees from North Africa and the Middle East. These people frequently lack verifiable identity papers and their breeder documents are totally unverifiable.
Consequently, the French are now struggling and because of the customs of immigrant communities, even birth on French soil are harder to keep track of.
But also, as others have remarked, the situations are hardly comparable. There’s millions of Americans who don’t have the necessary breeder documents. They lack identity cards now, not because they are slothful but because things like the new federalize driving licenses are simply impossible to obtain.
Concur on both counts. Manchin is definitely signaling flexibility here, both for the "talking filibuster" -- which I think is an excellent idea, just to make those nasty old fossils work for their obstruction -- and for perhaps eventually amending the filibuster rule regarding things like civil rights if Republicans continue to obstruct mindlessly.
I just hope he's learning how to use his power a little better than he did with the relief bill. I don't know that I've ever seen a more ham-handed and ultimately pointless exercise of leverage. Did he get anything for WV?
As to a national ID card, yes, fine. Makes sense to me. All the objections I've seen to it are to presumed difficulties in obtaining one, which (1) is purely a matter of implementation and (2) likely to be much easier than, say, driver licenses or equivalent state IDs because it would be federally administered. (The glibertarian objections are, as usual, simply silly, as the near-ubiquity of state-issued IDs makes plain.)
If the talking filibuster increases references to the Music Man -- "he can talk, he can talk, he can talk... but he doesn't know the territory, doesn't know the territory" -- in political discourse, I am all for it.
Mostly, that secretly obese Sen. Ted Cruz needs to more obviously prove comparable to J.J., the fatfuck choir student (I would say standout, but I don't actually know if he was that good a singer) who intentionally mumbled his lines at the opening of the Fall 1997 staging of the Music Man at my high school for the sake of throwing off his co-stars's performance. J.J., who later that school year was disinvited from attending his own high school graduation for threatening to bring a gun to it, was as socially maladaptive as Sen. Soup from the Great State of Texas. It's a fitting comparison.
Fuck them both, J.J. & Rafael, Jr.
Over on PowerLine, I have asked several times in recent months if they would support a National ID Card as Kevin describes. Not a single commenter or poster has agreed with that. It's just kind of amazing how they can demand ID and then be unwilling to support the best way to ensure that everybody has such an ID. Very telling.
Very telling, indeed. Their opposition comes from its actual solving of the problem they allege to be troubled by. The real justification for their advocacy of voter ID becomes obvious.
Yep.
Naturally they favor voter ID which is harder for Democratic voters to obtain. This is elementary. They would justify their position by claiming only Democratic voters commit voter fraud.
Over on PowerLine, I have asked several times...
As a public service, kindly describe the medication regimen you have found most effective for coping with that kind of environmental stress. Thank you in advance.
They’re idiots. That’s all the medication I need. 😉
Kevin, that photo looks like the one that would be in the papers if you were indicted under the RICO act on 27 counts.
The ID would need an address, including precinct information, and would have to be re-issued every time someone moved.
It's like all ID photos these days, especially passport photos. They won't let you smile, for example, apparently because it reduces the effectiveness of facial-recognition software. They make us all look like criminals.
And as to re-issuing, meh. Current information would be centrally maintained and easily accessible by anyone who needed it, changing it would be easy, and then you'd get a new one. I'm guessing the federal government has the means to do this ...
As Eminem said, "I'm a criminal? You're gotdamn right".
I think he looks like he just saw a guy robbing a bank and realized it was Dr. Octopus.
Not necessarily. In my state the county uses the DMV card/drivers license to ensure uniqueness but I'm not required to change the card if I change my county, just update the county data. They could do the same with Kevin's card.
I have a real ID drivers license in NC
Just got it
I had to provide my birth certificate
Proof or residency - with 2 verification documents
My SS card
My wife had to provide all the ABOVE AND our marriage license to explain why her birth name and current name do not match
We had all these records 'cause the Army teaches you how to keep records.
But many people do not have these. Hell I'm so old my birth certificate was chiseled into a stone tablet!!!!
Look DELIBERATE voter fraud just doesn't happen. Mistakes happen
Think of it this way.
I'm an illegal immigrant and I want Democrats to win
So I go before a county employee and provide documents to get the right to vote. I give them bank statements showing where I live. Pay stubs to show where I work Utility bills no more than 60 days old.
