Full Version: Georgia Voter ID Program
There is an article in the Washington Post bringing this to our attention:
The law looked as if it would be defeated until today:
Georgia is implementing a Voter ID program with the stated purpose of combatting voter fraud. It vastly reduces the types of identification acceptable to vote (17 types down to 6) and requires you to obtain a Voter ID card if you don't have one of those types of identification. This costs $20 for 5 years and $35 for ten years.
Sure it might sound harmless but let's put this in context. Who are the people that aren't typically going to have a driver's license? If you guessed those that are poor then you'd be right. African Americans happen to be disproportionally poor in GA and across the south. So you can get another form of ID from the government but you have to pay for it... hmmm. Sounds like the very definition of a poll tax which happens to be unconstitutional according to the 24th amendment.
That's not all, the cards will only be available in 59 of the state's 159 counties and among the list of counties where the card isn't available is the state's largest city - Atlanta. Furthermore DDS offices are only open 9am to 5pm Tuesday through Saturday which makes it difficult to obtain an ID card without taking off work.
Questions for debate:
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
QUOTE
The Georgia voter ID program has been the subject of fierce partisan debate since it was approved by the state's Republican-controlled legislature in March. The plan was blocked on constitutional grounds in October by a U.S. District Court judge, who compared the measure to a Jim Crow-era poll tax. A three-judge appellate panel, made up of one Democratic and two Republican appointees, upheld the lower court's injunction.
The program requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo identification before going to the polls, as opposed to 17 types of identification currently allowed. Those without a driver's license or other photo identification are required to obtain a special digital identification card, which would cost $20 for five years and could be obtained from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159 counties.
Proponents said the measure was needed to combat voter fraud, but opponents charged that Republicans were trying to keep black voters, who tend to vote Democratic, away from the polls.
The program requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo identification before going to the polls, as opposed to 17 types of identification currently allowed. Those without a driver's license or other photo identification are required to obtain a special digital identification card, which would cost $20 for five years and could be obtained from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159 counties.
Proponents said the measure was needed to combat voter fraud, but opponents charged that Republicans were trying to keep black voters, who tend to vote Democratic, away from the polls.
The law looked as if it would be defeated until today:
QUOTE
A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents.
Georgia is implementing a Voter ID program with the stated purpose of combatting voter fraud. It vastly reduces the types of identification acceptable to vote (17 types down to 6) and requires you to obtain a Voter ID card if you don't have one of those types of identification. This costs $20 for 5 years and $35 for ten years.
Sure it might sound harmless but let's put this in context. Who are the people that aren't typically going to have a driver's license? If you guessed those that are poor then you'd be right. African Americans happen to be disproportionally poor in GA and across the south. So you can get another form of ID from the government but you have to pay for it... hmmm. Sounds like the very definition of a poll tax which happens to be unconstitutional according to the 24th amendment.
That's not all, the cards will only be available in 59 of the state's 159 counties and among the list of counties where the card isn't available is the state's largest city - Atlanta. Furthermore DDS offices are only open 9am to 5pm Tuesday through Saturday which makes it difficult to obtain an ID card without taking off work.
Questions for debate:
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
The answer very much appears to be no. Any kind of processing fee for voting is indistinguishable from a poll tax.
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
I truly do not believe that this is motivated by any kind of desire to bring back Jim Crow. The Jim Crow system consisted of a whole array of laws, policies, and attitudes that all fed into one structure. Though poll taxes helped maintain it back in the day, it hardly follows from that that they could be instrumental in bringing it all back. That whole system is dead and buried, and is not coming back. If this had been California instead of Georgia passing this law, no one would be raising the specter of Jim Crow (though there still would have been opposition to the law), and it's just as unlikely to reappear in Georgia either.
I suppose that this genuinely is intended, at least by many of its grassroots advocates, for the prevention of voter fraud. The problem I have with it is has less to do with the racial dimension, than with the fact that requiring a picture ID to exercise your right to vote is just another step in the direction of requiring an ID for everything under the sun. It's the wrong direction to go in.
If we want to prevent voter fraud, the way to do it is by making examples out of people who are caught committing it. Who'd want to risk spending 10 years in jail just for the sake of getting in one or two extra votes?
The answer very much appears to be no. Any kind of processing fee for voting is indistinguishable from a poll tax.
