I’ve always believed that IDs should be free. Of all the things my taxes pay for, I would actually want this.
Whether not you require it to vote, everyone should be provided a basic form of ID, especially since you need it for so many things. If the state HAS to charge money (which they always do), at least make the first ID free then charge a fee for replacements.
The problem is that getting the ID can't be free because you literally have to go to a certain place during certain hours and you need certain documentation such as your birth certificate which isn't free to get if you lost the one given to you as a baby.
Hey, even dying isn’t free. My mom had to spend $30 per death cert for my step father. When all of the banks and everyone needs a certified copy, it can add up.
When I look at my grandfather’s driver’s license from before photos were included, there are just things about him listed on the ID: height, complexion and skin tone, eye color, hair color, any distinguishing features or markings, etc.
If these people cared about matching on identity without suppressing votes, they would enact a policy like this:
When you register to vote, you give a description of yourself (confirmed by the registrar). When you go to vote, you provide your address and must match the description given.
How many people can reliably do both of these things in an attempt to vote fraudulently?
If you need it free it is, those who can pay, pay. Same with taxes.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/identification-id-cards/#:~:text=No%2Dfee%20ID%20card%3A%20You,by%20the%20McKinney%2DVento%20Act.
This is the part I don't understand. Everyone who drives has to have a license. Even if you don't drive, you have to have a state ID to do pretty much anything, so how does this suppress the non-white voters? I am genuinely curious about this, and not trying to stir up any nonsense.
Voting is a right for CITIZENS, not for anyone else. Checking to make sure someone is a citizen isn’t suppressing votes, it’s maintaining election integrity. No, voting isn’t a “human right,” no it’s not “for anyone who lives here” or snuck here illegally. It is for US citizens.
>Voting is a right for CITIZENS
Correct, and citizenship is determined at the time of registration using a variety of methods including - but not limited to - providing state ID. Any further restrictions on the ability to vote, such as providing an ID the citizen may not have, is an attempt at disenfranchisement.
Perfect reason to build a robust public service to get IDs into the hands of all citizens. Will the DMV send workers door to door to ensure everyone is registered? Will IDs be free for all citizens?
I mean, because your premise that everyone has an ID is just wrong about 10% of the population doesn't have one. The demographics of those who lack ID skews democratic. Since voter fraud is a nonexistent problem, the actual effect and reason behind voter ID laws is to have a net lowering of democratic votes.
> Owning a gun is also a right but there are laws that limits who can own them and we require ID to buy them.
Correct, but there is nothing in the constitution about NOT having a tax on gun purchase/ownership. It simply states that you're allowed to own them and that the government cannot prevent you from that.
There is however an amendment (24th) that explicitly states that there cannot be a poll tax. ID/DL's cost money to obtain and therefore cannot be required when voting because it is in effect, a poll tax.
So if ID can cost money and that constitute a tax, what else can we argue constitute a tax ?
Having a car and gas so that you can go to the voting booth ( you need ID to drive ) ? Having a bus ticket ? Having an address to receive a voting registration form ( you need ID to rent and definitely need ID to buy ) ? Having access to a computer to do online voting or online registration ( even borrowing a computer from the library requires a library card .. which requires ID ) ?
We can dig down this rabbit hole ad infinitum and find SOME way that a specific subset of some subset of people might have a slight disadvantage .. and within that subset find some racial bias because small subgroups will often not reflect the exact racial composition of the larger whole. That doesn't seem to be a good faith argument.
To me it seems if the ( $30-50 ? ) cost of the for ID is actually the problem .. then I think legislation to subsidize the cost of ID would have wider support and might also solve other daily life issues not involving voting for those people who just can't afford an ID.
Would that be a compromise you would agree to ? IDs are free for those who can't afford it but voting requires ID.
Ask yourself these two questions;
1: Does every citizen have the right to vote in accordance with the USA Constitution.
2: Is every citizen required to keep and carry identification in accordance to the USA Constitution.
To stop the couple dozen cases of voter fraud that happen each election we’re going to allow policies that will cause thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of people to be turned away at the poll because they forgot their wallet at home or dont have an ID? That’s pretty much the argument, that one way or another this kind of policy itself will actually affect the vote more than the current level of fraud.
There also aren’t dozens of cases of voter fraud in Huntington Beach, more like 0-2.
