Voter ID laws (where you can show a utility bill or government check for instance) to verify the person at the polling location is who they say they are, or verifying somebody's signature on a mail-in ballot matches what the board of elections has on file for a voter are part of some of the requirements that some states have implemented or proposing...and apparently Joe Biden thinks measures like these are "sick".
That is what Joe Biden called "the whole initiative" as "un-American" and "sick". Some provisions in some states go beyond the two simple requirements that I found in Maryland's Republican sponsored bill. But to me, voter ID and signature verification isn't anything more than common sense.
This conversation could go in a multitude of directions if somebody wanted to take it there.
Well, I thought it was the Georgia bill that he was talking about. Things like shortening voting hours, limiting early voting, not allowing water to be handed out when you have been in line for hours, etc. are just very blatant examples of trying to limit the voting rights of people (but not rich republicans).
My state requires ID to register, but just a signature match for each election. You might have to show an ID for early voting, since it is not in your precinct, but I'm not sure.
ID would be fair, but there are still way too many roadblocks, mostly in southern red states to getting one - there is plenty to read about with simple google searches - closing all the secretary of state offices in poor, minority neighborhoods so that they don't have access to get their drivers license or state id. Also, poor minority neighborhoods may have trouble accessing or affording the records they need to get a license - birth certificates, etc. - things that the rest of us take for granted.
IMHO - every legal resident of the US should be able to vote - and have the same access to polling places, early voting, absentee voting, and mail in voting. I have never had to wait hours in line to vote because they closed all the polling places in my neighborhood to keep me from voting.
Voter ID laws (where you can show a utility bill or government check for instance) to verify the person at the polling location is who they say they are, or verifying somebody's signature on a mail-in ballot matches what the board of elections has on file for a voter are part of some of the requirements that some states have implemented or proposing...and apparently Joe Biden thinks measures like these are "sick".
That is what Joe Biden called "the whole initiative" as "un-American" and "sick". Some provisions in some states go beyond the two simple requirements that I found in Maryland's Republican sponsored bill. But to me, voter ID and signature verification isn't anything more than common sense.
It is a fair point to require some form of simple ID as long as it is not too difficult for the poor to have this but let's be honest Nebish these Republican sponsored bills have nothing to do with their concern of voter fraud which is a sham argument as this is fairly rare and does not impact election results.
Isn't it curious that these bills are being voted on in Red Republican states by Republican legislatures and Governors?
The Republicans are doing everything they can to suppress early and by mail voting as they got their butts kicked by Democratic voters who prefer this method this past election.
Restricting drop boxes and mail in voting, shortening voting times, not allowing people on line food and water? Voter suppression, read Democratic, voter suppression.
If you can't beat them fair and square then cheat I guess.
Voter ID laws (where you can show a utility bill or government check for instance) to verify the person at the polling location is who they say they are, or verifying somebody's signature on a mail-in ballot matches what the board of elections has on file for a voter are part of some of the requirements that some states have implemented or proposing...and apparently Joe Biden thinks measures like these are "sick".
That is what Joe Biden called "the whole initiative" as "un-American" and "sick". Some provisions in some states go beyond the two simple requirements that I found in Maryland's Republican sponsored bill. But to me, voter ID and signature verification isn't anything more than common sense.
Not completely accurate, he was referring to the new GA voting bill which includes the following:
- criminalizes “line-warming” or offering food and water to individuals waiting to vote
- The new law also allows for unlimited challenges to a voter’s registration — a tactic that has been used to racially profile voters, intimidate them from voting, or knock them off the voter rolls completely.
- Restricts mail-in voting. Voters will be required to provide either their driver’s license or state ID number, or a photocopy of their identification to cast a mail-in ballot. It also bans third-party groups from sending absentee-ballot applications to voters, and ends the use of portable polling sites, like the mobile voting buses used in Democratic Fulton County last cycle.
So it's not just simple voter verification, and it's unnecessary since GA hasn't had issues that these provisions solve. It's no secret why Republicans in GA wanted to push this through since they lost 2 Senate seats and Presidential race. I get trying to ensure that voting secure, but ask yourself what actual problems do these provisions solve, and how does it make voting more difficult? I see no issue with the Biden's statement.
I'm ok with requiring an ID to vote, but trying to limit voting that is obviously targeting particular areas or among a targeted demographic is indeed sick and undemocratic. What's next, requiring showing tax returns to be able to vote...wait, nevermind.
Well, I thought it was the Georgia bill that he was talking about.
Not completely accurate, he was referring to the new GA voting bill which includes the following:
The question and his answer never mentioned any specific state.