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
I truly do not believe that this is motivated by any kind of desire to bring back Jim Crow. The Jim Crow system consisted of a whole array of laws, policies, and attitudes that all fed into one structure. Though poll taxes helped maintain it back in the day, it hardly follows from that that they could be instrumental in bringing it all back. That whole system is dead and buried, and is not coming back. If this had been California instead of Georgia passing this law, no one would be raising the specter of Jim Crow (though there still would have been opposition to the law), and it's just as unlikely to reappear in Georgia either.
I suppose that this genuinely is intended, at least by many of its grassroots advocates, for the prevention of voter fraud. The problem I have with it is has less to do with the racial dimension, than with the fact that requiring a picture ID to exercise your right to vote is just another step in the direction of requiring an ID for everything under the sun. It's the wrong direction to go in.
If we want to prevent voter fraud, the way to do it is by making examples out of people who are caught committing it. Who'd want to risk spending 10 years in jail just for the sake of getting in one or two extra votes?
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truly have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
For constitutionality, I will defer to the legal system as it runs it's course. I can see the argument for both sides, and I'm not willing to wager on the outcome. I can see it likely as being struck down simply for the probability of partisan charges of racism and raising the Civil Rights Act.
I do however support picture ID for voting. For someone who values the right to vote, I don't see having to quickly and simply prove that you're who you say you are as being egregious. Proving identity is but one of the many small measures that can be implemented to deter fraud. To claim that this measure is a poll tax is an insult to those that grew up enduring Jim Crow laws. This is not a literacy test, not a poll tax in the true meaning of the word and not equivalent to mandating property ownership to vote.
The measure should not be put into effect however, until all counties can support it, and if people legitimately cannot afford ID, it should be provided at no cost by the state. The law requires a fee waiver to anyone claiming, with no proof required, to be indigent. Link
The article didn't seem to list what forms of ID were eligible to be used, but I'm hard pressed to come up with more than 4 or 5 that conclusively prove identity. What was in the list of 17, a note from your mother?
If asking for ID is seen as to intrusive, then why honestly do we even bother? Vote early and vote often......
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truly have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
For constitutionality, I will defer to the legal system as it runs it's course. I can see the argument for both sides, and I'm not willing to wager on the outcome. I can see it likely as being struck down simply for the probability of partisan charges of racism and raising the Civil Rights Act.
I do however support picture ID for voting. For someone who values the right to vote, I don't see having to quickly and simply prove that you're who you say you are as being egregious. Proving identity is but one of the many small measures that can be implemented to deter fraud. To claim that this measure is a poll tax is an insult to those that grew up enduring Jim Crow laws. This is not a literacy test, not a poll tax in the true meaning of the word and not equivalent to mandating property ownership to vote.
The measure should not be put into effect however, until all counties can support it, and if people legitimately cannot afford ID, it should be provided at no cost by the state. The law requires a fee waiver to anyone claiming, with no proof required, to be indigent. Link
The article didn't seem to list what forms of ID were eligible to be used, but I'm hard pressed to come up with more than 4 or 5 that conclusively prove identity. What was in the list of 17, a note from your mother?
If asking for ID is seen as to intrusive, then why honestly do we even bother? Vote early and vote often......
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 17 2005, 06:02 PM)
I do however support picture ID for voting. For someone who values the right to vote, I don't see having to quickly and simply prove that you're who you say you are as being egregious. Proving identity is but one of the many small measures that can be implemented to deter fraud. To claim that this measure is a poll tax is an insult to those that grew up enduring Jim Crow laws. This is not a literacy test, not a poll tax in the true meaning of the word and not equivalent to mandating property ownership to vote.
The measure should not be put into effect however, until all counties can support it, and if people legitimately cannot afford ID, it should be provided at no cost by the state. The law requires a fee waiver to anyone claiming, with no proof required, to be indigent. Link
The article didn't seem to list what forms of ID were eligible to be used, but I'm hard pressed to come up with more than 4 or 5 that conclusively prove identity. What was in the list of 17, a note from your mother?
If asking for ID is seen as to intrusive, then why honestly do we even bother? Vote early and vote often......
The measure should not be put into effect however, until all counties can support it, and if people legitimately cannot afford ID, it should be provided at no cost by the state. The law requires a fee waiver to anyone claiming, with no proof required, to be indigent. Link
The article didn't seem to list what forms of ID were eligible to be used, but I'm hard pressed to come up with more than 4 or 5 that conclusively prove identity. What was in the list of 17, a note from your mother?
