Is voting a God-given right like my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or a privilege of citizenship?

I point out that others feel our rights are God-given, even going beyond the three mentioned by you and the Declaration. Newt suggested gun ownership was God-given.

Your point of "privilege" is taken- but when I took drivers training, my instructor pointed out that driving was a privilege, not a right.

If you don't think voting is a right God-given (probably following from the right of liberty), that's fine. But I hope you would concede it has higher status than driving.

In any event, the constitution establishes it as a right. And if I have to show a drivers license to drive and vote, I want the far right who are supporting Voter ID Laws to flash theirs when they go worship, read a newspaper, or attend a Tea Party Rally.

Dan, I only asked for a clarification so we might find a better understanding of both the alleged problem and its possible solution. I agree with you that voting seems a more fundamental privilege than driving as the latter didn't exist in the 18th century and the former is considered a duty by many.

I'm looking around for the language that establishes voting as a right, rather than a simple restriction on who may or may not vote. The 19th amendment provided that voting could not be restricted on the basis of sex.

The 10-year rollout of a voter ID law makes perfect sense. We know that, whenever new laws or regulations are passed, the legislature gives business years to prepare, because of the burden it imposes. It makes sense that people get the same consideration. After all, people are corporations too, and deserve as much consideration as businesses get.

Dan Schoof makes a good case for a 10-year implementation plan.

Voting is a right and not a privilege for American citizens, enshrined in the Constitution and numerous voting rights laws. Voting is perhaps the most important right in a democracy. When government imposes roadblocks to Americans' access to the voting booth, no matter how slight then government has damaged the very core of the society we believe to exist.

I have to have photo ID to buy cough syrup. Who doesn't carry photo ID?

lets give gov snyder a cheer for common sense .

The only people to oppose voter fraud laws are those committing it. There is ZERO logical reason to oppose a law which seeks to ensure that your vote COUNTS and is not cancelled out by one which never should have been cast in the first place.

This is not a partisan issue - at least it shouldn't be. Let's talk about the Holder AG office dropping charges against the New Black Panthers when they are clearly depicted standing outside a polling place with nightsticks and billy clubs. Let's talk about Michigan's Auditor General's report from May 2012 that shows almost 4000 verified instances of voter impropriety.

While Michigan may not have the widespread, systematic problems inherent in other states, that doesn't mean we don't need to improve upon those safeguards already in place. HOW MUCH VOTER FRAUD IS ACCEPTABLE? Not one vote if you ask me.....

Meh - as long as people need ID to collect benefits, they'll have the ID they need to vote.

1) With photo ID requirements being common for many everyday interactions, why not have the same requirement for voting?
I had to show my ID or my voter’s registration card last time I voted so I never really thought much of it.
2) Do you think that our current system of allowing those without voter ID to
sign an affidavit of identification is secure enough to prevent those who want to commit fraud?
NO it does nothing to prevent fraud.
3) Are there any modifications to voting that you would support that are designed to either discourage fraud or make it more difficult?
Issue everyone state id when they turn 16 for FREE as long as they have a birth certificate. Then, many years down the line this will not be that much of an issue.
4) Do you agree with those that feel a fraudulent vote potentially negates their vote and therefore takes away their right to vote?
If you voted, you had a voice. Most people who are going to fraudulently vote are either just trying to have a say or up to no good. And on some issues that is a cause for concern, but when it comes to a presidential race… the “college” has all the say anyway, so it doesn’t matter at all.

Jordan, it's easy to assume (as "Dave" does in a comment below) that everybody has an ID because you have an ID and what's the big deal? This is a typical reaction to believing everyone has what you have.

My late mother-in-law tried to get a passport some years ago, but did not have a birth certificate. Trying to hunt down a birth certificate of someone who was born at home to immigrant parents in the early 1900's turned out to be impossible. In short, she suddenly found that she did not have, and could not get, a "government-issued ID" (she had stopped driving years earlier). Despite years as a poll-worker, checking in voters and showing them how to use the machines, she would be unable to vote under these laws if she were alive today.

This is one person's story, but it is not exceptional and not unique.

1. Everyone has the means to get a state ID, just go to the sec of state, wait in line like everyone else and smile. 2. See answer #1, its clearly not a burden because we all have done it. 3. I dont have any, but if you have no ID you cant buy nasty cigarettes, you cant buy beer, your not allowed to drive, you cant get a license to own a gun which everyone in America is allowed to do with proper ID and a clean record. 4. Yes! ID works for everything else with ofcourse a few Fake ID's slipping through. So Jordan there are my answers to your tough questions, here is mine...What do you have to hide that makes it a burden to get a simple state ID card?

http://www.freep.com/article/20120516/NEWS15/205160363/State-audit-shows-dead-people-prisoners-cast-1-500-votes

"State law prohibits voting by prisoners, but the comparison to the prisoner database found 48 shown to have voted while locked up, based on matches of names, birthdates and Social Security numbers. Another 65 prisoners were shown to have voted based on matches of names and birth dates, where Social Security information was unavailable.

"Only 15% of the prisoner votes were by absentee ballot; the rest were in person, according to the audited records."

Even Joslyn Benson, the Democratic nominee for Secretary of State in 2010, supported tougher voter identification. From the October 2010 Free Press endorsement:

"Benson prudently recognizes that efforts to make voting more convenient should be matched by additional measures to guarantee the integrity and security of the process. For example, she would support same-day voter registration only if Michigan mandated tougher identification requirements to prevent voter impersonation fraud"

re: prisoner voting -- The Free Press article does not define the condition of the imprisonment. You MAY vote if you have not been convicted and sentenced. Who might that be? Anyone "imprisoned" while awaiting arraignment, awaiting or in trial, or convicted but waiting sentencing. And I put the word "imprisoned" in quotes because it doesn't have to mean "in a prison" -- anyone under other forms of confinement (house arrest, electronic tether) is considered "imprisoned".

Imprisonment does not negate voter registration. You remain a registered voter during your time in prison. You are not eligible to vote in an election while imprisoned serving your sentence. You regain your right to vote immediately upon release from all imprisonment, including probation/parole -- that's in Michigan, other states have different rules.

So if the "voter lists" show who is registered, then it is no error if prisoners are listed.
If they show who can vote, then it is an error.

The Free Press article, and the report it is based on, need to offer more clarity about who is being referred to and what the condition of imprisonment is. I would point out that the SOS reports that "every example cited ... involved clerks accidentally crossing incorrect names off voter lists, and not one example was the result of someone voting using another person's identity."

1) Do you accept that there will be some, albeit a small number, of legal voters who will not have the required identification and will have no means of acquiring it?
There is a small number of legal voters who will not have the required identification and that is NOT acceptable.
2) Do you accept that there will be more legal voters who, while they could theoretically obtain the required identification, would be so burdened by it that they instead choose not to vote?
No, I do not believe that any one would be so burdened by acquiring a $10 state id.
3) Do you have any examples of fraudulent voting that a photo ID requirement would’ve prevented, and shouldn’t evidence of such cases be a requirement before potentially taking away the right to vote from legal citizens?
No, and it would most likely prevent SOME fraud, but not all of it.
4) Is there any reason to believe that a photo ID requirement would prevent fraud? If a common argument against gun laws is that criminals by definition don’t follow the law, so gun laws result in law-abiding citizens not having guns, yet criminals still being able to obtain them, wouldn’t a similar argument suggest that voter ID laws would prevent law-abiding citizens from voting, but those who want to commit fraud could still do so with a fake ID?
It would not prevent all fraud, nor enough of it to really make any difference.

Answers 1) No. 2) No. 3). Personally no. But deny there have been many documented cases of dead people voting.4) Yes, just like when I have been in a gun store when someone was checked and was not able to buy a gun. However, Criminals will find a way if they are determined.

Dave, since it is so obvious to you that the other side of the debate has to be made up of "morons", please answer the four questions I posed. It should be very easy if the issue is a "no brainer".

Dave -- you are completely correct. If someone doesn't have an ID then "no soup for you". I had to show ID to buy a pack of Sudafed <sp?> at the store. I had to show ID to when I signed my cell phone contract. I had to show ID when we closed on our house. ID is needed to do business today -- voting should be no different.

