Fund local police departments to issue legal voter I. D.

[pwb]

If you demand voter I.D. providing a way to get one makes sense.

Not everyone has a license to drive or travels and has a passport.

You can't just demand something without providing a way to get it? IMO.

[FSogol]

1. WTH? That's a terrible idea. The police don't issue IDs, the state

Department of Motor Vehicles does.

In some areas, the local police dept are the shittiest people on planet earth.

[pwb]

4. Voting is Local.

It is just a thought. Your remedy is keep it difficult because that is the way it is? Open your mind a bit.

[FSogol]

7. I didn't suggest a remedy. You are also mistaken, states

run the elections with localities following the state's procedures.

[pwb]

8. This post is about an acceptable I. D.

Elections are local is not a mistake. Who runs them is what you pivoted too.
Going to Motor Vehicle for an I.D. in these parts is lengthy. Appointment needed.
Another poster here suggested The Postal Service issue Voter I.D. Why not?

[FSogol]

10. You said elections are local. USPS would be good, except

they are under federal control and the states wouldn't agree.

[leftstreet]

2. FTP. Fund post offices to do it instead n/t

[pwb]

5. Even better, just make it easy

is my point.

[Miguelito Loveless]

3. Go to the police to get an ID?

Pass.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. yeah cops do such a great job protecting rights. and they definitely need more money

/s

[pwb]

9. The thought was about an easy location to get a Voter I.D.

There are lots of police stations. Putting up with an asshole cop for ten minutes shouldn't stop most people. Lots of Post Offices that could be used too.
Few Motor vehicle offices that issue I.D.s now.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. I'm not talking about "putting up with an asshole cop for ten minutes." I'm talking about cops willfully interferring

with people's rights, as we know they do, by finding any reason they feel like to not issue an ID at all.

[hunter]

11. A bad solution to a non-existent problem.

It doesn't take much scrutiny to keep people who are not citizens off the voter rolls. Usually all it takes is asking.

An immigrant who is not a citizen isn't going to risk it all for a single vote that is likely to be inconsequential.

Your plan would only disenfranchise more eligible voters, especially those who are not the "right" color or live in communities where there is a lot of friction with the police for entirely justified reasons.

[pwb]

12. You are right

it is not a problem, now. But the Pukes are going to pass a voter I.D.law. What is wrong with more places to get one? I think people are courageous enough to go through whatever process it takes.

[Ms. Toad]

14. It's not even a solution to the non-problem.

The problem isn't getting any old random ID. It is getting one which prove you are a citizen of the United States.

If you have never gone by any other name, and your birth was recorded as a matter of routine - or you were a naturalized citizen who has never gone by any other name, it is probably relatively easy. You get a copy of your birth certificate or a copy of your naturalization certificate and present it.

But for around half of the citizens, it's not that simple. Take the scenario where you marry and change your name, get divorced but keep your name, remarry and change your name, divorce, revert to your first married name (since all your kids have that last name) and then remarry and change your name again. You have to prove that entire chain of name changes in order to prove your citizenship.

First you have to get a copy of your birth certificate. It may need to be a certified copy. You may be able to get it remotely - you may need to prove your right to get a copy depending on the state. $$ and time, depending on how long the process takes (going to get it, hiring an attorney to get it on your behalf plus processing time).

Then you have to get a copy of your marriage license - probably certified. You may be able to get it remotely - and, again, you may need to prove your right to get a copy of it. $$ and time, depending on how long the process takes (going to get it, hiring an attorney to get it on your behalf plus processing time).

Then you have to get a copy of your second marriage license - probably certified. You may be able to get it remotely - and, again, you may need to prove your right to get a copy of it. $$ and time, depending on how long the process takes (going to get it, hiring an attorney to get it on your behalf plus processing time).

Then you need to get a copy of your divorce judgment granting you a return to your first married name. You may be able to get it remotely - and, again, you may need to prove your right to get a copy of it. $$ and time, depending on how long the process takes (going to get it, hiring an attorney to get it on your behalf plus processing time).

Finally, you need a copy of your most recent marriage license - probably certified. You may be able to get it remotely - and, again, you may need to prove your right to get a copy of it. $$ and time, depending on how long the process takes (going to get it, hiring an attorney to get it on your behalf plus processing time).

You may not be able to do these simultaneously, since you may need some of the earlier documents to prove your right to the later ones - and may need to obtain them sequentially.

This is a relatively common sequence, and not an unusual number of marriages and divorces these days.

Funding the police department to issue IDs won't diminish the number of documents (time, and money) needed to get an ID that will satisfy the SAVE act (or any other act requiring a proof of citizenship).

The burden falls mainly on women (the ones who generally change their names when they marry). It also falls on older, poor, and/or black individuals who are more likely not to have the documents on hand - or never to have had them because they were born outside of the hospital and their births never recorded. (My father (94) was born at home - fortunately his birth was recorded. Many people that age who were born at home don't have a birth certificate - particularly blacks, whose midwives were discouraged from recording them. Those that were recorded were sometimes destroyed (or the secondary proof church documents destroyed) in violence that impacted predominantly black churches and institutions in the civil rights era.

So no, it's not a solution - EVEN if the premise were true - that non-citizens were voting in any significant number.

[pwb]

16. You are saying we need a National voter I.D. ?

I don't see how that could work. I thought they only wanted a person legally identified to vote.

[Ms. Toad]

17. No. I am saying that **even if** we needed to prove citizenship

The solution proposed is still not a solution because of the burden it imposes on anyone who has ever changed their name - or whose birth was not registered as a routine matter.

Proving citizenship to vote (the SAVE act) is utter nonsense. There is a miniscule number of non-citizens voting - every investigation verifies this. It is a non-problem. You proposed a way to address the non-problem - which does not actually address the problem with the SAVE act (even though it is not a problem in the first place).

[pwb]

19. I am against voter I D

You seem to think I am in favor of it? We can't ignore that it could pass.

[Ms. Toad]

20. I'm not suggesting you are in favor of it.

Simply that the solution you proposed does not address the fundamental problem posed by requiring voter ID, even if it does pass AND withstands constitutional scrutiny.

[EarthFirst]

15. FTP

Just what we need is a largely partisan organization being the arbiter of who can and cannot vote by designating them as the issuing authority for legal identification as a means to cast a ballot.

Hard pass. Hard. Pass.

[pwb]

18. You don't think State Department of Motor Vehicles are Partisan?

Where is good place to get an I D in your opinion? It is not rocket science to take a picture and put it on an I d. between two pieces of plastic. Most police stations have the equipment already in place. Cops know most people where I live. Most wouldn't even need proof if it is not required. Most poll workers both Republican and Democrat recognize people and call them by name when they walk in to vote.

I am against voter I D but if it is coming or required soon they have to provide a way for voters to get one. Are they going to tell us in October that we need an I D in November?

This started out as just a thought, Maybe The Post Office was mentioned as a possibility above.

It should be easier to get I D for the elderly and disabled and Married Women especially. IMO.

You disagree because you think it would be rigged I guess? I trust people will put in safeguards to prevent refusal at the voting booth.
PEACE.