If asking for ID is seen as to intrusive, then why honestly do we even bother? Vote early and vote often......
I agree with you DTOM, and as it happens there are groups that have tried/are trying to implement a counter measure that would accomplish the same thing but it wouldn't cost you money. If the state is going to require a special form of ID to vote then based on the laws of the land there should not be a "fee" to obtain it because that effectively means you have to pay money to vote. The fact that this ID cannot be easily obtained is just as troubling, especially since you can't even obtain it in the largest city in the state.
I was looking for a list of the "17 forms of ID" and I can't find it anywhere, perhaps someone from Georgia can dig them up. Some of the articles I have read suggest that it invalidates "free" pieces of ID like a Social Security card or a Birth Certificate which have traditionally been accepted.
QUOTE
That whole system is dead and buried, and is not coming back. If this had been California instead of Georgia passing this law, no one would be raising the specter of Jim Crow (though there still would have been opposition to the law), and it's just as unlikely to reappear in Georgia either.
The system is dead from a legal and practical perspective, but I'm not so sure it is dead in everyone's hearts and minds. I can say from experience of living in the south for decades that while not pervasive, racism and class hostility are alive and well. There are a lot of groups out there that feel there has been a continued effort in the days since those laws were in effect to disenfranchise black and poor voters. This is a well documented complaint in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and I'm sure many others. From that perspective one could see this as a subtle extension of that policy becausse it could potentially disenfranchise poor voters. That is why I placed the debate in the Race forum instead of the Constitutional forum
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 17 2005, 09:27 PM)
The system is dead from a legal and practical perspective, but I'm not so sure it is dead in everyone's hearts and minds. I can say from experience of living in the south for decades that while not pervasive, racism and class hostility are alive and well. There are a lot of groups out there that feel there has been a continued effort in the days since those laws were in effect to disenfranchise black and poor voters. This is a well documented complaint in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and I'm sure many others. From that perspective one could see this as a subtle extension of that policy becausse it could potentially disenfranchise poor voters. That is why I placed the debate in the Race forum instead of the Constitutional forum
I'm not saying that racism is dead. It still exists throughout the counrty. But that's a far cry from saying that Jim Crow has any chance of coming back. And since as you say, the racism isn't pervasive, it's probably not the primary motive behind this.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 17 2005, 08:34 PM)
I'm not saying that racism is dead. It still exists throughout the counrty. But that's a far cry from saying that Jim Crow has any chance of coming back. And since as you say, the racism isn't pervasive, it's probably not the primary motive behind this.
For what it is worth I wasn't suggesting anything as pervasive as Jim Crow, it was used in several articles as a comparison and I found it to be appropriate and useful when discussing Southern politics. In this case the motivations behind this law seem to be very much in line with the spirit of those laws.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 17 2005, 07:43 PM)
Questions for debate:
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
Cube, you have me stumped. I don't get the premise of this debate. While the Washington Post article is interesting and shows a continued pattern of unconstitutional opinions coming from the upper echelons of the USDOJ, the Voter ID law is stale news, at least here in Georgia. There seems to be a disconnect between the Washington Post article that started this debate and your questions, but I'll give it a go.
The Voter ID issue has been dead in the water since October 27th when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Northern District of Georgia that the law was unconstitutional. A copy of the N. Dist. ruling is here: Common Cause et al. v. Billups et al. (.pdf). I was unable to locate the 11th Circuit Order upholding the ruling but you may have more luck than me (11th Circuit Opinions Searchpage). So to answer your first question, the Voter ID law has already been ruled unconstitutional. This law is not being enforced. It can not be enforced.
QUOTE
The system is dead from a legal and practical perspective, but I'm not so sure it is dead in everyone's hearts and minds.
Come on, Cube. What is this - retro rhetoric? Hearts and minds? Our hearts and minds have moved on. This is a dead issue and no one here in Georgia is talking about it. The AJC's last article on the matter was October 27th. The Georgia General Assembly hasn't met since August 3rd. No one around here seems to be in any hurry to get this law back on the books.In regards to your second question, I think both of your suggested answers are wrong. The reason this law was enacted is purely homegrown politics and has little, if nothing, to do with race. It's understandable that a person who doesn't live here could see this as some sort of Jim Crow law or poll tax. Georgia certainly has not fully outgrown its racist past and your question is completely valid. Georgia continues to need to be examined for institutional racism.