Some woman with no birth certificate isn't a reason to compromise the integrity of our voting system. We need to make sure voters are who they say they are, and make sure voters are citizens before we allow them to vote. Voting is extremely important -- and to let anyone just walk in and vote, no questions asked, is silly.

I take my voter registration card with me every time I vote, and no one has ever asked to see it. I show it to them anyway, just to prove I am doing things by the rules. What purpose does a voter registration card have if no one asks to see it?? The easy thing to do would be for the Mich SOS to add your driver's license pic to it (or state ID pic) when you register.

I agree the stuff pulled by those two is reprehensible. If anything illegal was done they should be prosecuted.

However, the most egregious act was the fraud perpetuated by two Oakland County Democratic Party officers who attempted to put fraudulent "tea party" candidates on the ballot, and who where CONVICTED of fraud.

And let's not forget the mayors race in Settle, where after a couple "recounts", more votes where cast then there were registered voters.

Rick, you sound like my children. One is caught out and immediately brings up something their sibling or friend or someone else did that was also bad. It does NOT invalidate the wrong that was done. And let's also take into consideration that Bolger is the SPEAKER! Should we not hold people in leadership to higher standards?

ConcernedParent - Apparently your political slant prevents you from reading. Please note the opening comments that these two should be prosecuted if any laws were broken.

As for you did what, you have to be an ardent partisan to believe the fraud committed in Oakland County was not orchestrated from the top.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57372176-503544/indiana-sec-of-state-convicted-of-voter-fraud/

One of the few instances of voter fraud this year was committed by the Republican Secretary of State for Indiana.

I know Snyder is a Republican, but it would make sense for the Democrats to favor a "NO ID to vote" rule -- if they feel that some of their voting base cannot afford ($) the nominal amout it cost to get a driver's license, then they don't want to lose prospective voters (since low income residents are more likely to be democrats than republicans). Just a thought.

Ok it is time for some facts please. First of all from the SOS Website "Standard state ID cards are free to applicants age 65 or older". So they are not disenfranchised. Every child today is provided with a Soc Sec# at birth. So there must be a birth certificate. All males must register for selective service, so I don't understand how students are not being allowed to vote. A state ID card is $10. Yes they may be a stretch for someone, but to call it a pole tax is ridiculus. Lastly, as for Minorities, Barack Obama was a community organizer, Acorn and other organizations like that do nothing but register voters, The NAACP has a webpage devoted to this very activity. All library's in the city of detroit and pontiac provide public access to the internet, someone can easily fill out the form online and send it in. There has to be some personal accoutability here for people to get up off the couch and want to find out how to vote. Not just wait for a bus to pull up in front of the house or church, load everyone inside and take them to a polling place. A vote is the most scared thing we have in this country and to cheapen it by allowing any breathing body and nonbreathing body for that matter to vote, cheapens the votes for those of us who took the time to register and get a voter registration card.

You have to keep explaining it until any of your logic (which is completely lacking) makes sense.

You have to have a picture id to -

Open a bank account

Get on an airplane

Apply of social benefits

Cash a check

Generally use a credit card.

Unless you are a complete hermit, you already need and have state issued id.

I am asked for my id when I vote. Don't feel offended.

R Gibson -- nice!!! Great way to inject some common sense to this "discussion".

ConcernedParent, not that I disagree with you but I am curious about something. How does the voter ID law disenfranchise the students? They need to have idea to register for college, get driver's licenses, etc... Just wondering. As for the poor, I suppose if they don't have proper ID then it would disenfranchise them, no question about it. The elderly it makes sense. Minorities I'm a little confused on how that would disenfranchise them unless they already fall into the elderly or poor category too.

R Gibson, I completely agree! There are some special cases where people truly do not have idea (my grandfather was one of them and he voted by absentee ballot) however, there could be the 10 yr roll out plan that was suggested (although I don't think it would need to be 10 yrs) or perhaps a special circumstances allowance where cases could be viewed individually and until the case has been reviewed that person is still allowed to vote.

you have to explain until it makes sense - it still doesn't. Entire elections were swayed through voter fraud - how do you think Al Franken got elected ? Those "needed" votes came out of the trunk of a car as absentee ballots. Who said its weeks before an election - Michigan already has a voter ID law in place for in person voting, and its been upheld by the courts. This just sought equity in the absentee ballot system, and will get it with the Governor's signature when some minor language issues are addressed. If anyone believes that residents of this state ("the poor, the elderly, students, and minorities") are truly disenfranchised ( a made up word BTW ) from VOTING then they must be disenfranchised from other things too - like work, school, welfare, renting a movie, taking out a library book, cashing a check or a million other routine functions of life. Perhaps a better use of your time would be assist them in obtaining a picture ID like 99.9% of the rest of the population.

Marty you are simply denying the obvious. The AUDITOR GENERAL of Michigan published a report in MAY of this year DOCUMENTING thousands of instances of voter fraud, all proven, in MICHIGAN ALONE in the last two years. To deny it exists is to tacitly approve of it occurring. The only thing the three veto'ed bills would do is to ensure the same standard of ID occurs in the absentee ballot process as occurs at the poles. You step father fought a WAR to insure our rights. ASK HIM how he feels about illegal aliens and non-citizens voting. I bet he'll have to you take him to get the FREE state ID.

Again, are you reading the MANY examples of why people do NOT have ID? Do you realize it COSTS people to get ID? If you have to pay to vote, that is called a Poll Tax. That is a bad thing for so many reasons, but it seems that people have been scared by the 'voter fraud boogeyman.' Guess what? He doesn't exist.

Concerned Parent,

The one thing you can count on is that people like Art never let reality get in their way. Notice he said "believe". Faith is all he needs, facts be damned.

ok concerned parent I will go to a precinct that is not mine and say a name I get off of a tombstone the day before and vote there. then i will go to my precinct and show my amazingly tough to get ID and vote again. How are you gonna stop me?
Is there a way to stop me from voting 5,6 or more times?

White lake, in all likelihood you wouldnt get to vote in your home district because the dead persons name you lifted from the cemetery would have been removed from the list of eligible voters, and you'd be arrested for voter fraud. I know it may not believe it, but there are people who work for local governments who have the job of making certain that each precinct has a list of eligible voters. You have to be on the list in order to vote. You cannot go find a random name of a grave marker in a local cemetery and cast a vote, no matter how many dead Chicagoans you think voted in the past.

You bring up many good questions. I want those answers too.

GLADLY - #1 - ever hear the term "no expose factos laws" ? Look it up.
#2. We don't know with certainty if anyone benefited - that's the point. How can the lack of a victim be used to deny the existence of a crime? If the process lacks proper safeguards and casts doubt on the integrity of the process, we all lose.
#3. See # 1 - first you deny any harm occurred and then you seek redress for it. Which is it?
#4. No response. Personally i could not care less when it takes effect, as long as it does.

Here's the bottom line - the only people OPPOSED to voter fraud laws are those committing the fraud. There is NO logical reason to be against insuring the integrity of the process. Dead people vote. Incarcerated felons vote. That's fact, and it needs to stop. How MUCH voter fraud is acceptable to you? NOT ONE VOTE is acceptable to me.

RE: homelessness resulting in no legitimate address - these people would have to register where they are located because the voting booths ALL have a list of people that can vote in their area. If you are in the wrong area then you need to go to that area pertaining to your voter card. I know this because I was going to vote where the school elections vote counted and was told to go to another place for the Government vote that had my name.

Dale, if you "can't see any rational or reasonable support for not being required to show photo ID to vote", then you should have no problem answering the four questions I asked to those who support voter ID laws:

1) Do you accept that there will be some, albeit a small number, of legal voters who will not have the required identification and will have no means of acquiring it?

2) Do you accept that there will be more legal voters who, while they could theoretically obtain the required identification, would be so burdened by it that they instead choose not to vote?

3) Do you have any examples of fraudulent voting that a photo ID requirement would’ve prevented, and shouldn’t evidence of such cases be a requirement before potentially taking away the right to vote from legal citizens?

4) Is there any reason to believe that a photo ID requirement would prevent fraud? If a common argument against gun laws is that criminals by definition don’t follow the law, so gun laws result in law-abiding citizens not having guns, yet criminals still being able to obtain them, wouldn’t a similar argument suggest that voter ID laws would prevent law-abiding citizens from voting, but those who want to commit fraud could still do so with a fake ID?

