Which is why every state who has passed such laws has in fact gone and had numerous adds and community outreach to make things known for such people and made it really easy to get such ID.

So in reality, the democratic arguement on this is a farce.

It's worth noting that a majority of voters want voter ID laws to require State photo ID... including a majority of the minorites that this is supposed to hurt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/08/12/National-Politics/Polling/question_6226.xml

Hell, even 57% of liberals are for voter ID laws... the only group to not support it, are people who are both liberals and democrats... and they still are 48% for the motion.

It's actually really hard to find contested laws that have such a vast level of public support.

Unless IDs are issued for free by the government (and payed for by tax payers mind you) requiring a person to purchase an ID to vote that they do not otherwise require is the equivalent of a poll tax, which is banned by the 24th amendment.

To me there is no difference between "Pay the government when come to vote" and "Pay the government, and then you can come and vote"

These laws are also a blatant attempt at voter suppression under the guise of solving a problem that simply does not exists in any statistical significance.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

There should be zero barriers to voting in a free republic. Any that are instituted are a direct blow to the democratic process, regardless of who is disenfranchised.

A) Point to a state that doesn't offer an ID for free that has such a law.

B) You do need a state photo ID, to do many other things.  Like cash a check... or get a job.  Or get government assistance.  Basically to function successfully in todays soceity you need a state ID. 

C) Voter fraud doesn't have any statistical significance because there are no ways to judge it.  It's like saying France has no problems with race inequality because the french don't collect data on race inequality.   There are no effective measures for measuring voter fraud.

D) So... not letting one person vote is harmful to the insitutional practice.. but letting someone vote 15 times isn't harmful?

Not sure how that makes sense.

E) Republicans and Democrats both wanted voter ID laws in the past.  Jimmy Carter thought they would INCREASE voter turnout rather them surpress it.   Greatly increasing the voter turnout among registered voters.

a.) PA:  http://www.dmv.org/pa-pennsylvania/id-cards.php 

b.) Well, that claim is not necessarily true.   I have never once in my life needed a photo ID to get a job for example.  Besides, many valid voters DO NOT have IDs (as many as 11% of eligible voters), which is in fact the problem.

c.) There is a way to judge it based on convictions of fraud.  Even if you say, well not everyone who does it gets caught.  (see D)

d.) This is not at all what is happening.  What is happening is you are not lettting a huge number of people vote to prevent 1 person from voting multiple times.  Which does more harm?  Lets say  only 1 of every 10000 of the fraudulent votes cast is by someone who gets caught (an obsurd assertion, but benefits your argumnet), that is still only UPWARDS of only 0.09% of the total votes.  You are then possibly disenfranchising 11% of the people to stop 0.09% of the vote which is fraudulent.

e.) The effects of this on actual voter turnout will have to be seen naturally, but should be very hard to determine statistically.

I would say, however, that the requiring ID part is not what I object to.  I would have no problem with these laws if they were also tied to a tiny tax increase to make sure everyone has access to at least a free photo voter card or something similar, AND it didn't happen in the year of a major election, so there was adequate time for people learn about the policy and to aquire them.  Also, I have a hard time turning a blind eye when legislatures say things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

A) Wrong.  They have a free Voter ID.  It only costs money if you already have another ID that lets you vote.

http://wnep.com/2012/08/28/free-voter-id-cards-available-for-some/

B)  Except it's free to get them in states where it's required... and if you didn't need an ID to get a job... how did you get paid?  Also, that 11% claim is a false one.

C)  Agreed

D) 11% claim is a false one.   Currently there is no way to actually catch people committing voter Fraud.  

E)  Good thing there are plenty ot states that have already had these laws in place.   The general reaction?   No voter supression.  Intersingtly in fact voter participation increased higher then population increases.  

Also, as for the link..I imagine he meant by stopping fraud.   Voter Fraud via manufacturing votes is historically a Democratic thing.  Hence democrats not wanting to fix it.