However, in this particular instance, the Georgia GOP moved to enact the Voter ID law in an effort, or at least to make appearances that, they were countering the unreliable Diebold machines implemented by Democrat Secretary of State Cathy Cox who has her eye on running for Governor in 2006 against Republican incumbant Sonny Purdue. The Republicans were working to discredit Cox with this legislation. The GOP chose the usual motivation of 'it's for security' because that line seems to buy them everything else they want. This discrediting effort against Cox was further evidenced after the initial ruling on the Voter ID act when some on the Elections Board tried to force Cox to resign . I honestly do not think there was a racist motivation by the GOP in moving for the Voter ID law. Just political jockeying at the expense of the electorate as a whole. You know, nothing new.
And since you asked, here are the current 17 pieces of identification accepted at polling places:
QUOTE
(1) A valid Georgia driver's license;
(2) A valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification;
(3) A valid United States passport;
(4) A valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;
(5) A valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any employer of the elector in the ordinary course of such employer´s business;
(6) A valid student identification card containing a photograph of the elector from any public or private college, university, or postgraduate technical or professional school located within the State of Georgia;
(7) A valid Georgia license to carry a pistol or revolver;
(8) A valid pilot's license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authorized agency of the United States;
(9) A valid United States military identification card;
(10) A certified copy of the elector's birth certificate;
(11) A valid social security card;
(12) Certified naturalization documentation;
(13) A certified copy of court records showing adoption, name, or sex change;
(14) A current utility bill, or a legible copy thereof, showing the name and address of the elector;
(15) A bank statement, or a legible copy thereof, showing the name and address of the elector;
(16) A government check or paycheck, or a legible copy thereof, showing the name and address of the elector; or
(17) A government document, or a legible copy thereof, showing the name and address of the elector.
Source:GA SOS Voter Information
(2) A valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification;
(3) A valid United States passport;
(4) A valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;
(5) A valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any employer of the elector in the ordinary course of such employer´s business;
(6) A valid student identification card containing a photograph of the elector from any public or private college, university, or postgraduate technical or professional school located within the State of Georgia;
(7) A valid Georgia license to carry a pistol or revolver;
(8) A valid pilot's license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authorized agency of the United States;
(9) A valid United States military identification card;
(10) A certified copy of the elector's birth certificate;
(11) A valid social security card;
(12) Certified naturalization documentation;
(13) A certified copy of court records showing adoption, name, or sex change;
(14) A current utility bill, or a legible copy thereof, showing the name and address of the elector;
(15) A bank statement, or a legible copy thereof, showing the name and address of the elector;
(16) A government check or paycheck, or a legible copy thereof, showing the name and address of the elector; or
(17) A government document, or a legible copy thereof, showing the name and address of the elector.
Source:GA SOS Voter Information
QUOTE(Jaime @ Nov 17 2005, 09:28 PM)
Cube, you have me stumped. I don't get the premise of this debate. While the Washington Post article is interesting and shows a continued pattern of unconstitutional opinions coming from the upper echelons of the USDOJ, the Voter ID law is stale news, at least here in Georgia. There seems to be a disconnect between the Washington Post article that started this debate and your questions, but I'll give it a go.
The Voter ID issue has been dead in the water since October 27th when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Northern District of Georgia that the law was unconstitutional. A copy of the N. Dist. ruling is here: Common Cause et al. v. Billups et al. (.pdf). I was unable to locate the 11th Circuit Order upholding the ruling but you may have more luck than me (11th Circuit Opinions Searchpage). So to answer your first question, the Voter ID law has already been ruled unconstitutional.
The Voter ID issue has been dead in the water since October 27th when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Northern District of Georgia that the law was unconstitutional. A copy of the N. Dist. ruling is here: Common Cause et al. v. Billups et al. (.pdf). I was unable to locate the 11th Circuit Order upholding the ruling but you may have more luck than me (11th Circuit Opinions Searchpage). So to answer your first question, the Voter ID law has already been ruled unconstitutional.
Well I'd certainly trust your ability to do legal research
I did find a Washington Post article that referred to that decision from October of this year. Initially I saw this article (from today) which when I read it made it appear that decision was being overruled, but the article is a bit confusing. If I misread the article I suppose that is my fault but that is how I interpreted it.
[quote=heavyz2005,Dec 15 2005, 11:19 PM]
The program requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo identification before going to the polls, as opposed to 17 types of identification currently allowed. Those without a driver's license or other photo identification are required to obtain a special digital identification card, which would cost $20 for five years and could be obtained from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159 counties.