I'm sorry, but this is my favorite post so far. 'Basic activity like boarding an airplane or a cruise ship.' Hilarious. This is a perception of reality that is just a little skewed.

I AGREE

I AGREE.

Dale, read your comment out loud to yourself. BOARDING AN AIRPLANE OR A CRUISESHIP. That is not a basic activity to most of the people in this country. I give up. Most of you live in such a protected, cocooned world that you can't possibly fathom what people living in abject poverty or the homeless or those that don't HAVE ANY CHECKS TO CASH have to do on a daily basis just to stay alive. I'm sure they're confident all of you privileged folks will be voting in their best interests.

You should know that a driver's license is not proof of citizenship -- try showing your driver's license at the border to get back from Canada -- doesn't work (unless you paid for the high-cost special DL).

The law that Snyder vetoed didn't require "proof" of citizenship -- only the same checkbox that we have today, where you promise that you are a citizen.

If proof of citizenship is required, the only ID I know of is your US passport. You don't have to be a citizen in order to drive, go to school, buy alcohol or serve in the military, so none of those IDs would prove citizenship. And the effort and cost of acquiring a passport is pretty high.

So this bill does make sure that you are who you say you are (or at least look like who you say you are), but it doesn't require you to prove that you are a citizen. If the voter fraud problem is that non-citizens are voting, this bill doesn't address that at all.

No wonder Snyder vetoed it -- it would cause a lot of disruption and not solve any voter fraud problems.

bvwatson --- an enhanced driver's license isn't that much more than a regular license -- I think it's an extra $30??? I got mine last year and don't remember the exact cost, but it's not much.

My responses to those four points are:

1) Every citizen should be able to vote, as it is a basic right and the foundation of our representational democracy. If there was a public safety concern that justified the ID requirement, then I could support it. But the burden is on the side wanting the ID requirement to show that it is necessary. I don't think that side has come close to demonstrating that. They instead take it for granted that it should be there, and refuse to address the counter-argument.

2) I don't think the current system is secure enough to prevent all voter fraud, but I don't think it needs to be. Just as we choose not to prevent all murders, or all traffic violations, or all [any other crime], and that choice is justified because in order to prevent those things we'd need to take away our citizens' basic rights, the same is true of voter fraud. Our justice system is "innocent until proven guilty", which is more likely to allow a guilty person to walk free than punish an innocent person. Our voting system should be the same, yet voter ID requirements turn it into "guilty until proven innocent" and are more likely to prevent a legal citizen from voting (punishing the innocent).

3) Instead of making voter fraud impossible, let's make it even more irrational. A criminal looking to commit voter fraud weighs the risks, the reward, and the probability of getting caught. Now the reward for one fraudulent vote is very small, as it is unlikely to change the outcome of an election. But rather than focusing solely on increasing the probability of the criminal being caught, let's instead increase the penalty if they are caught. If the crime of "voting as another individual" came with a mandatory five year prison sentence (per count), virtually no one will risk that for what is basically no reward.

4) A fraudulent vote does negate a legitimate vote. But we shouldn't implement policies that suppress more legit votes than fraudulent ones. All of the evidence suggests that there is virtually no voter fraud that voter IDs would prevent, yet there is strong evidence that voter IDs would prevent some legal citizens from being able to vote (and setting up hurdles that discourage others from voting).

One fraudulent vote negates a legitimate vote, but so does suppressing a legal vote. If the side in favor of voter ID laws refuses to guarantee that no citizen will lose their right to vote, then the laws should not be passed.

Jordan, sorry, but that is the biggest load of manure I have ever read. To equate Muder and Speeding tickets and criminal justice system to Voter Identification makes absolutely no sense. But just for giggles let me ask you to defend this. If I want to walk into Target Sports tonight and purchase a hand gun, I first have to go to my local police department and get a hand gun purchase permit. This requires a DL and a valid address and a back ground check. Wait some period of time, then go to the store and purchase it, i will have to show a valid DL at the store. Additionally, in order to purchase a long gun, shot gun or rifle, I need to provide a valid DL as well and fill out a form and register the weapon. Based on your arguments you thus must be against any and all gun restrations. The fact that I must have a back ground check first, before I can purchase says that I am not eligible, or guilty until proven eligible or innocent. Furthermore, aren't we also denying those who do not have a DL or State Id card their 2nd amendment rights to bear firearms? If they must provide an ID to get a purchase permit for a hand gun or a DL to purchase a Shotgun or Rifle?

R Gibson, I'll respond to your comment, in hopes that you'll actually answer the four questions I've been asking those in favor of the ID laws.

I personally think that there is a public safety issue involved in gun purchases that justify an ID requirement. Are you taking the position that background checks should not be in place, or are you saying that because background checks are in place for gun purchases, therefore we should have stricter voter ID laws?

I will expand upon that further if you want, but not unless you acknowledge the points I made very early on in this thread.

Jordan, you have such well thought out arguments I have nothing to add except to say that I agree with them.

Jordan, you're asking "brainer" questions, you deserve a direct response. Here's mine:
(1) Photo ID is a requirement for many optional interactions. Voting, on the other hand, is a (constitutionally protected) right. The requirements imposed on your ability to exercise that right should be minimal -- otherwise, they obstruct your right. I believe this "minimal interference with the exercise of your rights" is a principle found in Supreme Court decisions re: constitutionally protected rights (e.g., 2nd amendment).

(2) Our current system has been in place all of my life (that's 6 decades) and I don't know of any elections where fraud was perpetrated by voters at the polling places. Backroom fraud (stuffing the ballot box, miscounts, etc.), yes, but not by voters at the polling places. So, yes, I think the current system is sufficient for that. I have serious doubts about non-audited, paperless electronic voting, but that's a different topic and not addressed in this legislation.

(3) I would return to pencil on paper counted by humans -- certainly for the only national election we hold (presidential). There are roughly 1,500 voters per precinct, so a hand-count is quite do-able. I would eliminate electronic voting machines.

(4) The incidence of fraud vs. legitimate votes is too low, so no, they don't negate my (right to) vote.

Recommended: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/allegations_of_voter_fraud

Jordon, my personal opinion is I am happy to provide my ID and have a background check. I don't have an issue with background checks, because I don't believe everyone should have a firearm. Like mentally unstable people, criminals, etc. I support the current back ground check process. I believe that everyone that has the right to vote, and the ability to vote based on the legal definition of eligibility should be given the opportunity to vote. And I believe that you should have to prove, at the most minimal level, that eligibility. Why is it so offensive to some to have the smallest among of integrity in our voting system? I am not advocating denying anyone the right to vote that is eligible, I will defend them until my last dying breath. I agree with bvwatson that more than likely individual voter fraud is probably minimal, that vote fixing or battot stuffing is probably a bigger issue.
I personally think that there is a public safety issue involved in gun purchases that justify an ID requirement. Are you taking the position that background checks should not be in place, or are you saying that because background checks are in place for gun purchases, therefore we should have stricter voter ID laws?

I will expand upon that further if you want, but not unless you acknowledge the points I made very early on in this thread.

Furthermore, if we accept that there is very little individual voter fraud in the system, then why is it a problem to require those voting to provide ID? If the fraud in the system is so low, then only those engaged in it will be hurt by it. Because the balance of people voting must be able to provide some type of identification in order to be on the roles in that community to vote. Either through voter registration drives or proof of residency like power, gas and water bills, for example.

"Furthermore, if we accept that there is very little individual voter fraud in the system, then why is it a problem to require those voting to provide ID?" - R Gibson

If there is very little voter fraud, then the point is that there is no benefit to new restrictions. And the problem arises from the fact that the restrictions would keep legit votes from being cast.

"If the fraud in the system is so low, then only those engaged in it will be hurt by it." - R Gibson

That is where we absolutely disagree, because we have a different understanding of reality. There are those who will be hurt by the new restrictions when they've done nothing wrong. Your position relies on those people not existing, but they do.

http://audgen.michigan.gov/finalpdfs/11_12/r231023511.pdf

Pay particular attention to pages 17,18 and 19

ConcernedParent, there is no way to prove voter fraud unless you Identify those trying to commit the fraud. You can't identify them unless we require them to provide a valid piece of ID. Why are you so interested in letting anyone vote? Why shouldn't someone have to at least provide some type of id to guarantee that they are who they say they are. Don't you think having interigty in our voting booths is important? Or do you believe that anyone, for any reason should have the right to vote, regardless of any other circumstance. Do you believe that illegals should have the right to vote? Let me ask you this, do you believe that we should have a DL to drive? Why? I have not gotten pulled over by a police officer since 1983, so I must be a good driver and don't speed, so I don't think I want to spend the money to renew my DL every few years. Based on whay you say, you would agree with that.