Quotes from the transcript below. Prior to this pointed question, the statement "voting rights" had been mentioned by the President and by reporters as an agenda item, but never discussed any specifics or state or bill or provision up until this point in the press conference:
Yamiche: (32:45)
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to go back to voting rights. And as Yamiche mentioned, Republican legislatures across the country are working to pass bills that would restrict voting, particularly, Democrats fear, impacting minority voters and young voters, the very people who helped to get you elected in November. Are you worried that if you don’t manage to pass voting rights legislation, that your party is going to lose seats and possibly lose control of the House and the Senate in 2022?Joe Biden: (33:19)
What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick. Deciding in some states that you cannot bring water to people standing in line waiting to vote, deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o’clock when working people are just getting off work, deciding that there will be no absentee ballots under the most rigid circumstances, it’s all designed, and I’m going to spend my time doing three things. One, trying to figure out how to pass the legislation passed by the House, number one, number two, educating the American public.Joe Biden: (34:06)
The Republican voters I know find this despicable, Republican voters, the folks outside this White House. I’m not talking about the elected officials. I’m talking about voters. Voters. And so I’m convinced that we’ll be able to stop this because it is the most pernicious thing. This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. I mean, this is gigantic what they’re trying to do and it cannot be sustained. I’m going to do everything in my power, along with my friends in the House and the Senate, to keep that from becoming the law.Yamiche: (34:49)
Is there anything else you can do about it besides passing legislation?Joe Biden: (34:53)
The answer is yes, but I’m not going to lay out a strategy in front of the whole world and you now.
"Republican legislatures across the country are working to pass bills that would restrict voting..."
I do not think a voter providing identification or signature on ballots being verified restrict voting or voting rights.
Now, I do not support everything in the Georgia bill - I do not think hours should be shortened, I do not think that early voting should be curtailed. Removing the secretary of state and inserting a legislative appointed panel to oversee local elections, that sounds like interference. On the other hand, I do not think third parties should be collecting and submitting ballots. And mobile voting buses? What happened to "here is your precinct location" - people should go to vote where they are supposed to. And if they don't want to, then mail it in and identify yourself when doing so.
The line of questioning in the Biden press conference was that all these states who are proposing or implementing procedures to vote - some are good and I think common sense, some I do not thing are helpful and others do have ill intent behind them. But it all gets lumped together because the narrative on the left and as a result the narrative in the mainstream press (although not necessarily the good people here); any time somebody says you should have ID to vote, or telling somebody to go to the right precinct to vote, or implying that allowing humans to signature verify ballots is some kind of witchcraft and all deny voting rights. Hell, have a computer scan the signatures and take the perceived human bias out of it.
Like registering to vote is an attack of people's right to vote. I had to register to get a covid vaccine shot. They aren't allowing people to just walk up and get one (yet at atleast). Even the new mass vaccination site, you have to preregister before going there. Is that discriminating against people who haven't gone through the time to register? It's called process, there is a process in order to do things.
You have to have identification to do so many things of lesser consequence in this country, yet some people, think requiring a person to identify themselves is like saying "minorities not welcome here". It's an ID and there are so many alternative acceptable IDs you can show. It is beyond me that this is even a contested issue. Maybe some states go too far and maybe others don't. It shouldn't all be lumped together. Maybe HR1 should set the standard for acceptable ID rather than not requiring one and overruling every state that requires one.
Isn't it curious that these bills are being voted on in Red Republican states by Republican legislatures and Governors?
No, it's not curious. Because one party wants to remove any process and identification standards to vote, and one party wants to support them.
HR1 - For the People Act would allow people to vote without ID. It creates automatic registration. What is so hard about registering for something you care about? It would have tax payer money fund candidates (6 to 1 ratio matching), so my tax payer money might fund candidates who I disagree with and do not want winning?
One party wants those things, and one party doesn't.
I don't disagree with everything in HR1. For instance, I very much support the paper ballot measure for every state. And having set standard voting times doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. Felons voting, I'm not sure about that, but don't throw it out off hand. In the end, I'm not sure that bill is constitutional as I believe states are allowed to determine their own voting policies.
So Republicans and Democrats feel very different on this issue, and that is no surprise. I am neither a Republican or Democrat and I do not intend restrict anyone's right or ability to vote, but at the same time I do not want unverified and unidentified people voting either.
One other thing, I actually agree with Georgia not permitting food or water to be given to people in line. That could be classified as campaigning and every state has rules for when and where you can campaign near a polling location. Whether intentional or not, people in line could be influenced to support a certain candidate or issue by those handing out the food or beverage. I mean, why is this a thing? If you know that you might be standing in line for some period of time, can't you take it upon yourself to eat before hand or bring some water with you? Prepare for what is about to happen.