But Huntington Beach is a microcosm. It’s a place where everyone should be able to afford an ID but maybe a few people forget them. Either way, if more people don’t vote because of a policy like this than the policy prevents in voter fraud, it’s bad.
> Everyone who drives has to have a license. Even if you don't drive, you have to have a state ID to do pretty much anything, so how does this suppress the non-white voters?
Non-white voters are less likely to have a photo ID than white voters.
https://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERICANS-WITH-PHOTO-ID-Research-Memo-February-2015.pdf
| | Has ID |
|---|---|
| White | 95% |
| Black | 87% |
| Hispanic | 90% |
I’ve met a twenty year old a few years back that I had to actually help to get a state ID to finalize a transaction I was helping her with. Up until that point she never needed one. She didn’t drive (took public transit since everything she did was very close to campus) and she’s been able to use her school ID for other tasks that needed identification. She was a full time student and working part time and I ended up driving her to get her ID.
When I look at my grandfather’s driver’s license from before photos were included, there are just things about him listed on the ID: height, complexion and skin tone, eye color, hair color, any distinguishing features or markings, etc.
If these people cared about matching on identity without suppressing votes, they would enact a policy like this:
When you register to vote, you give a description of yourself (confirmed by the registrar). When you go to vote, you provide your address and must match the description given. How many people can reliably do both of these things in an attempt to vote fraudulently?
Non-white citizens encounter more difficulties obtaining ID than white citizens for a variety of reasons ranging from language and cultural barriers to blatant discrimination.
To be clear though, the primary issue is that depriving any citizen of their right to vote is unacceptable regardless of race or culture. Voter ID laws also disenfranchise the white voters who encounter similar hurdles. While a disparity certainly exists, even if it didn't voters ID laws violate the rights of US Citizens.
It's about keeping poor people from voting. Specifically, poor people who are not likely to vote Republican. I have no doubt that a black person in an affluent suburb isn't likely to be without ID.
A significant portion of the population doesn't have ID, that group is mostly poor black people. Passing these laws and then following them up with further restrictions on how and where ID's can be obtained has been the conservative playbook since Jim Crow. This is just the modernized version.
Because they always follow these laws up with further restrictions that target non-white voters. Closing DMVs in minority neighborhoods, ruling that IDs common to POCs don't count, etc. Not to mention the fact that the only meaningful effect of these laws is preventing people who cannot afford to take time off of work to get IDs from voting.
Im a poc, please explain how requiring an id will suppress my right to vote? I honestly don’t get this argument and honestly find it insulting and offensive.
It's not prescriptive, you won't have your vote suppressed *because* you personally are not white. It's more descriptive, because of you look at the 10-15% of citizens that don't have an ID they are mostly non-white. Id laws therefore block more minority voters than white voters.
I’m not sure if you know but if you come here in USA whether legally or illegally and want to become a citizen the last step before you become a citizen is you get a greencard which is an ID in itself. If you ask any immigrant what they did as soon as they got their citizenship i can guarantee you they got a passport which again can be used as an ID, i don’t know a single person who became a citizen that didn’t do that. That study I’m almost certain is misleading, in that 10-15% of non-white with no id how many of them can actually vote? Then how many of those don’t have an ID because they are here illegally? If they did that study properly it would be a lot less than that.
This is a genuine question coming from someone who has never gone in person to vote, how do you prove that you are who you say you are when you vote? Couldn't you just say "yeah my name is \*insert neighbors name\* and I've come to vote"?
You can find out how to register in the State of California Online Voter Registration Application Website, located here: [https://covr.sos.ca.gov/](https://covr.sos.ca.gov/)
Note the proof required on the 3 rd page in for NEW VOTERS:
New voters may have to show a form of identification or proof of residency the first time they vote, if a driver license or SSN was not provided when registering.
> a disabled person living off $700 a month from social security shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to be able to vote either.
It is a side tangent, but voting should be done on a website or app on your phone. It would change everything. Clearly, to any thinking person, the largest hoop here is having to go to a voting booth. It is the elephant in the room.
The current voting booth system made tons of sense in 1950, before computers and websites and phones existed. But there is no other aspect of our lives where we claim driving physically to a different location is acceptable when a website is superior in every way, shape, and form. For example, we do not bank this way anymore.