So now you are saying we don't know if there's voter fraud. But we are fine with disenfranchising millions of legitimate voters just in case dead people or (godforbid) foreigners are voting. Because it totally makes sense for hordes of foreigners to try to sneak in and vote to swing elections in local districts. Really?

Several people have clearly explained why many many people who are eligible to vote do not have ID and would find it very difficult and expensive to obtain ID. You don't seem to grasp this, choosing rather to believe that we are advocating the subversion of democracy. Facts are more important than emotion and rhetoric. Voter fraud of this nature has never been shown to be a problem. Why then, several months from a major election is this suddenly a crisis?

Concernedparent. I think Voter Fraud has been around a very long long time. Chicago has stories and stories over the years of voter fraud. With the country becoming more and more polarized and our elections closer and closer, every vote counts, one way or another. It's a problem now because its politics and it should have been addressed and dealt with, but it makes good headlines and good food for the media. Frankly, I don't think any of you have proven that millions will be denied the right to vote. Give me an example of one person in the last election who was denied the chance to vote and who was eligible to vote?

Just to put some perspective to your comments, he signed 11 out of 14 bills proposed by the SECRETARY OF STATE, not some "right-winged" anything. He has also indicated that he WILL sign these bills with some clarification of the language.

The ONLY people opposed to the prevention of voter fraud are those committing it.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what point you just made here. I think you agreed with me that DL is not proof of citizenship -- therefore, showing a DL at the voting place does nothing to prevent non-citizens from voting. If that was the point of the law, they should require passports (which are expensive) or birth certificates (which don't have photos).

My assertion was that the law was not about non-citizens voting since that didn't change. I think you agreed with me. Thanks.

How many of those without a photo ID are registered voters ? How do they make it to the DMV to register to vote but can't make it there to get a photo ID ? How do they make it to the precint to vote ?

Cheryl in the state of michigan seniors can have a state id for free. Check the SOS website, it is right there.

R Gibson, the state ID is free, but the docs required to obtain the state ID cost money. If you don't have your birth certificate, or your marriage license, or your social security card, you have to pay to get those.

Tom Skyler, many people register to vote during registration drives (which are under attack in other Republican-controlled states). That's why registration drives are so important.

Thank you for being the first to actually respond to my points.

1) There are individuals that do not have the ability to prove their identify sufficiently enough to get a state issued ID. There are those who do not have birth certificates, or marriage certificates, or social security cards, and they do not have any means of acquiring them (either because those docs don't exist, or other docs that the individuals don't have are required to obtain them). That reality doesn't change even if you don't accept it, but at least I get a better understanding of your side's position- that you are basing it on a alternate reality. How many examples of individuals who can't get ID would it take for you to accept that this premise is true?

2) Yes, obtaining a state ID can be a burden for those in poorer communities. Many Secretary of State offices have been closed due to budget cuts, and those office closings often occur in low-income communities. There is a high percentage of low-income citizens that live more than 10 miles from the nearest SoS office, which means that getting to the SoS office is not a simple feat for them.

Many people are able to get by without ID. I assume their lives are not like yours or mine, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist. And even if you think they are "less likely to be registered to vote", that shouldn't allow us to ignore the fact that some of them may want to vote (and have the right to do so).

My suggestion is that everyone be required to have, and produce on demand, proof of identity, citizenship and eligibility to vote in the specific election.

Citizenship requires a passport -- so everyone has to have one.
Eligibility to vote requires proof of residence -- so the passport needs to have your current address, and you need to update it every time you move (14-30% of the people move every year).
Proof that you didn't vote twice requires a "voter ticket" that you turn in at the time you vote -- so the passport needs to come with "voter tickets"
Photos must also be kept current so you still look like you -- so the passport needs to be updated if you change your appearance in any significant way (or you need to include biometrics, like fingerprint, retina scan, genome print, DNA).

So -- there you go -- a national ID card that must be kept current and updated continuously. At no charge, of course, since this is all in support of a constitutionally-protected right of citizenship.

Simple.

3) So we're living in different worlds when you say "This law is not taking away any right to vote". I have an ID, but I understand that other people don't live the same lifestyle as me.

4) Thank you! I appreciate your honesty. You admit that this law will keep honest people honest, but not stop those that want to break the law. So... what is the benefit of having the law!?!

I will happily respond to your question. I think the status quo does an acceptable job of confirming that the individual voting is the one who registered. It's not flawless, but even you admit that the system would still be equally as flawed even if the laws are passed. So my suggestion is to make voter fraud penalties much more severe. Even if there is only a 5% chance of getting caught committing voter fraud, no rational person would do it if the penalty was a mandatory 5-year prison sentence for each fraudulent vote.

A BC is just one requirement of many that can be used to check your identiry. Which is what this is all about. Checking your identity. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Applying_for_lic_or_ID_SOS_428_222146_7.pdf
Here is a link to the page that lists all the possible ways to id one self. Soc #, W-2, 1099, Pay Stub, and yes a Birth Certificate. Which is available from any county you were born in.

DJG wrote: "Those that can not provide ID to vote must not have a bank account, drivers license, cash checks, use credit cards, etc. If you have that little impact on society, why should you get to vote on it? "

That, my friend, is what real class warfare sounds like.

I know people -- many people -- who don't do those things. There is a large portion of the population who are "unbanked" -- the FDIC estimates almost 20% of those making $30,000 annually or less have no bank account (hence, don't cash checks, don't have credit cards). Many have no current driver's license.

This is the underclass, and your comment -- "why should they get to vote" -- speaks volumes.

I am so appalled at your comment it defies comment.

"If you have that little impact on society, why should you get to vote on it?"

I can barely believe anyone would pose this question. Let's take away the right to vote from the already poor and disenfranchised. I despair.

sorry, forgot to cite my source for the statistic "the FDIC estimates almost 20% of those making $30,000 annually or less have no bank account"

Report is available at http://economicinclusion.gov/ dated 2009

If they get stopped by police and asked for ID, what do they show them?
If you're saying they never go outside the house, never go anywhere, have no use of money, cash, credit, drivers license or vehicle, no house payment, do not cash or use checks, etc.
How much do they contribute to society?
Like it or leave it, that's fine. This is not about class warfare...get over that.
This is about a simple piece of ID.

If a police officer asks you for your ID...tell them you don't have any and have no way to prove who you are.
Then expect to vote? Really?

This is common sense, not class warfare, etc.

I have not formed an opinion yet on the photo ID for voting question but DGD your comments "If you have that little impact on society, why should you get to vote on it?" and "How much do they contribute to society?" struck me as harsh to a certain segment of the population that may not have current state ID (but can still vote absentee) namely the elderly. I have an elderly parent in assisted living whose driver's license has expired. I am steeling myself for taking her (not easy due to fraility and mobility issues) and all the paperwork required to the SOS office to get a current state ID. But after a lifetime of her paying taxes and voting I don't like to hear that she shouldn't get to vote now.
If the photo ID requirement does go through, I would like to see the state make it easier for physically incapacitated elderly to transition from drivers license to state ID....at least allow them to get a scheduled appointment time at SOS office.

Cookie...regarding the elderly, here's my comment addressing that.

Military service, disabled and other special cases, absolutely.

In other words..there are exceptions to not having to show ID.
But for someone not to be able to afford $10 every 4 years for a State ID...that's just a poor excuse.

And it is garbage - if the cry babies would devote as much energy in helping the so-called " disenfranchised " obtain the required ID as they do complaining about why they shouldn't have to meet the same standards as the rest of us, the problem would already be solved.....

Your red herring arguments are specious and tiring, Richard. Let me explain it...in mostly one syllable words so hopefully you will understand this time. Some folks just don't have a birth cert. They don't need welfare. You think only poor people on food stamps can't vote. You are wrong.

