I see. You have to have a valid ID

To purchase alcoholic beverages and cigarettes,
To apply for a drivers license or a pilot's license,
To apply for food stamps and welfare,
To apply for SocSec and Medicare,
To purchase insurance,
To pick up a prescription,
To get a post office box,
To purchase certain cold medicines,
To enter a casino,
To hold a rally, protest, or parade,
To sign a contract or legal document,
To apply for a job or unemployment benefits,
To get married,
To purchase a gun,
To apply for a hunting or fishing license
To adopt a child or a pet,
to rent a hotel room,
To rent an apartment or a house
To apply for public housing,
To donate blood,
To open a bank account, apply for a loan, a mortgage.
To board an airplane
To apply for college,
To join the military,
To become a youth counselor, camp advisor, or Boy Scout leader,

But God forbid that you should prove who you are when making your choice for the leader of the nation.

The Photo ID Myth

DIARY / badkarma

I had a torts professor in law school who had a reputation for being notoriously difficult to argue with when he posed questions in class. In reality, he was not that difficult to argue with if you had done your research and were prepared. Whenever he would ask a question and a student would give an answer, his instant response was, "what is your authority for that?" He expected you to have a statute, case law, or some other form of precedent to back up your argument with. This of course was great preparation for court because judges expect someone advocating a position to have legal authority for the arguments they advance. Judges do not like it when lawyers simply invent theories out of thin air because judges rule by precedent. Well, that is how they should rule in theory.

The point of me telling that story is that it will serve people well in almost any setting when engaging in a debate. Politics and policy is certainly no exception. So this leads me to the statement by many on the left that requiring a valid photo ID for voting will disenfranchise minority voters. Really? What's your authority for that?

The argument goes something like this: Requiring a valid form of photographic identification for the purposes of voting will disenfranchise minority voters because minority voters tend to be the poorest and thus many minority voters do not have photo identification because they cannot afford them or are unable to travel to the various agencies that issue photo IDs. Therefore requiring a valid photo identification is a scheme devised by Republicans to disenfranchise minority voters who tend to vote in favor of Democrats.

Of course many on the right say things like, "you need an ID to get on an airplane, buy a gun, and to drive a car." These arguments are all true, I do not think I need to site authority here, we know from experience that they are true. In the case of the poorest within society, lets assume they are not frequent air travelers, they cannot afford a car and are not hitting up the local hunting store for the newest Browning. So what do the poorest people need a valid photo ID for?

We all know that you need a valid photo ID to buy alcohol, to buy tobacco, and to get a PO Box . Since we are talking about the poorest amongst us, what about food stamps and welfare? Do you need a valid form of ID to get those services? In Virginia you do need a valid photo ID to apply for welfare.

I can hear the argument now, "Virginia is a state run by Republicans, that's not true in other states!" Really? What's your authority for that? Lets look at California then: Do you need a valid photo ID to get food stamps in California? It turns out that you sure do! Illinois? You have to prove your identity there too! What about public housing? Again, yes, you have to establish identity.

The fact of the matter is that you need valid photo identification to establish your identity in order to qualify for government programs as well. The exact government programs that are designed to help the poor require photo IDs. Of course this makes sense because the administrators of these programs want to eliminate fraud.

Poor people have IDs just like the rest of us, even the poorest of the poor. To maintain these people do not does not withstand scrutiny because otherwise they would not be eligible to qualify for the programs the left surely wants them qualified for and dependant upon. There is no malicious purpose for asking a person to show an ID and prove their identity prior to voting. To prove that their is no malicious intent, states like Georgia have enacted programs for free identification cards.

This entire argument against providing an ID to vote is nonsensical. The government enacts social welfare programs that are intended for the poorest citizens yet they are required to establish identity prior to receiving the benefits. If the poorest people really could not acquire an ID because they did not have the means to, that would mean they would starve on the streets because they could not qualify for government assistance. Obviously this is not the case. Nor is it the case that people cannot provide an ID to vote. All of this posturing is nothing more than a thinly veiled cover for groups who actually do perpetrate voter fraud like the good gentleman from Mississippi who is now spending 10 years in prison.