All to commit a felony to elect Joe Biden? Gov Roy Cooper?
C'mon folks. I don't know ANYONE that stupid.
The republicans are offering a solution to a non-existent problem. They "fear" the illegal immigrant.
But if a company did not use the tools in E-Verify and got caught hiring illegal immigrants? What's the punishment? Yeah, a slap on the wrist.
So that guy who came across and worked for 6 months at a pig processing plant - PAID payroll taxes - bought groceries here and paid state and local taxes on those purchases gets sent back home with an arrest record while the company he worked for tells the recruiter in Mexico "Hey, wait a week then send Miguel back across, we won't have to train him".
Bizarre........
The handful of documented cases of voter fraud are mostly snowbirds voting where they summer and where they winter, mostly GOP voters.
Does the Real Id standard (https://www.dhs.gov/real-id) basically satisfy a national ID requirement? Oregon is notifying all citizens that they need to update their driver's license to this version if they want to travel via airline. Due date October or something like that.
Passports are our friends.
Also, I am not surprised the Michigan, Jr., White Nationalist Militia Fucks in the Beaver State are so opposed to Smart ID.
Fuck them, & fuck the state constitutional racial covenants, too.
Not really. It’s mainly designed to stop “illegal aliens” from being able to get a driving license. It’s not more secure because the documents that are acceptable like Social Security statements are themselves not designed to be means of establishing one’s identity and they are not particularly secure, either.
The thing that makes the national identity cards of France do secure was that the French people tended to stay put which meant that local officials knew them so the first identity card provided a good baseline even for people who moved to biggish cities or Paris. By contrast, the USA uses birth certificates as the primary breeder document, which is why you can still get a “Day of the Jackal” passport here.
Real(ID)y? Just got an Oregon license and the employee was practically encouraging me to NOT get a real-id. "You know that costs more, right?"
I'd support a "national ID" as long as a whole lot of requirements required to get one are lowered, because there are a lot of poor people who don't have any of that documentation, and wouldn't even know where to begin to get it.
The fees would also need to be waived, i.e. the Federal Government should foot the bill.
And, the government would need something like mobile card support, because expecting poor/old/sick/rural people to make their way to some building in a city and stand around for hours, hopefully with all the correct documentation, is the exact reason why Republicans want this step in allowing people to vote: it's not something most people can do or would even volunteer to do.
It's a laborious process for those of us who have the documents, and if it's anything like getting a passport, can be "expensive". I can throw away $170 for a passport book and card that will last 10 years, but having to get a new one every time I moved would be prohibitively expensive and a massive PITA.
So, if these national ID cards are going to be required for voting, then the government needs to be the one doing all of the leg work, and it needs to be for free, otherwise, you can forget about the House, Senate and White House ever being in the hands of Democrats.
Presumably if the federal government was issuing the cards, they could do so at the post offices and other federal buildings they own, of which there are 31,000+ of the former and 130,000+ of the latter (although perhaps many of those are restricted access, so let’s say only 25% or 32,500 are accessible to the public).
That’s a lot of locations that could potentially allow people to obtain a federal ID. But sure, let’s add mobile vans to traverse the parts of the country that don’t have any post offices or federal buildings nearby. I’m cool with that if you can find them.
I agree, and would add a phase-in period. The "Real-ID' law originated after 9/11, so we've had a very long phase-in period for it.
Agree 100%. Give the Repugniphants what they say they want (riiiiight): a bulletproof ID card. And include in the bill the funding/infrastructure to make damn sure everyone gets one, and ASAP. Won't be a cure-all, but it'll shut 'em up about photo IDs...
Unfortunately, all this will probably mean an amendment, end you can forget any red states signing on to it.
The filibuster is just a bunch of rules, which can be changed at any time by a majority vote. The rules were changed so that judges could be approved by majority vote and for reconciliation, so obviously specific things could be exempted. Manchin can just make a list of things that he thinks might be exempted from the 60 vote cloture rule, and Democrats can take it our leave it. Ditto Sinema or in fact any other Democratic Senator. The blue dogs would still have the final say on any bill (unless some Republicans voted for it, which is unlikely) - it's not like Democrats could ignore the blue dogs if the filibuster does not apply. The blue dogs can see how things are playing in their states and negotiate and vote accordingly. Voters in those states will like it if their Senators get to exercise power.