Alright Cheryl, I have had enough of you personal insults. Tone down the personal attacks. A birth certificate is available to any live person in the United States, even if you were born in Hawaii. I was born in 1964, I can drive up the lodge freeway right now, go to the wayne county records building near Henry Ford hospital and order up an official raised seal copy of my birth certificate. You just want the doors to be open to anyone who can walk in to a voting booth. You want to give away to anyone who wants it citizenship, you don't care about how they got here, you don't care about what they have done since then, you don't care about how it impacts anyone else. I get it, you hate republicans and love Obama.

"...even if you were born in Hawaii..."

What exactly does that mean? No, really? Were YOU born in Hawaii, is that why you mentioned it?

Or is Hawaii so backwards that the notion that they would issue birth certificates seems remarkable?

Or did you not know that Hawaii has been a state for over 50 years, and a territory of the US for over 100 years?

Or maybe you're being clever?

My official, sealed Hawaii birth certificate (from the first half of the last century) has been in my wallet for 45 years. Proudly.

My grandparents were born under the monarchy, but I was a citizen from the day I was born. As were my parents, who were Hawaii-born citizens when Pearl Harbor was attacked a few miles from their homes. We were citizens before, and after, Hawaii became a state.

"...even if you were born in Hawaii..."

Oh...wait a minute... I get it. I've been Trumped!

bvwatson, easy tiger. Yes you got Trumped.

"easy tiger" ... actually, no -- I take personal offense at those who dismiss Obama's birth certificate as genuine, because his looks just like mine. To say he is not a legitimate citizen because he was born in Hawaii is to say the same thing about me -- and I take personal offense.

The "birther" stuff is my personal "N-word". I'm not smiling. Never thought it was clever or cute or genuine. Its origins lie in racism and there's nothing funny about that.

I dismiss anyone who buys into it, repeats it, or laughs it off. It isn't funny.

And -- to be factual -- the Obama campaign released his birth certificate in June 2008, backed by a panoply of Hawaii state officials (including Republican governor). Not day one, but close enough. Yet four years later we are hearing the same sludge being written into law. No Presidential candidate -- including Panama-born John McCain, or Mexico-born George Romney, both white males -- has had the same abusive treatment.

Enough already. Apologize, take it back, and drop it. Finally.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

Thank you for providing excellent examples of what BASIC civil and social services require ID. Yet it's "class warfare" if we ask for ID to vote.

I'm sure in order to receive and/or qualify for Obamacare, you'll need to show ID as well.

There are common things everyday that make ID required. Including identifying yourself to law enforcement when asked...

"I'm sure in order to receive and/or qualify for Obamacare, you'll need to show ID as well." - DJG

DJG, you do know "Obamacare", a.k.a the Affordable Care Act, isn't a program, but rather legislation that prevents insurance companies from discriminating against patients? And that it also requires that all insurance companies provide preventative services free of charge and reduces the cost of prescriptions for seniors? It's basically regulations that are being imposed on the heathcare industry. It's not some new "government run healthcare" that you have to apply for, just wanted to point that out.

"Certainly, these are going to be the poorest among use, typically and sadly minorities.." - R Gibson

R, according to the USDA, recipients of food stamps in 2010 = 36% were white (non-Hispanic), 22% were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10% were Hispanic. 47% of beneficiaries were children under age 18, and 8% were over 60 years old.

So the the same poor people who can't produce the ID to get state assistance, we should also deny them the right to vote? If they are able to register to vote, why can't they provide the voter registration card, and be checked off as having voted? They can only get a copy of that card once the state has validated that they are a resident of the district.

@Dave W. Thanks for pointing out your views on Obamacare.
Next subject...doctors office. I have to show my ID there along with my insurance card to get seen. They want to make sure they get paid and know who you are.
But that's just another silly reason to have Pic ID.

Craig, the majority of people on foodstamps are white...

According to the USDA, recipients of food stamps in 2010 = 36% were white (non-Hispanic), 22% were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10% were Hispanic. 47% of beneficiaries were children under age 18, and 8% were over 60 years old.

In fact, Congressional District 11 (Troy's new district) comprised of the following:
76.8% of people, or 9,199 households receiving assistance were "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino"
15.1 % of people, or 1,808 households receiving assistance were "Black or African American"
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/SNAPCharacteristics/Michigan/Michigan_11.pdf

While I don't agree with many of your assertions, I wouldn't disagree with the ink idea. That wouldn't cost anyone anything additional to vote, and it serves about the same purpose as the photo ID to stop any repetitive voting, lol.

Joseph that is easy to answer, because we are all already registered, we had our accountants and lawyers do it for us, meanwhile we are living in huge and lavish homes, drinking single malt scotch, after a long day grinding our boots into the butts of our employees.

www.truethevote.org

www.freeandfairmi.org

But voter fraud is make believe........

Mike thank you very much for your very informed and helpful posts.

Mike, finally some actual facts and sanity. Thank you!

Well since the people working the polls will most likely be from the community, there is a decent chance that either a) someone knows who you are, or b) someone knows your dad. Also, I believe your dad's birthdate will be on the screen when you check in, so depending on how much older you look...

The biggest question though is *would you risk it?* Would you risk being caught committing a felony in hopes of getting one more vote? You may get away with it, just like the person shoplifting may get away with it, but if you don't, the punishment is not just a slap on the wrist.

Look at James O'Keefe's lame attempt to "prove" voter fraud is real. He sent people to the New Hampshire primary (IIRC) to vote under the names of recently deceased people. One of his co-conspirators was caught because the person working the poll knew the dead individual that he was posing as.

Sure its possible a poll worker may know a few people but no one ever know me when i go in, i guess me getting the absentee ballot would even be easier then to avoid poll workers. As for fraud here in MI i know plenty of ballots or recalls that get 1000s of signatures that are fakes that have to be verified and removed later, verifying the info up front instead of checking afterwards like you say they do would save time and money right ? or am i missing something ?

Tom, do you look enough like your dad? The poll workers will ask you for photo ID here in Oakland Township, and look at your signature on the card you fill out, and cross the name of the identified voter off the computer print out.

Real hard to get by those workers here.

Cheryl, my dad was born in 1919, in Syracure NY, I have his birth certificate. My mother was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba in 1929, I have hers. Please provide links to these claims of 22 million without ids, and 8 million over 65 please.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf
CITIZENS WITHOUT PROOF:
A SURVEY OF AMERICANS’ POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP AND PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

bvwatson, thank you for providing that. Very interesting and sad in many ways.

You're welcome. It is surprising to many, and sad perhaps -- but only when having this proof becomes a requirement.

To be complete, there have been objections to this report, and these are answered by the Brennan Center here: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/citizens_without_proof_stands_strong/

There's lots to learn. The issues of "secure voting" are myriad, complex and difficult.

bvwatson, it's a very interesting paper and I think it is probably directionally correct, although I have to admit that I take these kinds of things with a grain of salt. Most organizations, left and right, have an agenda and a point to prove. Less and less I do not trust many of these outlets, regardless of the political left or right of the group. However, it doesn't change my position that I don't see anything wrong with people being required to provide some minimal id to support thier identity. If you read Mike Smith's posts above you can see that in most instances we are already doing it.

If you read Mike Smith's posts above you'll see that there is a way for those who don't have ID to still vote. That is what the new laws are trying to get rid of, and that is why we're opposed to the new laws.

Did you not see that part? Do you have a problem with that part of the status quo? Or are you willing to let that continue?

Easy Jordon, all I was saying is, according to Mr. Smith, there are many layers already in place protect the integrity of the system. Yes I noted an instance where there could be possible fraud and yes I still hold my position that we should have ID presented at the time of voting. Signing an affidavit, today, I think is naive and insufficient. But Mr Smith’s documentation of the process makes me feel more comfortable that maybe things aren't as bad as some would suggest. But it does make one wonder, if what Mr. Smith states is true and there is that much protection built into the system already, then why are some arguing so passionately against voter id requirements. Except for the provision that you sign and affidavit, in every other instance there is an id required that validates that person eligibility, one can only surmise that those in opposition are articulating a position of removing many of those protections already in place. Thus reducing the eligibility requirements

35 total cases of voter fraud in the entire US last year! What do we need these laws for? 37 people were killed by falling TVs maybe we should ban TVs!