Proponents said the measure was needed to combat voter fraud, but opponents charged that Republicans were trying to keep black voters, who tend to vote Democratic, away from the polls.[/quote]
The law looked as if it would be defeated until today:
[quote]A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents.[/quote]
Georgia is implementing a Voter ID program with the stated purpose of combatting voter fraud. It vastly reduces the types of identification acceptable to vote (17 types down to 6) and requires you to obtain a Voter ID card if you don't have one of those types of identification. This costs $20 for 5 years and $35 for ten years.
Sure it might sound harmless but let's put this in context. Who are the people that aren't typically going to have a driver's license? If you guessed those that are poor then you'd be right. African Americans happen to be disproportionally poor in GA and across the south. So you can get another form of ID from the government but you have to pay for it... hmmm. Sounds like the very definition of a poll tax which happens to be unconstitutional according to the 24th amendment.
That's not all, the cards will only be available in 59 of the state's 159 counties and among the list of counties where the card isn't available is the state's largest city - Atlanta. Furthermore DDS offices are only open 9am to 5pm Tuesday through Saturday which makes it difficult to obtain an ID card without taking off work.
Questions for debate:
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
[/quote]
hello from heavyz this is my first time on this site and Im not sure how to navigate.
[/quote]
Hello only someone who sees only in black and white would even see racism here aren't the registration rules the same for blacks as they are for whites? Of course they are. Is it suddenly racist to ask for ID when someone is voting. A friend of mine recently got a library card and had to give 3 forms of ID. He did not claim that the librarian was a bigot. Hey maybe he should have called Al or Jesse, but hey they only come to defend blacks, right? Men of God I think not.
The program requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo identification before going to the polls, as opposed to 17 types of identification currently allowed. Those without a driver's license or other photo identification are required to obtain a special digital identification card, which would cost $20 for five years and could be obtained from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159 counties.
Proponents said the measure was needed to combat voter fraud, but opponents charged that Republicans were trying to keep black voters, who tend to vote Democratic, away from the polls.[/quote]
The law looked as if it would be defeated until today:
[quote]A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents.[/quote]
Georgia is implementing a Voter ID program with the stated purpose of combatting voter fraud. It vastly reduces the types of identification acceptable to vote (17 types down to 6) and requires you to obtain a Voter ID card if you don't have one of those types of identification. This costs $20 for 5 years and $35 for ten years.
Sure it might sound harmless but let's put this in context. Who are the people that aren't typically going to have a driver's license? If you guessed those that are poor then you'd be right. African Americans happen to be disproportionally poor in GA and across the south. So you can get another form of ID from the government but you have to pay for it... hmmm. Sounds like the very definition of a poll tax which happens to be unconstitutional according to the 24th amendment.
That's not all, the cards will only be available in 59 of the state's 159 counties and among the list of counties where the card isn't available is the state's largest city - Atlanta. Furthermore DDS offices are only open 9am to 5pm Tuesday through Saturday which makes it difficult to obtain an ID card without taking off work.
Questions for debate:
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
[/quote]
hello from heavyz this is my first time on this site and Im not sure how to navigate.
[/quote]
Hello only someone who sees only in black and white would even see racism here aren't the registration rules the same for blacks as they are for whites? Of course they are. Is it suddenly racist to ask for ID when someone is voting. A friend of mine recently got a library card and had to give 3 forms of ID. He did not claim that the librarian was a bigot. Hey maybe he should have called Al or Jesse, but hey they only come to defend blacks, right? Men of God I think not.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 17 2005, 07:43 PM)
Questions for debate:
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
This week the Ohio House of Representative passed a bill to require voters to produce I.D. before they can vote. The Republican-dominated House says the bill will prevent voter fraud and both the Senate and governor's office are expected to approve the bill when it comes their way.
Democrats are calling the bill a "voter suppression" measure that address a problem nobody has complained of. They say it will be confusing and make voting more difficult for the poor, students and the elderly.
It's too soon to tell what effect this will have but recalling the hours-long wait to vote in the 2004 Presidential Elections, I shudder to think how many people would be raising hell if they had to wait in the cold rain for two-to-three hours to vote, only to find out when they finally got their chance to cast their ballot, some poll worker has to tell them to first produce a driver's license or utility bill.
It seems things are being done to make voting more difficult, not less so.