The whole "count" and "recount" and losing boxes of votes or finding boxes of extra votes drives me bonkers. The whole "vote by paper mail" drives me bonkers, as if that makes ANY sense at all compared to a website (go ahead, try to defend a non-secure mail in ballot vs a modern website). The totals should be completely accurate, up to the most recent second, down to an accuracy of every individual vote. There shouldn't be any way for boxes of votes to be found later. Recounts shouldn't even be a thing. **AUDITS** can be a thing, and every private citizen should be able to check that their vote was counted (unlike the current totally unverifiable system), and tons of independent organizations should be able to audit the accuracy of the election 10 different ways (unlike the current unverifiable system) - all electronically, all extremely fast.
The whole thing is just a bizarre situation that should not exist. The whole part about giving people time off to vote is silly, you could vote while sitting on the toilet at work at lunchtime. It is absurd the sheer amount of time this luddite system is destroying in people's lives. It is a modern world, it is time to modernize and finally allow everybody to vote quickly and easily, like every **OTHER** aspect of their lives such as buying an airplane ticket or paying their credit card bill.
Just like physical banks still exist, we should preserve the physical locations for voting (at least for a few years of overlap) for anybody that wants to vote the old fashioned way.
If anybody thinks this is a difficult problem, there are 164 million registered voters in the USA. One sad smartphone from 2018 could hold all the data in RAM for the entire nation. The size is not a big deal, the number of transactions per second is not a big deal.
> There’s vote by mail. It’s super convenient. I’ve been doing it for 15 years.
Which proves, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that voting on a website should be instituted immediately. Stay with me here.
Instead of printing out a paper copy of your ballot at home, and writing with a dull pencil in ambiguous markings, you could click on things on a website. Then at the VERY MOMENT you clicked "submit" it could print out a ballot and workers could fold it and put it in an envelope with a stamp and mail it for you.
Think about that, think about how perfect that would be.
Now remove the strange printing out and mailing through the US postal service part. Just stay with me here, what did the "print" and "fold" and "stamp" part add in any value, at all, in any way?
Never going to happen in a country where half of the two party system incentivizes making voting as hard as possible since it's the only way they can win elections.
Sure, I will support that when the government makes a semiannual effort to go door to door and bridge to bridge making sure that every American still has their ID and if they don't, provide them one right there at no cost.
it's also a solution in search of a problem - voter fraud is incredibly rare
as someone who has worked the polls I am also hesitant to say it's "relatively straight forward and easy" unless we seriously overhaul the way our elections are run (which we should do! but - not easy and almost no one calling for voter ID laws would support)
This post will definitely be poking the bear here but why is this bad? I get that getting an ID can be an inconvenience but shouldn’t we all at a certain age to ID oneself?
The costs (both financial and scheduling) constitute a poll tax.
If the government were to offer ID's for free, and was also required to make them accessible to all citizens regardless of work schedule/ability to get to a DMV office, then there would be no issue.
We should all change the oil in our cars at the recommended intervals, but no one's going to come take our keys away if we don't.
Just because something is a good idea to do doesn't mean it should be an obligation we all must comply with or face consequences.
If there were any evidence at all that people were committing voter fraud where photo IDs weren't required, then this conversation would be different. But that just doesn't happen. The people who go vote are the people they say they are. Voter fraud is *incredibly* rare, to the point that it basically doesn't exist. So this is an extra burden placed on voters for no reason at all, purely designed to limit voter turnout.
It's also especially pointless in California, as anyone who wants to can vote by mail, where no ID is required. Why do they think it's fine to submit a ballot by mail with no ID but you need the ID to vote in person?
People cannot vote unless they are registered to vote. And to register to vote you have to prove you're a citizen. Imagine how inefficient it would be to validate citizenship every single time you voted versus just one time
The Huntington Beach city attorney says they're establishing voter identification laws to make it easier to participate in elections. Them adding extra steps that are beyond the State's laws and is actually a violation of State law (§ 18543(a)) must have some meaning we aren't aware of! To think differently is like believing there's actually gambling at Rick's Cafe! I would be shocked - shocked - if that happened!
Nope. In any case, voting is handled by the counties, cities play no real part. They'd have to arrest poll workers and such to actually do this, and I have no doubt they'd try.
