I'll apologize ahead of time because it's only days since our forum
moderator suggested that internal quoting and references to "you" aren't
always helpful. However, I'll go with the grade-school approach of "he
started it" and respond to the finger pointed at Dave Thune.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:48 AM, <<email obscured>> wrote:
> *Dave the bottom line here is if you go to Rainbow Foods or Cub or just
> about any store and are paying with a check or credit card you need a photo
> ID.*
With the exception of airports and liquor stores I haven't been asked to
show a photo ID in years. At most stores if it's under a certain amount I
don't even have to sign my name anymore.
> *Photo ID preserves the integrity of the ballet box.*
A study by the Brennan Center indicated that the "only misconduct that photo
ID addresses is the kind of voter fraud that happens as infrequently as
death by lightning." A good example is Texas, where for a number of years
there was a great hue and cry by certain political parties that there was a
significant amount of voter fraud that could be prevented by a state-issued
photo ID. However, after Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott spent two years
and a [whopping] $1.4 million investigating voter fraud, he found _no_ cases
of actual, intentional fraud.
> *In society today if you don't have an ID you cant do anything.*
Seriously, that's not even hyperbole, that's just plain wrong. I frequently
do my local shopping either walking or on a bike, and I just carry cash, a
credit card, and my Go To card. I can't remember the last time I was unable
to complete a transaction without showing ID.
I'd also like to point out here that you, like many proponents of this
initiative, keep confusing the issue when you say "ID" instead of
"state-issued ID". It's quite common for people to have to show ID to pick
up tickets, write a check, and so on. But the proposed amendment
specifically calls for *"one of the following; a current Minnesota Driver
License, State ID, an ID card issued by the U. S. Government, or a Tribal
Government."* So when you're making your case, I think it's important to
stop using examples like grocery stores where even when someone does have to
show an ID they can get by with something like a student ID. Everyone has
"ID". A significant percentage of the population does not have a
*government-issued
photo* ID.
>
> *Dave please show me the data on how producing a Photo ID to vote has
> turned people away from voting. If you have evidence that is an wide-spread
> issue, then show us the facts, I don't buy it.*
An MIT study released in 2009 in the Senate Rules committee found that as
many as 7 million Americans who were registered to vote tried to cast
ballots in the 2008 elections, but were either discouraged or unable to do
so. The study found that of that 7 million, between two million and four
million registered voters were "discouraged" from voting due to
administrative hassles like voter identification requirements.
A 2006 study by the Brennan Center found as many as 10 percent of eligible
voters do not have a driver's license or state-issued non-driver's
identification card. It also found that 18% of citizens 65 and over, 25% of
African American citizens, and 15% of voters earning under $35,000/year
don't have government-issued photo identification. A study by the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found that among African-Americans in Wisconsin, only
45 percent of males and 51 percent of females had a valid driver's license;
the study also found that only 22 percent of black men age 18-24 had a valid
driver's license.
Now I'd like you to provide evidence that voter fraud that could be
prevented by a photo ID requirement is a "widespread issue". That's what
practically every poster has been asking for, and we're still waiting.
> *I dont buy your argument that this Photo ID proposal is targeted at
> "those people" that statement is just verbal terrorism from the DFL
> playbook.*
Until you can show that this initiative actually has a real goal (e.g.
"voter fraud preventable by a photo ID is 3% and we'd like to reduce it to
1%"), I think it's difficult for anyone to make a case that it has any
purpose other than to prevent groups without a photo ID from coming to the
polls. And as I quoted above, studies have repeatedly found that the most
common groups not to have photo IDs are the elderly, African Americans and
students. Dave didn't call out a specific group. You just happened to
narrow your focus to one that was targeted for decades (and still is)
through approaches that resemble a poll tax or literacy test (in that
neither would actually prevent voter fraud).
Issues like this have a great deal of emotion tied up in them, and it's very
easy for either side to use rhetoric to make their case. It's especially
easy in this case because either side can make very logical arguments based
on principles. However, I think it's important for both sides to narrow
this down to actual discrete problems with data to back it up and argue the
point there. And I also believe the ball is in the court of the proponents
of this initiative to do that. Show actual data that makes the case that
voter fraud in Saint Paul is (1) a problem, and (2) can be solved by
requiring a goverment-issued photo ID. Once you get over those hurdles, we
can debate point #3, which is how are you going to pay for all of this, and
will the benefits match the cost?
Thanks for participating. I love that this forum exists for Saint Paul
citizens to actually engage each other on topics like this, rather than let
them slip through the cracks and only appear on your ballots.
Take care, and I'm looking forward to the next SPIF get-together so we can
hash this out over drinks (that given my age I'll likely purchase without
ID).
Sincerely,
Jim Ivey
Lowertown