Yes, we need a national ID card. Google could easily do it (your name could be in different colors). They have the information anyway.
The one thing I'd add to your list is that the number of voting precincts has to be proportional to the population.
I understand why you'd require that, but think about a county that's the size of RI with small population.
Back when India was holding elections, one of the papers reported on the extraordinary measure they took just to get the votes of a couple people, which were living in the back of nowhere. Don't know why we can't emulate such efforts.
Why so old school with ID cards? Why not get a microchip imbedded so we can just get scanned.? Or even just think about who we want to vote for and it could get automatically sent to election central so the votes could be immediately counted. People might be reluctant to get the chip though. Maybe we could fake a pandemic and pretend we invented a vaccine to trick people into getting the imbed. I’ll bet we could get Bill Gates to go along with this.
' "It takes listening to the minority to make sure the majority is getting it right.” Does this make any sense? '
Why, no, it does not. It is a stupid person's idea of something a smart person might say.
The other thing that makes no sense is your proposal for a national ID card, which would suffer from all and exactly the same barriers to uptake that state IDs suffer from today.
The solution is purple-finger voting; and I am amazed that the Republicans have not proposed it before now, because the population of citizens who have no documents is by no means confined to the familiar segments who are thought to lean Democratic. There are a lot more people in rural areas living without documentation than you may think.
Democrats oppose voter ID laws in several states because (a) the problem of voter fraud doesn't exist, and (b) Democratic voters are disenfranchised as a result. Kevin's "compromise" is to mandate voter ID across the entire nation? That makes no sense. Why would Democrats -- who happen to be the majority -- agree to that?
National ID has been strongly opposed by both parties for years. Why would either party agree to it now?
Maybe Sunday is Kevin's day for trolling.
I don't think the solution for voting rights is to adopt bad-faith proposals from Republicans. A better way forward: work with Manchin on modifying the filibuster rules, then pass whatever Manchin and the Democratic majority can get through.
Democrats are not getting Republican votes for anything. There's no need to pretend they should work toward a bipartisan compromise solution.
Washington State is a vote-by-mail state, so ID is not an issue for regular voters. As long as you've voted in the last election, the elections folks will keep sending you a ballot. Now, if I were a new voter, I might personally be in trouble because I'll be damned if I know where a copy of my birth certificate is. Careless, perhaps, but I'd be willing to bet I'm not alone. If such documentation is required in Kevin's scheme, a lot of folks could be disenfranchised. The work around could be a sworn affidavit by the voter declaring he or she was born at such-and-such a place on the day of his or her birth. Of course, the affidavit would have to be accepted for all voters in all states.
I'd like to see the cost on implementing Kevin's idea in conjunction with a biometric or facial recognition (iris-scanning is a highly mature technology from what I can tell), ID network. I'm sure it would never fly in the US, but, it would make the system more robust, and would accommodate voters who misplace or lose their IDs (in other words, you wouldn't physically need to have your card with you when you arrive at the polling place).
When my brother had to quickly obtain documentation to sign up for Medicaid after a medical emergency while unemployed before Obamacare was fully operational, my mom kicked into high gear calling the vital records office in the state where he was born and was able to obtain a certified copy of his birth certificate. It took about a week.
Ahhhhh, erase or blur some of that image for security reasons.
I'm probably overreacting, he's obviously altered some information. Right?
"nonpartisan national commission"
For gerrymandering reform? I don't that's possible. As soon as you start deciding what people should be recognized as certain voting blocks, all hell breaks loose. You end up clumping Democrats together in some districts and Republicans in others. In other words you do gerrymandering.
There are algorithms that create maximally compact distracts while following county lines as much as possible. This truly eliminates politics from defining districts. This makes sense to me.
I think what Kevin means is that the "non-partisan national commission" would presumably recommend something like algorithm-based, geographically compact districts.
I'm constantly thinking about all of your points about liberal overreach, after reading the NY Mag interview of David Shor.
Excellent article.