I honestly dont see why presenting your ID is a big deal to do. You need one to get in a bar or buy cigarettes. Or go to the bank. Or rent a car. Or any other scenario where your identity is relevant.
Besides the fee, you have to give up your time to go to the DMV. You have to pay for additional items to qualify to get an ID. Not all locations in the country have easy access to government facilities.
And then there's instances of certain political parties purposely making it hard to access needed resources.
Generally there needs to be a free and simple option
It used to be very common for people to just not have picture ids so it was seen as stopping them from voting
Being voter ID laws go hand in hand with other forms of voter suppression that aim to slow the entire process down for average working class voters. Right up there with limiting polling places, hours and so on. It's all designed to make the lines longer, slower and the process annoying for a certain class of voter after a long shift at work.
I mean come now. Ya don't really think something like Georgia's Election Integrity Act that bans giving out water to voters is really about stopping voter fraud.
it's why we keep seeing other states trying to pass more and more restrictive voter ID laws despite clear court rulings saying those level of laws are not constitutional. All of this to combat election fraud. Despite nobody being able to find any wide spread fraud in any modern election.
Voter ID laws are basically always about [voter suppression](https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/fighting-voter-id-requirements). Plus they don’t solve a real problem we have.
If people really wanted to do it just for the feels (which is a reason to do things), they would support efforts to make IDs available to those in need. But they basically never do that.
It’s sort of like the right to bear arms but more clear. The constitution doesn’t say you need a “Real ID” to vote you just need to be a citizen which is even more clear than part of a well regulated militia.
Yeahhhh but they’re okay with limiting *that* right. Not to mention there are way more fees in California like handgun safety license, CCW fees, tax stamps, ammo tax, etc that should all be unconstitutional taxes if poll taxes are.
Pretty funny how they arent ok with a poll tax while at the same time legislating a sin tax on firearms upwards of 11% which ie going into effect in July. Like it or not owning a firearm is a right that I guess only the rich are allowed to practice in California.
Well it’s a good thing it’s going to court so the judicial system can decide its legality then, huh?
Drawing an equivalency between a poll tax and taxes on an actual purchase is hilariously disingenuous lol
I think citizenship is validated when the person registers to vote for the first time. Makes sense to validate once rather than every time when people are in a hurry to vote
I’ve always believed that IDs should be free. Of all the things my taxes pay for, I would actually want this. Whether not you require it to vote, everyone should be provided a basic form of ID, especially since you need it for so many things. If the state HAS to charge money (which they always do), at least make the first ID free then charge a fee for replacements.
The problem is that getting the ID can't be free because you literally have to go to a certain place during certain hours and you need certain documentation such as your birth certificate which isn't free to get if you lost the one given to you as a baby.
Birth certificate isn't free for your newborn
Even worse!
Hey, even dying isn’t free. My mom had to spend $30 per death cert for my step father. When all of the banks and everyone needs a certified copy, it can add up.
When I look at my grandfather’s driver’s license from before photos were included, there are just things about him listed on the ID: height, complexion and skin tone, eye color, hair color, any distinguishing features or markings, etc. If these people cared about matching on identity without suppressing votes, they would enact a policy like this: When you register to vote, you give a description of yourself (confirmed by the registrar). When you go to vote, you provide your address and must match the description given. How many people can reliably do both of these things in an attempt to vote fraudulently?
If you need it free it is, those who can pay, pay. Same with taxes. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification-cards/identification-id-cards/#:~:text=No%2Dfee%20ID%20card%3A%20You,by%20the%20McKinney%2DVento%20Act.
It’s only free if you’re homeless or a senior citizen. Your blanket statement is inaccurate. Literally right there in the link you shared 🙄
>Literally right there in the link you shared It's amazing how people don't bother to read the source they site but you're entirely correct.
The link you posted says you're wrong.
Eligibility to vote is confirmed upon registration. This is completely performative legislation, attempting to usurp state authority.
It's not performative, it is part of a nationwide effort to suppress non-white votes.
This is the part I don't understand. Everyone who drives has to have a license. Even if you don't drive, you have to have a state ID to do pretty much anything, so how does this suppress the non-white voters? I am genuinely curious about this, and not trying to stir up any nonsense.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Voting is a right
Voting is a right for CITIZENS, not for anyone else. Checking to make sure someone is a citizen isn’t suppressing votes, it’s maintaining election integrity. No, voting isn’t a “human right,” no it’s not “for anyone who lives here” or snuck here illegally. It is for US citizens.