Oh you got that.

And for the record I think Trump is an idiot. But I think Obama and team could have put this issue to bed on day one by providing it. Just like Romney's tax returns, where there is absence of evidence people make stuff up. But no I frankly, don't believe he is a US Citizen, but he is born of a US citizen so that is ok.

Really R Gibson? You're going to go down that road?

In 2008, President Obama released the same birth certificate that you or I could release if someone was demanding to see ours. But the lunatics on the right felt that wasn't good enough, and needed to see the "long-form" birth certificate that no common individual has access to. Eventually, the state of Hawaii gave in and made an exception for the President, providing him with the "long-form" in hopes of that being the end of it all, but there are still people like you who use the entire episode as a way to attack the President when he did nothing wrong. That is quite pathetic.

Have we seen Mitt Romney's "long-form" birth certificate? I don't think so. But the difference is I don't care, because I'm not irrational enough to believe in such lame conspiracies.

Tax policy is highly relevant to the election though. And so Mitt Romney should release a similar number of tax returns that all other modern presidential candidates have. He provided well over 10 years worth of tax returns to the McCain campaign when he was trying to get McCain to pick him as VP, does he think that he should release less than that when trying to get us to pick him as President?

Jordan I really don't want to get into this, but I will say there is enough hiding of details on both sides. Romney should release his tax returns and Hawaii should show the members of the supreme court the long form and release all of Obamas college transcripts. Both sides, left and right.

(sorry for the duplicate post, but apparently this spin-off thread is here ... I posted this above)

I take personal offense at those who dismiss Obama's birth certificate as genuine, because his looks just like mine. To say he is not a legitimate citizen because he was born in Hawaii is to say the same thing about me -- and I take personal offense.

The "birther" stuff is my personal "N-word". I'm not smiling. Never thought it was clever or cute or genuine. Its origins lie in racism and there's nothing funny about that.

I dismiss anyone who buys into it, repeats it, or laughs it off. It isn't funny.

And -- to be factual -- the Obama campaign released his birth certificate in June 2008, backed by a panoply of Hawaii state officials (including Republican governor). Not day one, but close enough. Yet four years later we are hearing the same sludge being written into law. No Presidential candidate -- including Panama-born John McCain, or Mexico-born George Romney, both white males -- has had the same abusive treatment.

Enough already. Apologize, take it back, and drop it. Finally.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

easy, tiger...
We have an intelligent and rational discussion of issues or exchange of ideas, such as re: the number of people who have government-issued IDs, for example, or the significant challenges faced by those in the lower-income groups to easily navigate new or pending legal requirements. These are opinion-free facts that we use to support our opinions. Nothing wrong with drawing different conclusions from the same facts. And we can disagree, civilly.

I'll try not to insult anyone here, and I won't be throwing in pointless jabs about people's backgrounds. We don't know each other that well, or at all. So we can stay on topic, and share what we know and what we believe. Civilly.

And now we know what off-the-point topic is sensitive, and we can just walk away from it. Civilly.

Tom, I see nothing wrong with your logic.

"They just for what ever reason DO NOT WANT TO get one or DO NOT WANT TO make the effort to do so?" - Tom Skyler (emphasis mine)

You're not understanding it correctly. For some of them, it has nothing to do with *wanting*. For some, they can *want* to get a state issued ID as much as possible, but still not be able to. It's not a choice on their part, but an insurmountable inability.

For others, it again has very little to do with what they *want*, but instead what they are reasonably able to do. If someone is living in poverty, sure, they may *want* to get a state issued ID, but the hurdles they'd have to overcome to do so are rather challenging. Yes, if those individuals made sacrifices (that you and I wouldn't have to make), they could get an ID, but why should we require them to make those sacrifices when no one has yet even tried to say that the ID requirements would prevent fraud?

As you said yourself Tom, the stricter voter ID laws:
"would just keep the honest people honest, if someone was really intent on breaking the law, they would find a way."

So you're asking some individuals to jump through difficult hoops to obtain an ID, even though you admit there is no benefit. And you're accepting that others won't be able to get an ID no matter how many hoops they jump through. That is where your logic fails.

No benefit. Real cost.

I guess its just i don't see the major burden or hoops you speak of, i got an ID at 16 and had it my whole life. I guess technically anything in life is a burden, Its also a burden to go to my precinct and vote before or after work but i make the effort. Its a burden to read about the canidates and make my choice to vote, its a burden to go to work, to see a doctor, to get your car fixed. No one said life was easy but you are saying that they no matter what, there is a group of people that are registered voters and will go out and vote on a regular basis but will stop voting if they are asked to show ID ?

If you change the word "stop" to "be prevented from", and "asked" to "required" in that last sentence, then yes, that is what I'm saying.

I'm saying a lot more too, especially focused on how *there is no benefit*, but at least you're now understanding my position on how *there is a cost*.

So as long as the resourses are there to help people registering to vote to also help them get an ID if they dont have one is in place you are on-board with it ?

I guess i feel the right vote to is important enough to me, that i will jump through any hoops needed to make sure my voice is heard, so its hard for me to grasp that someone else won't. I know plenty of co-workers that never vote because its an effort to go to the poll and as you know voter turnout is low, so i guess i can i agree with you that there are people are out there that wont do it.... I am just not one of them, if they tell me i need to get a passport to vote i would do it... It's that important to me.

If everyone in the country could easily obtain the type of ID being required by the stricter laws, then I would not oppose the legislation. I wouldn't support it, as it still would have no benefit, but I wouldn't oppose it.

So that would require many more SoS offices with longer hours of operation, fewer requirements for obtaining ID, and zero costs to the individual for the documents needed to obtain the ID. Would you support those changes?

Personally though, I think we should be encouraging more voting. We should implement "no-reason absentee voting", early voting, same-day registration & voting, etc. We should pass laws that are shown to increase voter turnout.

Yup, like George Soros, and Hollywood, lets not forget Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, and Oprah, she is worth some coin, And let's not forget the entire collective media that we license.

People reply to that and say up to 20% of people who make less than 30K a year don't have a bank account.
Ok...fine. Do they work for cash or get paid by check? If they get paid cash....that's another issue. If they get paid by check...how do they cash it or deposit it?

Again, Military, disabled, elder, etc., I get that. There needs to be clauses for not using ID.

But it needs to be a requirement first, then build the clauses.
Not a blanket clause where all I have to do is sign an affidavit.

There are simply too many things in day to day society that require a photo ID.
Mostly what I hear about not having a Photo ID are sorry excuses....

This is not the place to go into details on the unbanked/underbanked population, but suffice it to say that it is far larger than you think. And there are many non-bank methods for being paid, other than cash. A company in Franklin, Tennessee, specializes in helping employers to electronically pay their employees who have no bank account. One of those employers is Sears, so we're not talking about day laborers and waiters and fly-by-night stores.

The important take-away here is that there are many people who live in circumstances far different from yours, and when you are imposing legislation between a citizen and the free exercise of his/her rights, you need to make provision for those differences. In short -- not everyone is you or me.

bv...
IF they got a job at sears...how did they fill out the application and W2 without picture ID? I get it...they have no bank account. They also can't buy alcohol or cigarettes. Can't drive. They can't do a whole bunch of things without a picture ID. Banking/checks/credit are only a few of the very common.

DJG, although you bring up a good point about how do those people fill out a W2 without ID I have to say that I have only once had to show ID when filling out my W2. And I worked for a few different places (Blockbuster, Dressbarn, McDonald's just to name a few). Granted all of those places where WRONG to not have me show ID but still... it's a common practice especially in lower income jobs to not bother to ask for ID. Sadly...

Sean if there were only 35 cases last year, which ironically, didn't have a national election, then what is the big deal about having the voter id laws. If you say our system is so pure then there won't be any issue with people showing ids. Because if you read what Mark Smith said above, almost 100% of people would have had to show some proof of identity and eligibility to vote.

Sorry but 35 cases is not a cost to benefit ratio that is worth it.

That logic is amazing - let's substitute a few different crimes and see how it sounds.

"We had a total of 35 murders in the entire county last year......where is the urgency in passing these laws for 35 total cases? "

Pretty dumb, huh? Both are felonies BTW. Just HOW MUCH voter fraud is acceptable to you? How much mercury is ok in your baby formula? How much arsenic is ok in your baby formula?

