A Classic Liberal/Progressive canard. ID's are easy to come by for legal folks and sometimes for not so legals. The truth is that legal voters are suppressing THEMSELVES. It's true voting is a right, but perhaps if you're too lazy to get an ID you are also too reticent with informing yourself about issues and candidates. --Maybe you shouldn't be voting.
Ah yes, they are so easy to come by as evidenced here After Texas implemented its new law, Randall went to the Department of Public Safety (the Texas agency that handles driver’s licenses and identification cards) three times to try to get a photo ID to vote. Each time Randall was told he needed different items. First, he was told he needed three forms of identification. He came back and brought his Medicaid card, bills and a current voter registration card from voting in past elections. “I thought that because I was on record for voting, I could vote again,” Randall said. But he was told he still needed more documentation, such as a certified copy of his birth certificate. Records of births before 1950, such as Randall’s, are not on a central computer and are located only in the county clerk’s office where the person was born. For Randall, that meant an hour-long drive to Huntsville, where his lawyers found a copy of his birth certificate. But that wasn’t enough. With his birth certificate in hand, Randall went to the DPS office in Houston with all the necessary documents. But, DPS officials still would not issue him a photo ID because of a clerical mistake on his birth certificate. One letter was off in his last name — “Randell” instead of “Randall” — so his last name was spelled slightly different than on all his other documents. Kamin, the lawyer, asked the DPS official if they could pull up Randall’s prior driver’s-license information, as he once had a state-issued ID. The official told her that the state doesn’t keep records of prior identification after five years, and there was nothing they could do to pull up that information. Kamin was finally able to prove to a DPS supervisor that there was a clerical error and was able to verify Randall’s identity by showing other documents. But Myrtle Delahuerta, 85, who lives across town from Randall, has tried unsuccessfully for two years to get her ID. She has the same problem of her birth certificate not matching her pile of other legal documents that she carts from one government office to the next. The disabled woman, who has difficulty walking, is applying to have her name legally changed, a process that will cost her more than $300 and has required a background check and several trips to government offices. Typical Con principle, ignore all evidence that goes against the narrative. And what happened to providing source for Trump reversing Obama's job counting rule? Don't tell me, it was another lie!
Get stuff corrected. Pay attention and do it early enough so that it matters and you can vote. If you really want to vote, you'll do that. Get right.
Is that why Cons closed down DMVs in black neighborhoods to see who 'really want to vote'? So blacks have to pass a motivation test at their personal expense to prove to Cons that their voter id laws are a sham?
The above example is just evidence that it is a nightmare to deal with the government and that it is insanely inefficient. Also, it is an illustration that some dumb ass can't follow simple instructions.
It also proves that Cons knowingly enact such laws knowing that most will give up dealing with their governments.
Total bullshit. It only proves that dems are so stupid that they are incapable of following simple instructions.
What part of the instruction manual says that DMVs nearby should be closed and people must travel over 50 miles to get an ID just to vote?
A Clearer Picture on Voter ID February 02, 2008 By Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III This Jimmy Carter and James Baker III op-ed was published in the Feb. 3, 2008, edition of The New York Times. This is a major election year. Unfortunately, our two major political parties — Democratic and Republican — continue to disagree on some of the rules that apply to the administration of our elections. This divide is perhaps most contentious when the issue becomes one of whether voters should present photo identification to vote. Twenty-seven states require or request some form of ID to vote. Supporters of this policy argue that if voters identify themselves before voting, election fraud will be reduced. Opponents of an ID requirement fear it will disenfranchise voters, especially the poor, members of minority groups and the elderly, who are less likely than other voters to have suitable identification. The debate is polarized because most of the proponents are Republicans and most of the opponents are Democrats. In 2005, we led a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform and concluded that both parties' concerns were legitimate — a free and fair election requires both ballot security and full access to voting. We offered a proposal to bridge the partisan divide by suggesting a uniform voter photo ID, based on the federal Real ID Act of 2005, to be phased in over five years. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens; mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. (Of the 21 members of the commission, only three dissented on the requirement for an ID.) No state has yet accepted our proposal. What's more, when it comes to ID laws, confusion reigns. The laws on the books, mainly backed by Republicans, have not made it easy enough for voters to acquire an ID. At the same time, Democrats have tended to try to block voter ID legislation outright instead of seeking to revise that legislation to promote accessibility. When lower courts have considered challenges to state laws on the question of access, their decisions have not been consistent. And in too many instances, individual judges have appeared to vote along partisan lines. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has taken on a case involving a challenge to Indiana's voter ID law. The court, which heard arguments last month and is expected to render a judgment this term, has the power finally to bring clarity to this crucial issue. A study by American University's Center for Democracy and Election Management — led by Robert Pastor, who also organized the voting commission — illustrates the problem at hand. The center found that in three states with ID requirements — Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland — only about 1.2 percent of registered voters lacked a photo ID. While the sample was small, and the margin of error was therefore high, we were pleased to see that so few registered voters lacked photo IDs. That was pretty good news. The bad news, however, was this: While the numbers of registered voters without valid photo IDs were few, the groups least likely to have them were women, African-Americans and Democrats. Surveys in other states, of course, may well present a different result. We hope the court will approach the challenges posed by the Indiana law in a bipartisan or nonpartisan way. As we stated in our 2005 report, voter ID laws are not a problem in and of themselves. Rather, the current crop of laws are not being phased in gradually and in a fair manner that would increase — not reduce — voter participation. The recent decision by the Department of Homeland Security to delay putting in place the Real ID Act for at least five years suggests that states should move to photo ID requirements gradually and should do more to ensure that free photo IDs are easily available. The Supreme Court faces a difficult and important decision. If the justices divide along partisan lines, as lower courts have, they would add to the political polarization in the country. We hope that they will find a nonpartisan path that combines both legitimate concerns — ballot security and full access to voting — and underscores the importance of applying these laws in a fair and gradual way. It is also important to remember that our commission's report addressed other pressing election concerns. There is much more that Congress and state legislatures need to do to improve the electoral process and restore confidence in our democracy. We have outlined 87 such steps in our commission report. In the meantime, the Supreme Court can lead the way on the voter ID issue. It has the opportunity to inspire the states, our national leaders and the entire country to bridge the partisan divide on a matter that is important to our democracy. It can support voter ID laws that make it easy to vote but tough to cheat. Jimmy Carter was the 39th president. James A. Baker III was the secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration. https://www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/voter_id.html