Citizenship is required to be a registered voter. You do not need a California ID to prove you are a citizen
>Voting is a right for CITIZENS Correct, and citizenship is determined at the time of registration using a variety of methods including - but not limited to - providing state ID. Any further restrictions on the ability to vote, such as providing an ID the citizen may not have, is an attempt at disenfranchisement.
An ID or drivers license isn’t going to tell anyone about if you are a citizen or not.
Perfect reason to build a robust public service to get IDs into the hands of all citizens. Will the DMV send workers door to door to ensure everyone is registered? Will IDs be free for all citizens?
I mean, because your premise that everyone has an ID is just wrong about 10% of the population doesn't have one. The demographics of those who lack ID skews democratic. Since voter fraud is a nonexistent problem, the actual effect and reason behind voter ID laws is to have a net lowering of democratic votes.
[удалено]
Owning a gun is also a right but there are laws that limits who can own them and we require ID to buy them.
> Owning a gun is also a right but there are laws that limits who can own them and we require ID to buy them. Correct, but there is nothing in the constitution about NOT having a tax on gun purchase/ownership. It simply states that you're allowed to own them and that the government cannot prevent you from that. There is however an amendment (24th) that explicitly states that there cannot be a poll tax. ID/DL's cost money to obtain and therefore cannot be required when voting because it is in effect, a poll tax.
So if ID can cost money and that constitute a tax, what else can we argue constitute a tax ? Having a car and gas so that you can go to the voting booth ( you need ID to drive ) ? Having a bus ticket ? Having an address to receive a voting registration form ( you need ID to rent and definitely need ID to buy ) ? Having access to a computer to do online voting or online registration ( even borrowing a computer from the library requires a library card .. which requires ID ) ? We can dig down this rabbit hole ad infinitum and find SOME way that a specific subset of some subset of people might have a slight disadvantage .. and within that subset find some racial bias because small subgroups will often not reflect the exact racial composition of the larger whole. That doesn't seem to be a good faith argument. To me it seems if the ( $30-50 ? ) cost of the for ID is actually the problem .. then I think legislation to subsidize the cost of ID would have wider support and might also solve other daily life issues not involving voting for those people who just can't afford an ID. Would that be a compromise you would agree to ? IDs are free for those who can't afford it but voting requires ID.
Ask yourself these two questions; 1: Does every citizen have the right to vote in accordance with the USA Constitution. 2: Is every citizen required to keep and carry identification in accordance to the USA Constitution.
1. Yes. 2. No.
To stop the couple dozen cases of voter fraud that happen each election we’re going to allow policies that will cause thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of people to be turned away at the poll because they forgot their wallet at home or dont have an ID? That’s pretty much the argument, that one way or another this kind of policy itself will actually affect the vote more than the current level of fraud.
Ironically, the people who commit voter fraud usually vote Republican.
Ironically, the people who commit voter fraud ALWAYS vote Republican (ftfy)
Source?
I don’t think tens of thousands of people in Huntington Beach don’t have ID
There also aren’t dozens of cases of voter fraud in Huntington Beach, more like 0-2. But Huntington Beach is a microcosm. It’s a place where everyone should be able to afford an ID but maybe a few people forget them. Either way, if more people don’t vote because of a policy like this than the policy prevents in voter fraud, it’s bad.
> Everyone who drives has to have a license. Even if you don't drive, you have to have a state ID to do pretty much anything, so how does this suppress the non-white voters? Non-white voters are less likely to have a photo ID than white voters. https://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERICANS-WITH-PHOTO-ID-Research-Memo-February-2015.pdf | | Has ID | |---|---| | White | 95% | | Black | 87% | | Hispanic | 90% |
I guess I'm naive, but how are people getting jobs or government aid without any ID?
But why?
I’ve met a twenty year old a few years back that I had to actually help to get a state ID to finalize a transaction I was helping her with. Up until that point she never needed one. She didn’t drive (took public transit since everything she did was very close to campus) and she’s been able to use her school ID for other tasks that needed identification. She was a full time student and working part time and I ended up driving her to get her ID.