NOT ONE VOTE - that's how much is acceptable to me......

But there is incentive for those types of fraud -- money, power, whatever. But think about it. Slowly and carefully think it through. Logic can help us here. What would the motive be of an evil foreign individual, or just imagine.. someone who actually lives in another area (the horror!) to cast their vote illegally? They would get a thrill out of achieving absolutely nothing? One vote cast on behalf of a dead person would achieve nada. Zip.

So how many people would need to cast fraudulent votes in any one precinct to make any kind of difference? 10? 100? 1000? 1,000? When you think of fraud on that scale, it's obviously absurd and would be so obvious that it's laughable that any organization (because such a fraud would require a large conspiracy-bring in the Muslim Brotherhood!) would attempt such a thing. They would be caught!

Add to that the fact that no one has still been able to provide any proof that this is a problem worth disenfranchising legal voters for. This is simply a solution in search of a problem. Every decision has a cost attached, and the cost attached to this is simply too high.

Concerned parent, logic is helpful, but naivete and confirmation bias will not.

There are multiple get-out-the-vote volunteer groups that visit retirement and nursing homes to "assist voters" with completing their ballots. Do you not think there are enough votes in those homes to change an outcome?

It was because of widespread "suspected" fraud that city clerks are prohibited by law from automatically mailing-out absentee ballots to citizens over a certain age or with handicaps. In Detroit the problem was particularly bad in 2005 where over 30% of voters cast absentee ballots.

It's additionally provincial (or not) to think only national or state-wide offices would be susceptible or attractive to potential fraudsters. There is plenty of incentive for local offices to either evict a political opponent or begin a political career. In local elections all that's needed is one reasonably-sized apartment building that might provide 20-50 votes to change the outcome.

Even in larger elections there are examples of margins < 1%.

There are, of course, some who only see the potential for fraud, others that never see it, but too few that approach it logically looking for data.

35 total cases in the US all of last year does not sound like a big deal to me.

@ concerned parent -- "But there is incentive for those types of fraud -- money, power, whatever. But think about it. Slowly and carefully think it through. Logic can help us here. What would the motive be of an evil foreign individual, or just imagine.. someone who actually lives in another area (the horror!) to cast their vote illegally? They would get a thrill out of achieving absolutely nothing? One vote cast on behalf of a dead person would achieve nada. Zip" ----

It doesn't matter what the motive is or what little they may achieve --- it is illegal. We should do everything we can to secure our voting/polling system. People who really want to vote will do what ever the rules dictate -- even if they need a special voter ID.

Actually TS the former West Bloomfield Supervisor, I can't remember his name, was famous for doing that very thing. He would hit every Senior Complex in West Bloomfield

TS.....succinct.....

I'm not sure the number of people who are disenfranchised matters much, especially if you're the one whose ability to vote is impeded. One would be a "huge number".

You cannot vote if your name is not on your precint's list of voters. I believe you may be able to cast a provisional ballot if your name is not on the list, but you will have to present to your municipality's clerk that you indeed did register to vote. Illlegals cannot vote. Period. They can try to commit voter fraud, but they'd still have to identify a properly registered voter on the lists, and then make certain that that voter didn't actually try to, like, vote.

"Millions upon millions of illegal aliens" -- again, proof of citizenship is not the same as government-issued photo id, and proof of citizenship is not addressed in these vetoed bills. Proof of citizenship consists of a checkbox on the form, and a threat of penalty if you lie.

The most common forms of government-issued photo ID -- driver's license, school id -- are not proofs of citizenship.

Illegal aliens voting, whether one or millions, are not affected by these bills.

IMO, Chris...dynamics have changed drastically in the last 20 years.
It's a bunch of factors, but I think social media (be it text, email, FB, etc.), cost of insurance and the lack of jobs to pay for gas and the car have changed the landscape.

Growing up...I was on my parents insurance but paid for the car. Now a days...everyone is so sue happy, you can't have a kid on your insurance....

We went to the movies, the mall, played ball, etc. Kids now a days sit on their phones, the Internet and play video games. Who needs a car?

Sad, really...because a lot of younger kids lack social engagement, in other words...they're punks because of no face to face interaction.

DJG, as a parent and lover of my video games and social media let me just put this out there. Who is really to blame for these kids sitting on their phones, internet, video games to the point of lacking social engagement?! The parents! I let my son use the internet, he is getting a cell phone with limited ability this summer (he's 10) and he does play video games. But only a small portion of the time! It's disgusting how much time these kids spend indoors and unaware of the physical world around them! (okay, back to topic sorry for the off topic post)

MRSPirate...
I'm with you 100%. I'm not a video gamer, unless you count solitaire on my phone as a hard core gamer... Social media, take it or leave it.
The parents are absolutely responsible, and I limit my son's time on TV, Internet and games. Unless it's 100 degrees out...go outside and play. Darn shame LacSt. Clair little league season is over so soon...had a great time this year.

Regardless. I agree with you.

My question is...how do you think this will factor into the ID debate?

BTW Mr Landers, that State ID for a 92 year old is FREEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

OK JM. Will you come and help me get grandpa out of his house when he is fully able to refuse? Or should we just strong arm him? I know, he is stubborn so he doesn't get to vote? Well, you didn't get your way and he will vote!

This data goes not match other data on michigan voters and because you say it does not make it true . The purpose is voter suppression or they would put in real controls . oh well maybe thy just went to poor schools and they have a deficient in quality control measures as well as math which they have already established with their constant there is no need for revenue

YES PLEASE DO - pay particular attention to pages 17, 18 and 19

http://audgen.michigan.gov/finalpdfs/11_12/r231023511.pdf

How can two people read the exact same thing and get two COMPLETELY different outcomes from the same words on the same page?

Lucille, this data is from the state Auditor General, not a group with political ties. It is by nature non-partisan. Thus, I will (and others should as well) consider their findings more accurate than any paid private study.

NO Dia Tax, I have read the entire report. And in fact, my original post quotes page 17. (see above). The SoS stated, while admitting it appeared that some illegal votes were cast, upon review of voter records, there was not one verifiable instance where this was confirmed true. I have no idea what you are reading if you come to a different conclusion.

Lastly, I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. However, I do question Ruth Johnson's motivation. In the report to the AG she states there is no issue with voter fraud in Michigan. Now, less than 6 months later she is standing before the state legislature claiming that something needs to be done about rampant voter fraud. So which is it? Was there an election between May 2012 when the report was released and today that was riddled with fraudulent votes?

Are you serious!?!?!?!? Proving citizenship is a ploy to stop poor and minority voters? Really? So, anything that requires a person to prove who they are is racist or discriminatory. Really? You really need to stop playing the race card and the poor card when race and income isn't a factor.

4x4 - yes, that is the purpose. If you had a sophisticated understanding of hard core politics you would know that.

Sharon ----- is someone a bit paranoid?

Who pays for these "studies" that you seem to take as gospel on the matter? Follow the money CP. George Soros maybe? He has his fingers in most of these things... LOL
I found it interesting that James O'Keefe's group was able to walk right in and obtain Eric Holder's primary ballot. Yes, Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States.
In the immortal words of every Chicago politician: Vote early & vote often... ;)

@Bryan Bentley, while we are on the subject of money, where do you think Little Jimmy gets his money? Answer: The Koch Brothers (AFP) and other republican nuts.

Also, Mr. O'Keefe is on probation. Not exactly a credible source. And, his allegations of voter fraud in his videos have been disproved.

@Michigan Voter
Mr. O'Keefe singlehandedly brought down ACORN, and the fact remains, his group could have cast the sitting Attorney General's primary vote. FACT!

As far as money goes, I wasn't the one citing all these "studies", I simply mentioned that you need to see who pays for them before you want to try and tell me they are credible. You can call me a Republican "nut" if you choose, but I'll refrain from calling you names...

Perhaps the fact that the current administration in Washington has been slowly and systematically dismantling the immigration system since day one? The number of illegals in this country has never been higher. The number of deportations has never been lower. In some counties the number of registered voters exceeds the US census numbers of total population. The DREAM ACT has been implemented by Executive Order, similar to a Decree from the King, bypassing Congress at every step and turn.

