Fair enough.

What sort of modifications to the current voter ID laws would you need to see to be convinced that they don't disenfranchise voters? Would these modifications even be constitutional?

I feel like I'm being disenfranchised to vote because the lines are long and I have better things to do with my time. We need to make sure people who have things they enjoy doing in life more than waiting in line aren't discriminated against.

Well, Democrats, at least, have been pushing for more early voting, more precincts, and, in some states, 100% mail voting to make it as easy and as timely as possible for people to vote.

What is this a criminal trial? and how did you become judge to decide who has what burden?

Are we talking the actual law? because it is clearly the law that a state can make their own decision and it is perfectly legal. That the burden if challenged is on those claiming disenfranchisement, which they failed to meet.

Dude, I realize that this isn't a trial, but generally, people who want to change things are expected to show that there's a problem that needs solving, that their solution will solve the problem, and their solution won't cause more harm than good. That's SOP for basically every change in both politics, business, and elsewhere. The ID card proponents have had issue addressing all three of these points. Virtually no one has been prosecuted for vote fraud despite extensive investigation, most investigations turn up some amount human error and a negligible amount of non-criminal ineligible voting, and the only given example of significant numbers of ineligible people voting would not have been solved by ID cards since the people who voted had them. You haven't shown in any way that the ID card will meet the above three criteria.

Meanwhile, you've gotten many back-of-the-envelope estimations that show that the people who might be disenfranchised are small compared to the amount of vote fraud. Your only counter to these estimations is, "yeah, well, all of these people who didn't get a current ID to vote, buy liquor, fly on a plane or other things I use MY ID for on a regular basis will ALL go and get ID so they can vote even though they haven't had the need to get an ID for anything else, and despite the fact that they haven't needed an ID to vote. That's totally bull****, and you know it. People are pretty lazy. And people who aren't lazy are busy. If you think people are motivated enough and passionate enough about voting to get an ID they don't otherwise have despite all the other reasons there are to get an ID, then you have some 'splainin' to do. Plus, you have to account for the inherent bias of allowing gun permits but not college IDs.

Arguing that college IDs are sufficient for purpose is different than arguing they are being excluded for political reasons (which I agree is probably why they're not allowed). Standardize college IDs so they have information analogous to what's on a government ID and there's no justification for the right to exclude them anymore.

Is there any hard data on how many college students don't have government ID? My experience would lead me to believe the number is pretty low, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Making the lines longer and voting more time consuming is part of the voter-ID push here, yes. It's all of a piece. Every step they can place between a voter and the ballot is a win for driving down turnout.

Montecore- What information that is on a government ID that is not on a student ID is relevant?

My statement was not my personal opinion. I was pointing out the law that was established by the Bush and Reagan appointees to the supreme court (6-3 granted that was in 08 and it would be 5-4 now). The burden to challengee the law falls on those challenging the law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZS.html

Maybe it should be sop in real life but where the government says in passing a law that this is to fix xyz problem or that it involves interstate commerce usually the courts seem to take that at face value and the burden falls on those challenging the law.

Most student IDs are government IDs.

^Explain/cite? Are you referring to public universities? Genuinely curious about this.

I lived in a city of 120,000 and didn't have an ID till I was 21 because the closest DMV was 2 towns over an I had no ride.

I'm white for the record. Straight from the horses mouth I would have voted in 2002 for my state rep but not if I had to go take a 4 hour round trip to get ID to do it.

Aren't anecdotes cool?

How is there no DMV in a town that size?

It swings Democrat.

The cite is a link from cornell law whose libray contains supreme court opinions, this link is the opinion of a case CRAWFORD et al.v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD from 2008 that held that a State law requiring photo ID's to vote is reasonable step to protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.

I suppose I could find the case on other sites but that came up on google first.

Dude, nobody said that these laws were necessarily unconstitutional. Just that, you know, they were partisan/racist attempts to disenfranchise democrat-leaning minorities.

No full service in town, city hall had a neutered version with no ID printers

Which if able to show that it is true that they are "partisan/ racist attempts to disenfranchise minorities" that in fact would make the laws unconstitional. But ok I guess we can agree they are for the most part constitional.

Wow, what part of the country is this? My hometown has ~600 people and two days a week at the tax collectors office they have ID services.

Stamford, conn.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/23/us/sou...html?hpt=hp_t2

Get em. Nice to see the Justice Dept. take a breather from killing online poker and weed shops to do something productive for once.

Holy ****. I actually found an example of voter fraud. It wasn't some old lady who had lost her ID, but the Indiana secretary of State.

Don't worry, Mitch Daniels has fired him. Unless, that is, his charges are reduced to misdemeanors, then he gets his job back so he can enforce Indiana's voter ID laws!

this is just ridiculous.

How hard is it to actually get an ID?

Here to vote you need a gov ID, but it takes like 1 hour, 20€ and two other people ( to testify with a signature that you are indeed you ) to get an ID. After that, you call a hotline during any time in the year to request a voting paper and you get one free of charge.

Imho gov ID is a very good thing, but only if it's easy to get.

Here in MA anytime between 5 minutes and an hour at the RMV depending on line. That and prob a social security card and birth certificate or something.