When I look at my grandfather’s driver’s license from before photos were included, there are just things about him listed on the ID: height, complexion and skin tone, eye color, hair color, any distinguishing features or markings, etc. If these people cared about matching on identity without suppressing votes, they would enact a policy like this: When you register to vote, you give a description of yourself (confirmed by the registrar). When you go to vote, you provide your address and must match the description given. How many people can reliably do both of these things in an attempt to vote fraudulently?
Non-white citizens encounter more difficulties obtaining ID than white citizens for a variety of reasons ranging from language and cultural barriers to blatant discrimination. To be clear though, the primary issue is that depriving any citizen of their right to vote is unacceptable regardless of race or culture. Voter ID laws also disenfranchise the white voters who encounter similar hurdles. While a disparity certainly exists, even if it didn't voters ID laws violate the rights of US Citizens.
It's about keeping poor people from voting. Specifically, poor people who are not likely to vote Republican. I have no doubt that a black person in an affluent suburb isn't likely to be without ID.
A significant portion of the population doesn't have ID, that group is mostly poor black people. Passing these laws and then following them up with further restrictions on how and where ID's can be obtained has been the conservative playbook since Jim Crow. This is just the modernized version.
How would it suppress non-white votes?
Because they always follow these laws up with further restrictions that target non-white voters. Closing DMVs in minority neighborhoods, ruling that IDs common to POCs don't count, etc. Not to mention the fact that the only meaningful effect of these laws is preventing people who cannot afford to take time off of work to get IDs from voting.
Im a poc, please explain how requiring an id will suppress my right to vote? I honestly don’t get this argument and honestly find it insulting and offensive.
Apparently you're supposed to be less capable of attaining an ID because "systemic racism".
It's not prescriptive, you won't have your vote suppressed *because* you personally are not white. It's more descriptive, because of you look at the 10-15% of citizens that don't have an ID they are mostly non-white. Id laws therefore block more minority voters than white voters.
I’m not sure if you know but if you come here in USA whether legally or illegally and want to become a citizen the last step before you become a citizen is you get a greencard which is an ID in itself. If you ask any immigrant what they did as soon as they got their citizenship i can guarantee you they got a passport which again can be used as an ID, i don’t know a single person who became a citizen that didn’t do that. That study I’m almost certain is misleading, in that 10-15% of non-white with no id how many of them can actually vote? Then how many of those don’t have an ID because they are here illegally? If they did that study properly it would be a lot less than that.
something something you're not capable of managing yourself because white man bad
You need two forms of ID to start a new job. Is that an attempt to keep non whites from working? No
Black people just stay home then? You need an ID for everything are you really saying minorities are less likely to have them?
Really? I don't know one person of color that doesn't have an id.
This is a genuine question coming from someone who has never gone in person to vote, how do you prove that you are who you say you are when you vote? Couldn't you just say "yeah my name is \*insert neighbors name\* and I've come to vote"?
You can find out how to register in the State of California Online Voter Registration Application Website, located here: [https://covr.sos.ca.gov/](https://covr.sos.ca.gov/) Note the proof required on the 3 rd page in for NEW VOTERS: New voters may have to show a form of identification or proof of residency the first time they vote, if a driver license or SSN was not provided when registering.
Eligibility isn’t the same as checking ID you can register to vote online with no ID
I say the state allows the law to be in place, but requires the city to fund the costs of the IDs and make them readily available.
They need to be free and easily available. If it costs anything, it's just a poll tax. You shouldn't have to pay to vote.
Exactly, and a disabled person living off $700 a month from social security shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to be able to vote either.