@nebish, with all due respect you are making a strawman arguement and cherry picking and focusing on voter identification which I already said I support.
The fact is when you analyze many of these red state voting law bills they are are not intended to prevent fraudulent voting, for which there is no evidence of a problem, but are intended is too surpress minority and Democratic votes which cost Trump and the Republicans Georgia.
Even the Republican officials in States in question like Georgia and Arizona, have stated there was no election fraud as Trump and his sycophants have claimed with no tangible proof.
As far as providing people in line with food and water as long as everyone is treated equally and there is no mention advertising of party affiliation why is this bad? If family or friends want to provide this service how does it influence a persons vote? Do you really think this infuences a persons vote to get fred water? Why are the Republicans so worried about this?
And providing buses off people to vote how is it a negative to make it easier to vote? The GOP can provide the same servise yes?
The voter ID requirements very by state, and while you support it, as have other members, I don't think we simply speak to each other in the forum, but address a broader view as well.
Republican could have ulterior motives. I'll even say, ok some do. But those are not my motives. I'm expressing the fact that I agree with many of them, yet I have no intent to deny anyone's legitimate vote. I am stating what I agree with, what I don't and how I see perception of it nationally. And I enjoy reading everyone's comments on that.
So on the influencing votes, I will speak for myself and people I know - I do not vote on every issue or for every candidate. I leave some blank, maybe i have no opinion or maybe I don't like either candidate. And it is no secret that some people will vote for the candidate that has the nice ad, or maybe they liked the pen they were just given in the parking lot and think "I wasn't going to vote in that race, but I'll vote for that person now".
I mean, sure, I guess we could have volunteers for various groups and candidates walking up and down the voter line talking to people and giving them things...and I'm sure that would all just go splendidly, like nobody would get into a verbal altercation or anything like that over an issue, candidate or party would they? Do we want anti-abortion volunteers going around and offering people water and then lecturing them about their views. I think it is problematic and think the activity should be limited. Now if I'm in line and my friend comes up to talk to me and brings me a drink, or my cousin...should that violate some law...it's like Jesus, every single thing has to be called out and spelled out because otherwise somebody is going to abuse it or cause problems. I never knew this was a thing, why are Republicans worried about it? I don't know exactly know. I'm just sharing my views. I really don't want to see any influences mingling among the people waiting to vote.
So the buses are a response to having too few polling locations? I don't want buses. I want more official polling locations. I don't want locations closed or limited. There gets a point where an area could have too many (they all have to be run by people and poll workers aren't always in abundant supply). Fight for more poling locations, they did stadiums, that's fine. You go to the same precint every year, or sometimes they change it and then you go somewhere new for a few years. A bus in a parking lot, is it going to be there every year, where will you go next year? Have more brick and mortar polling locations, I have no reason or fight to limit them so long as the board of elections can support them all.
I'll say a little more succinctly, I don't want to make a straw man argument.
President Biden did not specifically call voter ID or signature verification "sick". He also was not asked nor did he specifically state or address any certain state with his comments.
Regardless of what state it is and regardless of where the provisions Republican legislatures are proposing or passing fall on the scale of benign or most objectionable, for the sake of news coverage they are all lumped together.
I think this thread shows that reasonable people here can or would support voter ID laws, with some hesitation or qualification, but generally are ok with the concept. It would be nice if we had such reasonable people in Washington or reporting on the topic to strip out what some of the acceptable measures some states are passing instead of just focusing on the most controversial and then reporting on it like all of them are the same.
Thought somebody might bring up Georgia Representative Park Cannon's arrest here. Surely there are opinions on that as well.
Bouncing around some different news sites, from Business Insider on the Georgia voting law:
The new legislation, SB 202, makes efforts to cut down on excessively long lines. It will allow individuals to serve as pollworkers outside of their county of residence, and require officials overseeing precints that include over 2,000 voters with wait times of more than an hour in 2020 to either open another voting location or add more volunteers, equipment, or both.
Sounds like a great idea, what's bad about that? More workers and more voting locations and equipment. Sounds like an answer to a problem, no?
President Biden did not specifically call voter ID or signature verification "sick". He also was not asked nor did he specifically state or address any certain state with his comments.
It was pretty clear that the question was in regards to "Republican legislatures across the country are working to pass bills that would restrict voting" which GA had just so done. If you want to hold the President's remarks to the truth, then you also have to reasonably represent them. The title of the thread reads like something out of the Tucker Carlson playbook - it's not a reasonable conclusion and seems purposefully misleading.
Most states have reasonable requirements for voter identification. Voter fraud is incredibly rare, yet there is a push by a party that just lost major elections to impose restrictions without attempting to solve actual problems: access to voting, increasing polling stations to curb long lines and waits.