QUOTE(from the link)
Republican proponents in Georgia have cited federal approval of the program as evidence that it would not discriminate against African Americans and other minorities.
Geez, this sounds like, Well, we got away with it so it must be constitutional. I would tend to trust what Jaime said about it being unconstitutional.
Barring that, it sounds like another cute little trick to keep the "right kind of people" going to the polls and discourage the others who might not have as ready access to time and transportation to get to one of the 59 counties.
While I don't know that this rises (or sinks) to the level of Jim Crow-type legislation, I don't see how it is going to help those among us who already feel disenfranchised due to their poverty and lack of opportunity. In comparison, we see the news in Iraq where they do everything but roll out the red carpet for Iraqis to vote. It's pretty ironic.
QUOTE
That's not all, the cards will only be available in 59 of the state's 159 counties and among the list of counties where the card isn't available is the state's largest city - Atlanta. Furthermore DDS offices are only open 9am to 5pm Tuesday through Saturday which makes it difficult to obtain an ID card without taking off work.
Sorry, but the overwrought concern regarding the counties is just that. I would be willing to wager that every citizen in Georgia can find an office within 50 miles, probably within 25. Hey, small counties! 
Hmmmmm, they can only get the IDs Tuesday through Saturday, but when, pray tell, can they register to vote? My guess is "Tuesday through Saturday."
Questions for debate:
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not? Not being imbued with the vastly superior wisdom that comes with a black robe, I will say that I would find it to be constitutional. One of the foundations of our democracy is "one man, one vote." It is just as egregious to cancel out a citizens vote with a fraudulent "counter vote" as it is to deny the citizen a vote. Voter fraud is real. "Back in the day", voter identity was confirmed because the folks working the polls knew their neighbors. With the industrialization of the voting process, that's no longer the case. While I wholeheartedly support swift, sure and harsh punishment of voter fraud now, I think that prevention will be more effective in reducing it.
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud? I go with the second. Casting this as a "Jim Crow poll tax" is nothing more than race baiting demagoguery. Of the 17 forms of identification currently accepted, the following cost money paid to the government to obtain: #1,2,3,6,7,8,10,11,12, & 13.
Frankly, Common Cause could have spent a tenth of the money they did on the legal case paying the $20 for the IDs for the very few poor people who didn't have any acceptable picture ID. Of course, doing so wouldn't have been nearly as effective come fundraising time as "fighting the reimposition of Jim Crow by those nasty Konservatives", nor as morally satsifying for self-annointed crusaders.
Grace and peace, BD
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 17 2005, 06:43 PM)
Questions for debate:
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
I find this article and idea beyond absurd. Frankly, there are 1/2 dozen acceptable forms of Identification on the list that don't prove identification by any measure of logic.
Consider that you used to be able to bring;
a utility bill
a bank statement
a paycheck
a birth certificate
a social security card
a gov't document...
NONE of these have pictures on them!!! I could send my neighbor, friends, kids, or whomever...
Good Lord. I feel like this is a darned if we do/darned if we don't discussion. If it was a DNC initiative, it would be the BEST IDEA SINCE SLICED BREAD!... but because they want a photo id, it's Jim Crow era suppression?? Good Lord...
I think the Jim-Crow issue is being used to obscure the important thing -- which is that it is right and just for election officials to require a photo ID from those who come to vote.
As someone else said, if you don't even care enough to carry identification with you, why bother to vote at all?
Most of us know that it's not a good idea to go around without identification. When I go fitness walking I carry my driver's license and insurance cards with me just in case I should get injured and need emergency care. To me, those are the minimum ID that everyone should carry at all times.
I do understand that not everyone drives, but every state I've ever lived in offers a photo identification card as an alternative to a driver's license, usually at a nominal fee.
As someone else said, if you don't even care enough to carry identification with you, why bother to vote at all?
Most of us know that it's not a good idea to go around without identification. When I go fitness walking I carry my driver's license and insurance cards with me just in case I should get injured and need emergency care. To me, those are the minimum ID that everyone should carry at all times.
I do understand that not everyone drives, but every state I've ever lived in offers a photo identification card as an alternative to a driver's license, usually at a nominal fee.
although unusual, i'm going to try and put in my two cents :-)
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
I believe over whemingly (spell check isnt catching this) it is definatley(or this word) no. As stated above this is basically a poll tax, which is banned by the United States Constitution.