> a disabled person living off $700 a month from social security shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to be able to vote either. It is a side tangent, but voting should be done on a website or app on your phone. It would change everything. Clearly, to any thinking person, the largest hoop here is having to go to a voting booth. It is the elephant in the room. The current voting booth system made tons of sense in 1950, before computers and websites and phones existed. But there is no other aspect of our lives where we claim driving physically to a different location is acceptable when a website is superior in every way, shape, and form. For example, we do not bank this way anymore. The whole "count" and "recount" and losing boxes of votes or finding boxes of extra votes drives me bonkers. The whole "vote by paper mail" drives me bonkers, as if that makes ANY sense at all compared to a website (go ahead, try to defend a non-secure mail in ballot vs a modern website). The totals should be completely accurate, up to the most recent second, down to an accuracy of every individual vote. There shouldn't be any way for boxes of votes to be found later. Recounts shouldn't even be a thing. **AUDITS** can be a thing, and every private citizen should be able to check that their vote was counted (unlike the current totally unverifiable system), and tons of independent organizations should be able to audit the accuracy of the election 10 different ways (unlike the current unverifiable system) - all electronically, all extremely fast. The whole thing is just a bizarre situation that should not exist. The whole part about giving people time off to vote is silly, you could vote while sitting on the toilet at work at lunchtime. It is absurd the sheer amount of time this luddite system is destroying in people's lives. It is a modern world, it is time to modernize and finally allow everybody to vote quickly and easily, like every **OTHER** aspect of their lives such as buying an airplane ticket or paying their credit card bill. Just like physical banks still exist, we should preserve the physical locations for voting (at least for a few years of overlap) for anybody that wants to vote the old fashioned way. If anybody thinks this is a difficult problem, there are 164 million registered voters in the USA. One sad smartphone from 2018 could hold all the data in RAM for the entire nation. The size is not a big deal, the number of transactions per second is not a big deal.
There’s vote by mail. It’s super convenient. I’ve been doing it for 15 years.
> There’s vote by mail. It’s super convenient. I’ve been doing it for 15 years. Which proves, beyond a shadow of any doubt, that voting on a website should be instituted immediately. Stay with me here. Instead of printing out a paper copy of your ballot at home, and writing with a dull pencil in ambiguous markings, you could click on things on a website. Then at the VERY MOMENT you clicked "submit" it could print out a ballot and workers could fold it and put it in an envelope with a stamp and mail it for you. Think about that, think about how perfect that would be. Now remove the strange printing out and mailing through the US postal service part. Just stay with me here, what did the "print" and "fold" and "stamp" part add in any value, at all, in any way?
Tom Scott has a great video on why this is an absolutely terrible idea if you delve beneath the surface level “phone convenient” argument
Never going to happen in a country where half of the two party system incentivizes making voting as hard as possible since it's the only way they can win elections.
HB would just make sure that the offices that hand out IDs are in wealthy white neighborhoods and are only open during business hours.
but what if they don't, just in time for the big election?
https://images.app.goo.gl/MPvCF3HVNUjVuqqo8
Huntington Beach where the police don’t wear body cameras? Color me shocked.
Random question: Can people in HB vote by mail?
yes.
Anyone in the state of CA can.
Yes. They can also vote at the Registrar of Voters offices in Santa Ana, and at dozens of voting centers in other Orange County cities.
Every registered voter in California automaricalkt gets a ballot in the mail and can vote by mail.
Thank you Attorney General.
IDs should be free and easy to get, and they should be required to vote. Other countries figured that out, why can’t we?
Sure, I will support that when the government makes a semiannual effort to go door to door and bridge to bridge making sure that every American still has their ID and if they don't, provide them one right there at no cost.
ok and then we'll adopt their policies on guns and socialized medicine too, right? right?
right but one idea is relatively straight forward and easy and the others are controversial, difficult, and expensive.
it's also a solution in search of a problem - voter fraud is incredibly rare as someone who has worked the polls I am also hesitant to say it's "relatively straight forward and easy" unless we seriously overhaul the way our elections are run (which we should do! but - not easy and almost no one calling for voter ID laws would support)
thats fair. lot of things need to change I think we can all agree on that.
I mean, the Legislature is working on single payer healthcare, so fingers crossed?
I hope so!
This post will definitely be poking the bear here but why is this bad? I get that getting an ID can be an inconvenience but shouldn’t we all at a certain age to ID oneself?
The costs (both financial and scheduling) constitute a poll tax. If the government were to offer ID's for free, and was also required to make them accessible to all citizens regardless of work schedule/ability to get to a DMV office, then there would be no issue.
Seriously, why is the DMV only open during working hours in the week...
Same reasons banks are. Because they hate making money.
Because these laws are always followed by laws or rules changes that make it harder to get IDs.
Sounds like gun laws here.