Wow what a stretch. You can't compare this to voting. That's inane. The vote ID laws tie into racism because of circumstance that it happens to create barriers and isolate individuals who are mostly minority groups. This is for media access to an event.

a.) Interesting, I hadn't seen that.  Thanks for the link

b.) Direct deposit into a bank account that I have had since I was born.  I imagine its on the high end of the scale, but I haven't seen anything that factually disputes it

d.) There are better ways to prevent it though, ie more thorough registration requirements (prevent people who should not legally be registering) or better maintaince of registration records (prevent dead people from voting) that put no burden on legal voters.  I have a problem with states saying "we are incompetant in securing our voter registration system, so we are passing the burden onto you voters"

e.) Well, I will reserve judgement on the overall effect of these laws until after the election.  

I just find it alarming that there is such a strong push for this with the potential for disenfranchisement when there is not statistical or even reliable anecdotal evidence that this is a problem. Also note that my view on this has nothing to do with who may be disenfranchised.  I would be equally against measures that potentially disenfranchised rural, white republican voters as well.  

B) How did you get the bank account?  Bank accounts require photo IDs, or your parents had to show an ID... and your specific information needed to get a photo ID.

B2) Look at how they did said studies.  If your voter Registeration says John Hartman at 5242, Violet street.  And your Drivers liscense Says Jonathan Hartman at 5242, Violet sctreet...  guess which way they ruled it.  

D) Ok, so how do you stop someone from voting for there brother, or the elderly, or the disabled, or the mentally ill.  Or just someone who decides not to vote.  If you know anyone who isn't likely to vote, you can vote for them and it's no problem... and on the off chance they do vote, chances are they aren't going to look at it anyway, and just offer that person a provisional ballot.

E) The claims that it will disenfranchise people are... as previously stated, pretty much made up.

E2) Except there is evidence.... plenty of it.  It's just not very widespread there are almsot no ways to detect voter fraud.   I mean, lets say my brother is sick... and I go to his precinct and I vote for him for the candidates of my choice.

How would you go about detecting this.  Nobody asks my brother if he voted, my brother doesn't get a notice saying he voted... so how do you detect this?

The fact that there are detected cases of it is shocking as it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576113489495571.html

B) It was opened for me as a child.  My parents may have needed to show ID, but I never have had to except for direct withdrawls via a teller.  It is also possible to get numbered bank accounts from banks with no photo id requirements,

B2)  That is not really evidence that the dtudy's results are a complete misrepresentation.  Even if it is though, and the number is only 1%, you are talking about a 1% vs a tiny fraction of a percent

D) The way they do it now, with harsh penalties for the crime.  Why risk 3 1/2 years in prison and a $10,000 to cast one additional vote?

E) Vote confirmation letters/email would probably be sufficient.  Anyone willing to take the risk for a completely negligable gain would be able to bypass photo id requirements easily anyway.  Fake IDs are the simplest thing to come by, and you are placing a requirement on volunteers to be able to spot iconsitencies in the identifications used.

Of course there are SOME cases, but it such a statistically minute portion that it is a complete non-issue to me.  There are much larger issues to be focused on first, even just within the electoral process.  The timing and scale of this push speaks volumes about its motivation relative to the actual size of the problem.

B) You totally do need a photo ID.  I needed to show mine to open up my bank account.

B2) Except it isn't 1% or a tiny fraction of a percent.  What that study is showing is people who don't meet the requirment currently.  Not people who can't meet such a requirment for voting.  That's like argueing that requring a gun saftey class to own a gun would be ruining the second ammendment because 85% of gunowners haven't currently passed such a test.

When actually trying to find people who can't meet states requirements, none were really found.   They found one woman in the Pennsylvanian case... and after they lost the case... she ended up going through the process to get a voter ID with no problem.

Now the people who can't get an ID this way... THAT is a minute statistic not worth considering... because the people who file these lawsuits can't one person who fits the bill.

D) Because there is absolutely zero chance to get caught.  I've noticed you've completely ignored my asking of how such people would be caught, because your starting to realize there is no real way to catch this, and no real way to prevent it.

E)  Except you know... false votes would still count.  Good fake IDs cost a lot of money, and you have no actual rpoof that it's a statistically minute portion since i've proved that it's a nearly undetectable with current laws. 

Though yeah, these laws do not go far enough, since absentee fraud seems to be even more common.  You should have to provide an ID to get an absentee ballot too.  Still, stopping a perfectly valid, common sense law supported by a VAST majority because it doesn't go far enough or because there are other issues seems quite honestly, a stupid argument.