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truly have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
Of course, I would hopefully think that Georgia leadership had the best in mind. But of course it is a poll tax. I mean, I shouldn't have to in theory, go out and get a drivers license or a registration number to vote. However, if I really need to get one, then I would want to file a paper and get one free. This is absolutely absurd
***Justin H**
1. Is the Georgia Voter ID law constitutional? Why or why not?
I believe over whemingly (spell check isnt catching this) it is definatley(or this word) no. As stated above this is basically a poll tax, which is banned by the United States Constitution.
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truly have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?
Of course, I would hopefully think that Georgia leadership had the best in mind. But of course it is a poll tax. I mean, I shouldn't have to in theory, go out and get a drivers license or a registration number to vote. However, if I really need to get one, then I would want to file a paper and get one free. This is absolutely absurd
***Justin H**
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 17 2005, 07:43 PM)
2. Is the Georgia Voter ID a 21st century version of Jim Crow poll taxes or does it truely have the noble purpose of preventing voter fraud?[/b]
Nowhere even close to some sort of " Jim Crow " system. Only someone delusional or trying to thwart the minds of the uniformed " poor " would suggest such a ludacris idea.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 17 2005, 07:43 PM)
African Americans happen to be disproportionally poor in GA and across the south. 173202
As late as the first World War, whites from the South scored lower on mental tests than did Blacks from northern states. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/th.../05/154820.html
The studies done from UGA do not show the whole picture. UGA also done some studies from the Ga. Lottery that showed that poor Blacks are a big percentage in playing the lottery.
Would one suggest that this to ( the lottery ) was some sort of " Jim Crow " implemented system put into place by Dixiecrats & the southen GOP to milk the resources out of poor blacks?
Blacks here in Metro Atlanta do very well. They move here from all over the U.S.
In fact, Black Enterprise listed Atlanta as the #2 city in the US for Blacks to move into for business & a good standard of living. Six of the top 10 cities for Blacks in the U.S. are below the Mason Dixon line. [ source - Black Enterprise ]
http://www.blackenterprise.com/ExclusivesEKOpen.asp?id=793 <~~ click here for further reading concening top 10 cities for Blacks
One liner posts are considered non-constructive and there fore violate rule #1 of 
I. All posts must be constructive and on-topic. Off-topic or non-constructive content will be edited or removed.
Additionally please refrain from double posting. If you have something to add before another member has added to the debate please use the edit window to expand your previous post.
QUOTE
I. All posts must be constructive and on-topic. Off-topic or non-constructive content will be edited or removed.
Additionally please refrain from double posting. If you have something to add before another member has added to the debate please use the edit window to expand your previous post.
I'm curious as to why the list of approved forms of ID is as large as 7 or 17. Why make the list any larger than:
1) US Passport
2) State-issued drivers' license
3) State issued ID card.
Any citizen can obtain a passport, and all citizens (with two minor exceptions addressed below) live in a state and thus can obtain a drivers license or ID card. The two exceptions are residents of DC, for whom a DC license or ID card would obviously suffice, and ex-pats living overseas, who probably already have passports. Since these forms of ID are available to everyone eligible to vote, lets just use those.
Why complicate things be allowing other types of ID to be allowed? The entire constitutional hurdle this law seems to be hitting is the result of creation of a new type of voter ID that must be paid for. Eliminate that option and this law becomes constitutional. Seems like a pretty easy fix to me, just cross out a couple of lines of the bill and re-pass it.
However, if we're going to allow drivers licenses to be a form of ID accepted at a polling place, then I'm not sure how to get around the problem that people who aren't US citizens can obtain a drivers' license.
1) US Passport
2) State-issued drivers' license
3) State issued ID card.
Any citizen can obtain a passport, and all citizens (with two minor exceptions addressed below) live in a state and thus can obtain a drivers license or ID card. The two exceptions are residents of DC, for whom a DC license or ID card would obviously suffice, and ex-pats living overseas, who probably already have passports. Since these forms of ID are available to everyone eligible to vote, lets just use those.
Why complicate things be allowing other types of ID to be allowed? The entire constitutional hurdle this law seems to be hitting is the result of creation of a new type of voter ID that must be paid for. Eliminate that option and this law becomes constitutional. Seems like a pretty easy fix to me, just cross out a couple of lines of the bill and re-pass it.
However, if we're going to allow drivers licenses to be a form of ID accepted at a polling place, then I'm not sure how to get around the problem that people who aren't US citizens can obtain a drivers' license.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.