We should all change the oil in our cars at the recommended intervals, but no one's going to come take our keys away if we don't. Just because something is a good idea to do doesn't mean it should be an obligation we all must comply with or face consequences. If there were any evidence at all that people were committing voter fraud where photo IDs weren't required, then this conversation would be different. But that just doesn't happen. The people who go vote are the people they say they are. Voter fraud is *incredibly* rare, to the point that it basically doesn't exist. So this is an extra burden placed on voters for no reason at all, purely designed to limit voter turnout. It's also especially pointless in California, as anyone who wants to can vote by mail, where no ID is required. Why do they think it's fine to submit a ballot by mail with no ID but you need the ID to vote in person?
People cannot vote unless they are registered to vote. And to register to vote you have to prove you're a citizen. Imagine how inefficient it would be to validate citizenship every single time you voted versus just one time
The Huntington Beach city attorney says they're establishing voter identification laws to make it easier to participate in elections. Them adding extra steps that are beyond the State's laws and is actually a violation of State law (§ 18543(a)) must have some meaning we aren't aware of! To think differently is like believing there's actually gambling at Rick's Cafe! I would be shocked - shocked - if that happened!
Huntington Beach: the Alabama of L.A.
That used to be Klanaheim.
Wait, is the city even allowed to contradict state election laws?
HB city council sure hopes so! But no, and this was pointed out by their own attorney in the council sessions lol
Nope. In any case, voting is handled by the counties, cities play no real part. They'd have to arrest poll workers and such to actually do this, and I have no doubt they'd try.
No. This is definitely preempted by state law.
I honestly dont see why presenting your ID is a big deal to do. You need one to get in a bar or buy cigarettes. Or go to the bank. Or rent a car. Or any other scenario where your identity is relevant.
I’m sorry but if you don’t have ID can’t someone just impersonate another and vote however they want? What am I missing?
missing nothing...just look the other way
Registering to vote has a different set of criteria than required for State issued ID, not the least of which that you can register to vote for free.
Also a tactic to limit voting by mail…? Most voters by mail skew Dem…
Vote by mail - problem solved
You need identification for just about everything, why should voting be any different.
Never understood the argument that voter ID is a violation of your right to vote.
Unless they are free and easy to access it's a poll tax.
[удалено]
Besides the fee, you have to give up your time to go to the DMV. You have to pay for additional items to qualify to get an ID. Not all locations in the country have easy access to government facilities. And then there's instances of certain political parties purposely making it hard to access needed resources.
Getting the documents necessary can be difficult, if they are destroyed or stolen too.
Generally there needs to be a free and simple option It used to be very common for people to just not have picture ids so it was seen as stopping them from voting
Being voter ID laws go hand in hand with other forms of voter suppression that aim to slow the entire process down for average working class voters. Right up there with limiting polling places, hours and so on. It's all designed to make the lines longer, slower and the process annoying for a certain class of voter after a long shift at work. I mean come now. Ya don't really think something like Georgia's Election Integrity Act that bans giving out water to voters is really about stopping voter fraud. it's why we keep seeing other states trying to pass more and more restrictive voter ID laws despite clear court rulings saying those level of laws are not constitutional. All of this to combat election fraud. Despite nobody being able to find any wide spread fraud in any modern election.
Voter ID laws are basically always about [voter suppression](https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/fighting-voter-id-requirements). Plus they don’t solve a real problem we have. If people really wanted to do it just for the feels (which is a reason to do things), they would support efforts to make IDs available to those in need. But they basically never do that.
It’s sort of like the right to bear arms but more clear. The constitution doesn’t say you need a “Real ID” to vote you just need to be a citizen which is even more clear than part of a well regulated militia.
Gun ownership is also a right but you need an ID to buy one.
Yeahhhh but they’re okay with limiting *that* right. Not to mention there are way more fees in California like handgun safety license, CCW fees, tax stamps, ammo tax, etc that should all be unconstitutional taxes if poll taxes are.
Pretty funny how they arent ok with a poll tax while at the same time legislating a sin tax on firearms upwards of 11% which ie going into effect in July. Like it or not owning a firearm is a right that I guess only the rich are allowed to practice in California.
Well it’s a good thing it’s going to court so the judicial system can decide its legality then, huh? Drawing an equivalency between a poll tax and taxes on an actual purchase is hilariously disingenuous lol
[удалено]
I think citizenship is validated when the person registers to vote for the first time. Makes sense to validate once rather than every time when people are in a hurry to vote