State rep: Elderly would be disenfranchised with voter-ID requirement

Try buying Sudafed, or the like.

How come it is fine to require showing ID to enter a party convention to vote for a primary candidate but not fine to require showing an ID to enter and vote in a general election?

Doesn't one have to prove one is a citizen in order to receive constitutional protections in many cases, such as entering an embassy?

Honestly?! You argue that voting is a constitutional right but that right does not include a blank check. When you register to vote you need to prove that you are indeed ELIGIBLE to vote. You know, things like being a US citizen, being registered in the actual state you live in and not one that you may have just moved from. etc. Rights don't mean a lack of responsibility.

Millions of dollars are being spent by proponents of no ID requirements for voting via lawsuits (legal fees), government support for advocacy groups supporting the same and yet the idea of actually mounting a campaign to identify, contact and assist those that may have no legal ID in getting one (for free) is considered an onerous burden to be compared to Jim Crow laws. Absolute rubbish.

Poll after poll has shown strong support for the simple act of showing one's ID when voting. The blunt fact is that example after example can be found where Democrats of old were openly blunt about the validity of using "repeaters" going back a century and a half.

I was just reading Tip O'Neil's biography where he admits multiple times that Democrat cheating was the norm and he himself pushed and past a law to combat this....ONLY after he had found himself at the short end of the stick himself.

O'Neil mentions (laughingly) of how their was the popular trick in wards that included Chinatown to have local asians vote multiple times by changing their hats. Then there was the old classic doggerel, "Vote often and early for James Michael Curley..."

Even those old time pols never had the convenience of having a good chunk of their votes coming from absentee voting. Nowadays you don't even have to prove that you are unable to get to the polls. This is, of course, now being pushed by both parties but in the end has simply lowered the bar for people to exercise their civic duty (note, duty) and in and of itself invites fraud. Motorvoter also lowered the bar and in states that award illegal immigrants the right to obtain licenses has also invited more fraud.

The bottom line is when all things political hinge on honest and fair elections, it is not unreasonable to assume that those that profess the belief a valid vote rejected is an outrage and yet create an environment that lowers the bar to allow unlawful votes to cancel out valid votes, then they indeed do not support the most honest and fair elections

So if something is a "fundamental constitutional right" there can be attached to it absolutely no check, no responsibility, no proof required exercise it?

Then why do you have to register to vote? Why do you have to tell the poll-station attendants your name when you vote? Why do they need to check the roll for you? Aren't these all "fundamental abridgements" of one's right to vote? Isn't it already too much of a violation to have to share your identity with a stranger before voting?

For that matter, why should one have to go to a polling station to vote? Or receive a mail-in ballot by mail? I want a French maid to come to my house, without knowing where it is or who I am, and allow me to vote. I don't want to have to register to do it, and I don't want anyone to check off my name when I do the deed -- all huge violations of "something fundamental" in the Constitution.

Look, the fact is that presenting ID is in no way materially different from registering in the first place, or telling the people at the polling station your name. Those are primitive checks to ensure security and integrity of votes, from a time before photo IDs. Photo IDs are a more secure, modern way of doing things.

The only people who are against IDs are Luddites, sophists, and those who want to ensure that people who aren't allowed to vote (illegal aliens, people who have already voted multiple times in multiple districts, made-up names) do in fact vote ... "early, and often."

^^ I did NOT want to "like" that comment. Accident. Grr.

most of the people this impacts are elderly or young. Perhaps they live in a nursing home, are perfectly ambulatory, but don't drive and don't travel. I remember reading about a group of nuns being denied the opportunity to vote because they didn't have IDs. When you hit a certain age, you don't need a current license or passport.

On the young side, lots of city kids end up without ID. They may have a school ID that covers most of what they need when proving age or identity (many of these laws limit the use of school IDs) and they don't really need ID day-to-day when they are 18.

There are some other groups people who don't do enough outside the home to need ID, but that should be small.

If you are going to require an ID, do it at registration and allow a pretty broad list of documents to prove identity/eligibility (much like an I-9). There are certainly some issues that the Motor Voter Laws brought about, maybe making registration too easy, but there isn't much evidence of voter fraud in this country, especially of the kind that requiring photo ID would fix.

I didn't have an ID for a while as a youthful person. I didn't drink or drive, and I never needed one to rent a place, attend a school, or open a bank account - just a social security number accounted for all those things. I didn't have a government ID until I wanted to leave the country and so acquired a passport.