It IS a clear and straightforward plan to insure more people are able to vote FOR THE INCUMBENT ADMINISTRATION. Voter ID laws in Harris County Texas let to a national movement called True The Vote, a non-partisan all volunteer effort that put several Texans in jail and got a host of news laws passed. The JUDGES in that county thanked the volunteers and BEGGED them to return in the following election cycles. What YOU call " voter suppression " we call VOTER INTEGRITY.

@NO Dia Tax: your allegations about recent immigration management efforts by this administration are unfounded. It echos dire warnings made long before the administration took office, and does not measure up to the facts.

The fact is that the deportation of illegal aliens has risen dramatically over the last three years, much to the annoyance of many in the Hispanic community. Your allegations about registered voters exceeding census-counted population, even if true, are an issue with county voter registrars, not with administration policy. Most voter registrars take their job extremely seriously, knowing that they are under intense scrutiny from all sides these days.

Most to the point, however, is that the legislation in question here has no effect at all on immigration, alien registration or citizenship. There is no provision in the legislation that requires proof of citizenship to be shown.

So -- with respect to the issue before us -- citizenship is not an issue. If voting by non-citizens is the perceived problem, this legislation does nothing to address it.

And, even though you used lots of capital letters, your points are neither well-made nor well-argued.

I take my duty to vote pretty seriously CP, so I will certainly take your advice and do my best to not lose my drivers license, as well as proof read all of my important documents to make sure there are no typo's. LOL

Lucille:

The 15th amendment doesn't confer a right to vote on anyone. It simply spells out instances in which people may not be denied the ability to vote. If states decide to limit the ability to vote, they are still free to do so, as long as the reasons are not covered by this or other amendments contained in the COTUS..

There's more to it than that. The laws Snyder vetoed are more heinous than any of you choose to let on. Even the League of Women Voters is against it. Is that objective enough for you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/voting-laws-michigan-voter-registration-absentee-ballot-photo-id_n_1132573.html

I'm all for common sense here but I struggle with the system as is. Due to redistricting I have before me a brand new Voter Identification Card, I assume that taxes paid to print it. To get the Voter ID card, I filled out a form at the Secretary of State while updating my drivers license. Simple enough.

When I cast my vote, NOBODY will look at or accept that new paper ID card. So why bother with it? Why did we spend the money to print it? The poll workers will look at my drivers license and cross me off on the voter list as having voted. That is actually a the good part of the system. I can only vote once and nobody can say they are me. This works good for regular voting. So where is the lack of integrity in that?

Now Daryl to the part of this vetoed law that concerned me. There has been a long practice of mailing out absentee ballots to seniors. As such many who prefer not to go out or are shut in benefitted. I suspect that there is some "help" for some being provided. Again however, one person one vote.

Now if grandpa has to be coerced to get a photo ID and then coerced again before every election to visit the township hall with the photo ID to get an absentee ballot, what was the reason for absentee ballots for senior citizens again?

The above has no common sense. For all able bodied who are out day-to-day anyway, no excuses for NO photo ID.

Well said Lucy! And yes one has 18 years to get an ID before being able to vote. They want to talk about hardship, people had to ride a horse for days to vote back in the begining but they found time and did it. I still dont see how wanting ID to vote is against minorities?? The race card is whipped around way to much to prove points these days. The World requires you to have some kind of ID to live. I would also like to know how these people who have no SSN pay their taxes? Last April I remember having to fill in a spot with that #. The list is sooooo long for things you need ID for it just seems that this debate would have been cut and dry.

Thanks Sharon for that info. So far Snyder has been a HUGE dissapointment to me.

I agree. This is voter suppression under the guise of preventing voter fraud.

Most of the sheeple will go along with it based on a lie just like they went along with other republican lies like the WMDs in Iraq.

Wow...who put the fresh set of blinders on you Chad? You're acting like it's some secret the GOP wants to get rid of Obama. Um...yep, last time I checked he's a democrat. Isn't it the other parties job to compete with another?
By showing ID, that's sacrificing the right to vote? What about the house, senate and other presidential votes taken without voter ID? Just pure coincidences that Republicans won any of them.

Republicans don't do well in Elections?

I don't know what is thinner...your views or your excuses. Pretty close race.

In the 2010 congressional election only 40% of the voters voted.

Here's a concept for you, why not make the penalty for fraud more extreme?

BTW, IMO, to make elections more "meaningful", why not wipe out party line voting?

Sure that would make voting for a "party" more difficult. But wouldn't it also make the voter think? You see, IMO, our problems aren't one party or another but that people "think" one party is better than the other. Truth is, they both stink. If you have no idea who you are voting for, you (again IMO) shouldn't be voting to begin with. That way we just might get rid of pandering politicians like Dangerously Incompetent Debbie Stabenow.

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment.

Darryl..according to Chad, up above... Republicans don't do well in elections.

You should have nothing to worry about.

@DJG

Republicans do quite well in districts that were drawn just for them, in elections where voter turnout is low, or when the vote is suppressed.

But, when those conditions aren't met, they would get clobbered. Take the presidency. Mittens wouldn't even come close to Obama if the general election were held today and the electoral college did not exist. Why? Most of America doesn't want an elitist with no foreign policy experience in the White House.

And, Bush wouldn't have won in 2000 but for the moron known as Katherine Harris and the black voter (I mean felon) purge down in FL. Voter suppression works.

@Michigan Voter... I'll remember your objection after Nov. when Obama is gone. So..in your opinion, if we change the whole electoral process Republicans would get clobbered? Nice try. I'll counter that with if we educated voters properly, Democrats would get clobbered. I know, it doesn't make much sense...but hey, you started the fantasy. I was just contributing.

@DJG - actually, without the electoral college, the polls show a very tight race. It is, but the electoral college exists, and therein is the real factor. Feel free to consult http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

@ Darryl.

This is a quote from Michigan Voter, not me.

"But, when those conditions aren't met, they would get clobbered. Take the presidency. Mittens wouldn't even come close to Obama if the general election were held today and the electoral college did not exist."

So...just another informed "voter"...

"Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html

"without the electoral college, the polls show a very tight race. It is, but the electoral college exists, and therein is the real factor. Feel free to consult "

Accepting those numbers to be true, there is still a couple of MILLION votes separating Mittens and Obama.

Well, MI voter...I guess that's why politicians win via election, not "polls'...so we'll see.

Kevin, not everyone gets a driver's license. Many who once had a driver's license no longer have one. The image of just walking up to the SS office and getting a photo taken as the only thing necessary to get one is a lie.

From http://www.michigan.gov/documents/DE40_032001_20459_7.pdf the state requires information that can be very costly to reconstruct. If you already were a registered voter, requiring that person to spend money to re-establish that registration is a poll tax.

Of course, if you couldn't see the difficulty before, you probably won't study the SoS requirements at the link above to understand the error of your analysis.

How does one identify themselves to a police officer? You need ID to withdraw funds from a bank or cash a check. ID at the ballot box should be a non-issue, it should be required period.

I know. Those bankers, CEOs and oil companies should never be allowed to vote!

How about the candidates who sell the votes to corporate interests because the corporation promises and delivers campaign funding, and those who benefit by corporations creating lies about candidates who oppose their interests and thus convince voters to vote against their natural self interest?

Wait, what candidate is promising more welfare? What century are you in? Or did you just blowing on that dog whistle again?

If you don't think voting should be a right, there are plenty of countries whose leadership agrees with you, and probably would welcome your self-deportation to them.

As to demonstrating mental stability and common knowledge of politics, would you disqualify those who think Ronald Reagan was the great tax cutter, that the invasion of Iraq was because their people flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, or that believe Sarah Palin really could see Russia from her house?.

I gotta admit, ConcernedP, that's pretty darned funny and I can't argue that.
I'll see your banker, CEO and oil companies, and raise you public and private unions.

DC...
Let's just call it what it is. Votes are bought and paid for, by both parties.
Via promises made on the trail, back door/back room promises for legislation, or funding/fund raisers.

However, you will never, ever see that go away. There are too many people getting fed off the lobby/promise system.

Something else you'll never see go away...
Does anyone realize...Congress still operates on a schedule as if they took a horse and buggy home?
If you take away weekends and holiday, Congress is still only in session and working just over 50% of those remaining days. Is it any wonder they can never get anything done? That in itself, should be the outrage of US Tax Payers.