Per Wikipedia: 'The idea for [an Autralian national identity] card was raised at the national Tax Summit in 1985 convened by the then Federal Labor government led by Bob Hawke. The card was to amalgamate other government identification systems and act against tax avoidance, and health and welfare fraud. The government introduced legislation in the parliament in 1986, but it did not have a majority in the Senate and was repeatedly blocked by the opposition and minor parties. Due to his opposition to the card, ALP senator George Georges resigned from the party to sit as an independent in December 1986. In the House of Representatives, ALP backbencher Lewis Kent said the card was un-Australian and that it would be more appropriate to call it a "Hitlercard or Stalincard"'.
And that was long before scope existed to claim the card's microchip would let Big Brother trace our every movement in real time.
So, Kevin, you no longer believe the filibuster is dead?
^^^Does this make any sense? The only way to pass voting reform on a party-line basis—i.e., with 50 votes—is to kill the filibuster. ^^^
Actually, that's logically not valid. You don't have to ***kill*** the filibuster to ^exempt^ some kinds of votes from it. The filibuster is no longer applied to executive branch appointments, for instance. So maybe that's what he means.
I'd like to think Manchin at some point might be open to reform of filibuster. There are further things that could be done that would considerably weaken the procedure, while still allowing those who want it the bigleaf of opposition to its abolition.
Here's the NY Times headline:
"Manchin Expresses Openness to Making Filibuster Harder to Use"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/us/politics/joe-manchin-filibuster-stimulus.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I'm sorry, your password was not recognized....what's your dog's name?
Do you want a phone call, use the app, or email for two-factor authorization?
The finger print reader can not detect your print--how may times have you washed and sanitized today? You'll have to stick your eye into the socket now.
We can't seem to read the chip--can you try swiping?
I'm sorry, we can not process any more transactions today--the block chain has consumed all the electricity the world is producing.
Isn't it pretty clear what Manchin means -- he's not in favor of getting rid of the entire filibuster, but might be convinced to get rid of it for certain classes of laws, such as voting rights laws.
I mean, it's already gone for judicial appointments.
Republicans would probably freak out at the idea of a NATIONAL ID card.
They almost certainly want the states to be in control of identification, since that definitely would allow them to deny IDs to the usual suspects, i.e., all the people in GOP controlled states who don't have the documents Republicans will insist on for people to qualify for an ID card (or don't know how to obtain those documents). The whole point of Republicanism today is to prevent enough likely Democratic voters from voting to ensure Republican victories in elections they couldn't win if every legitimate voter were allowed to cast a ballot (and actually voted). Republicans are looking for guaranteed wins.
@TriassicSands
👍🏻 Exactly right.
redistricting would be a perfect use for AI. give AI the rules, let it produce five solutions, and select.
I would be onboard with your voting regulations--with some add-ons.
- The national ID card must be available with little formality. It could be issued together with the birth certificate (which serves in practice as a non-photo-substitute). Renewals will be necessary to keep the photo updated. They must be easily available near everybody's residence. Ditto for replacements of lost cards.
- In person voting requires a standard for the number of voting booths or machines per 1000 eligible voters.
The problem of course is that these are technocratic questions. The problem the GOP has it political, not technocratic. Their policy preferences are either unpopular or non-existent, Vote suppression is the only tool that allows them to win anyway.
We moved to Italy nearly 4 years ago when we retired. When we became residents of our commune, Ascoli Piceno, we showed up at the town records office with proof of our identity (in our case, a US passport), a copy of our apartment lease (establishing residence) and a photo. Within a short period of time, we were admitted a photo ID card. The ID card is necessary for all kinds of things in Italy - setting up a bank account, signing up for national health insurance, buying a car. Most importantly, if you’re a citizen, obtaining the identity card automatically signs you up to vote, and acts as an identifying document when you actually show up to vote.
If Italy can do it, so can the US. In fact Rhode Island has set up a state ID card system for those who don’t have a driver’s license. You need acceptable ID (which includes a birth certificate) and proof of residency. Interestingly, it looks like they use the same form as the DMV uses for driver’s licenses-
https://www.brown.edu/about/administration/international-student-an
http://www.dmv.ri.gov/licenses/stateID/
In Italy, as in many European countries, you are required to carry ID with you at all times, and can be fined if a policeman stops you and you don’t have it. I suspect many Americans would find this provision objectionable, but it’s not necessary for a state ID system designed mostly to facilitate voting.