The decision against North Carolina could aid Clinton campaign.
BY NOAM N. LEVEY
WASHINGTON — Three years after the Supreme Court deemed a key anti-discrimination provision of the Voting Rights Act unnecessary, a federal court on Friday ruled that a subsequently imposed North Carolina law requiring photo IDs at polling places was aimed at discouraging minority turnout.
The decision, just three months before election day, likely gives Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign a boost by removing potential voting barriers that would have fallen hardest on African Americans and other Democratic-leaning voters.
The strongly worded decision by a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., blasted the Republican-led state Legislature, all but charging lawmakers with racism in passing a law that also curtailed voting times.
“Because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel, all Democratic appointees. “We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”
The decision, which reverses a lower court ruling, is a major victory for the state’s chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Obama administration and others who sued to overturn the law.
And it marked the third time in 10 days that a federal court concluded that a voter identification law enacted by a Republican-led state government threatened voting rights.
Last week, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans ordered Texas state officials to take steps to help minority voters disproportionately affected by that state’s voter identification requirement.
And in Wisconsin, a federal judge effectively prohibited that state from requiring voters to have photo identification when they vote.
Civil rights groups say such laws put an undue burden on poor and minority voters, who may not have valid photo IDs or would encounter difficulties obtaining one. Such voters also tend to vote for Democrats, leading critics to allege the laws are intended to help Republican candidates.
“The timing of these decisions really speaks to the way in which courts are awakening to the fact that race is unfortunately influencing many legislatures that are crafting impediments to voting,” said Ryan Haygood, a former voting rights lawyer for the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP. “Now that the burden has been lifted, I think we can expect more turnout .”
That may prove critical in North Carolina, which emerged as a swing state after record numbers of African American voters helped Barack Obama carry it in 2008. North Carolina had not backed a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976.
The Clinton campaign has been targeting North Carolina, and President Obama campaigned there alongside Clinton earlier this month, the first time the two had appeared together on the stump.
North Carolina also may play a key role this year in the battle for control of the U.S. Senate. Democrats, hoping to regain a majority, are eyeing Republican Sen. Richard Burr’s seat.
On Friday, North Carolina Republican leaders blasted the court’s decision.
“Three Democratic judges are undermining the integrity of our elections while also maligning our state,” Gov. Pat McCrory said in a statement. He pledged to appeal the decision, though it is unclear whether the Supreme Court would act before the Nov. 8 election.
North Carolina and other Republican-led states, including many in the South, enacted new voter identification laws almost immediately after the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which had required states and municipalities with a history of discrimination to seek clearance from the federal government before changing voting rules.
Although the Constitution was amended after the Civil War to forbid racial discrimination in voting, that protection had proved ineffective in the face of Southern lawmakers determined to enact rules to limit voting access.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a longtime critic of the preclearance requirement, wrote in the court’s 5-4 decision that the special scrutiny for the South was outdated, rejecting pleas from civil rights advocates who warned that the protections were still necessary.
North Carolina responded by cutting back early voting, ending same-day registration and requiring voters to present photo identification before casting a ballot.
Like the architects of similar laws around the country, North Carolina lawmakers argued the steps helped prevent voter fraud.
In its blistering decision Friday, the appellate court firmly rejected that reasoning, charging that the state had devised “cures for problems that did not exist.”
Instead, the judges concluded, the Legislature embarked on an obviously partisan effort to solidify Republican control of state government by targeting black voters “with almost surgical precision” and undermining a key Democratic voting bloc.
“We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination,” Motz wrote.
“When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, ‘politics as usual’ does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers. The record evidence is clear that this is exactly what was done here.”
The court’s decision was cheered by voting rights activists, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which had joined the challenge.
“This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state’s attempt to undermine African American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “It is a major victory for North Carolina voters and for voting rights.”
U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta E. Lynch also hailed the decision, which she said “sent a message that contradicted some of the most basic principles of our democracy.”
Rick Hasen, a law professor and election expert at the UC Irvine School of Law, called the ruling a “big win” for the plaintiffs.
Writing in a blog post, Hasen cautioned that the ruling was not a complete victory, because the court declined to restore federal oversight of North Carolina’s voting rules and laws. noam.levey
@ latimes.com  
Times staff writer Del
Quentin Wilber in
Washington contributed to this report.

SARA D. DAVIS Getty Images
THE JUDGES wrote that the photo ID requirement was an obviously partisan effort to solidify Republican control of state government by targeting black voters.