Voter ID, the notion of it, is the problem. My first impression of voting, waiting in line with my parents when I was five or so, is that the thing the clerks at the polls need to know, is where you live, and which one are you that lives there: your name. It's the address that matters as they check off who has voted. It's not that you are who you say you are when you go to vote, it's showing where you live (a registered, presumably habitable street address).
Are we all, all of us, progressives, too, so far gone now that we buy the proposition that there could be a coordinated effort relying on lots of people pretending to be someone else at someone else's address, just to vote, en bloc, and somehow sway an election?
Please, let's get rid of the idea that voter id accomplishes anything more useful than suppressing the vote--and get back to eliminating barriers. Automatic registration of everyone at age of majority and universal vote-by-mail. Period. No one is forced to do anything; but shove it in our faces, please, that the option is immediately available whether Republicans like it or no.,
So I teach college students and some of them cannot remember to bring their student ID to get onto the campus, much less into class and tests, etc. How do we get those individuals to carry their IDs? Maybe tattoo it on them? No, wait, that doesn't sound good.
Concur. Past due for this and making excuses why it can't be done is just that...excuses. We all have IDs which allow govt and businesses to track us, but the data is so haphazard we don't get the benefit of it.
National ID please. It's not like I haven't been carrying around a paper SocSec number for 40 years.
On the issue of a National ID, the first point that should always be highlighted is that the one and only reason Republicans harp about ID's to vote is to disenfranchise voters that are unlikely to vote for them. They are on record publicly admitting that the more people vote, the harder it is for them to win any kind of election. Having said that, instituting one, if done properly can actually be be beneficial in the long term for everyone, since it can help standardize ID's nationally, giving people access to all kinds of services that require an ID which right now people may not have access to for one reason or another. For the how to do it the US doesn't even need to look too far to look at how it can be done, all it has to do is look South of the border.
Mexico implemented its national ID in the 90s and continues to use it to this day with little hassle. Some of the things they did that should be easy to replicate in the US:
-Everyone had to get one, it didn't matter if people already had other forms of ID
-Cards were and continue to be always entirely free. People don't have to pay to get one.
-Opening of dedicated locations everywhere to get one (no multi-servicing locations for other things to cut back on wait times)
-Mobile centers that go into remote communities where it would be hard for people to travel to larger cities to get one
-Over six years from launch of the program until the ID became mandatory to vote in the first federal election to allow enough time for everyone to get it
-Basic requirements were quite simple:
1. Proof of citizenship (the process to acquire this if the person didn't have it,
became much simplified, and easier to do)
2. Photo ID (passport, school ID, work ID, driving license, work license,
basically any type of ID expedited by a recognized institution whether
government or not)
3.proof of address (any bill will do)
"Vote fraud" is a GOP false narrative. There's no reason to negotiate with them a "fix" for a problem we don't have. In particular, why would you want to "give" the Republicans national voter ID? They've been squealing about voter fraud for generations, even though no significant amount of voter fraud has been detected. If you let them have voter ID they will simply...
1.) switch from hassling likely Democratic voters at the polls to hassling likely Democratic voters during the ID application process; and
2.) start to complain about "counterfeit" voter ID cards used at the polls by likely Democratic voters.
We know by now that Republicans are using claims of voter fraud to grab and keep power, not to "protect the integrity" of elections. Until they manage to (legally) prevent "those people" from voting, they won't stop.
Exactly!
On the principle, dating from before the founding of the Republic, “No taxation without representation”, I would be fine with letting everyone vote who can prove that they have paid taxes (sales, property, payroll, income) for some defined period of time. Of course, this would cause Republican heads to explode, because there would not be a citizenship requirement. I just don’t see that someone who is here for the long haul has any less stake in the general welfare than anyone else here. And at the founding, hey presto, lots of (white) people who just happened to be here became enfranchised citizens. The Republic survived.
To be more realistic, we’re kidding ourselves if we think that a national ID would end Republican disinformation about ‘election fraud’. Why not educational campaigns, PSAs, online videos, “How your vote is protected”? There is clearly a lot of ignorance about how absentee/mail-in ballots work, how polling places and vote counts are monitored, etc., and that is fertile breeding ground for the doubt and suspicion Republicans have been fomenting for many years.