All the gop wants to do is suppress voters and control vaginas.
President Biden did not specifically call voter ID or signature verification "sick". He also was not asked nor did he specifically state or address any certain state with his comments.
It was pretty clear that the questions was in regards to "Republican legislatures across the country are working to pass bills that would restrict voting" which GA had just so done. If you want to hold the President's remarks to the truth, then you also have to reasonably represent them. The title of the thread reads like something out of the Tucker Carlson playbook - it's not a reasonable conclusion and seems purposefully misleading.
Most states have reasonable requirements for voter identification. Voter fraud is incredibly rare, yet there is a push by a party that just lost major elections to impose restrictions without attempting to solve actual problems: access to voting, increasing polling stations to curb long lines and waits.
I disagree.
In the lead up to Biden's press conference much of the news for more than a month was focusing on "dozens of states" "up to 43 states considering changes to voting", "over 200 bills to limit voting rights or access" and the such. So many bills in so many states, you can say that his comments are only very narrowly pointed at one specific bill in one specific state, I by no means had that impression in the line of questioning "Republican legislatures across the country" or by his response where he called out the "whole initiative". He even said "some states" as in plural as in not just one being the unnamed Georgia. See what happens, when people support Trump they have to explain what he meant...and when people support Biden they have to explain what he meant - instead of just taking the words at face value.
If most states have reasonable voter ID laws then why does HR1 "For the People Act" eliminate them?
It would be nice for somebody like Lester Holt, or Chuck Todd or, heck even an elected Democrat say that, to say something like "most states have reasonable requirements for voter identification" like you just did. But that doesn't happen. It is all suppression to them and that is the way the stories start.
In the lead up to Biden's press conference much of the news for more than a month was focusing on "dozens of states" "up to 43 states considering changes to voting", "over 200 bills to limit voting rights or access" and the such. So many bills in so many states, you can say that his comments are only very narrowly pointed at one specific bill in one specific state, I by no means had that impression in the line of questioning "Republican legislatures across the country" or by his response where he called out the "whole initiative".
Ok, I'll be be more specific: the questions was regarding the trend of these bills, and GA being the state of the moment. Yet you drew a conclusion to between the President's specific words regarding a trend and attached them a very specific narrow part of the issue. It was clear to me that the President was speaking broadly regarding the increased legislation on voting rights, yet you are the one who narrowed the focus of his "sick" statement.
If most states have reasonable voter ID laws then why does HR1 "For the People Act" eliminate them?
No, if most states have reasonable voting regulations without incident, then why are these states where the party lost elections increasing their voter regulations? You're putting the cart before the horse (I'm not sure if you misunderstood or are ignoring the point on purpose). This HR1 bill is in direct response to these recent voting restrictions, some of which are unreasonable or excessive. HR1 secures perfectly reasonable things like same day registration, expands early voting, expand mail in voting.
It would be nice for somebody like Lester Holt, or Chuck Todd or, heck even an elected Democrat say that, to say something like "most states have reasonable requirements for voter identification" like you just did. But that doesn't happen. It is all suppression to them and that is the way the stories start.
Or maybe someone like Sean Hannity needs to admit that voter fraud is not an issue and that greater access to polls is a good thing, while laws regulating giving someone a water are a waste of time.
According to this:
?format=1500w
https://www.spreadthevote.org/voter-id-states
16 states have no identification requirements to vote, 11 states require photo ID with limited alternatives, 14 states require a non-photo ID, 9 states have strict photo ID requirements.
Ok, I'll be be more specific: the questions was regarding the trend of these bills, and GA being the state of the moment. Yet you drew a conclusion to between the President's specific words regarding a trend and attached them a very specific narrow part of the issue. It was clear to me that the President was speaking broadly regarding the increased legislation on voting rights, yet you are the one who narrowed the focus of his "sick" statement.
You are right, I did do that, because in my view he was lumping all of the initiatives together. So I did too.
No, if most states have reasonable voting regulations without incident, then why are these states where the party lost elections increasing their voter regulations? You're putting the cart before the horse (I'm not sure if you misunderstood or are ignoring the point on purpose). This HR1 bill is in direct response to these recent voting restrictions, some of which are unreasonable or excessive. HR1 secures perfectly reasonable things like same day registration, expands early voting, expand mail in voting.
The Brennan Center says that 43 states "trying to enact legislation that could make it harder to vote". 43 states are not just states where the Republican party lost elections.
I agree that some of these provisions in some of these states are "unreasonable or excessive" and some are not so, I think some are reasonable and appropriate. HR1 has some good parts that I like and it has things I do not like.
Or maybe someone like Sean Hannity needs to admit that voter fraud is not an issue and that greater access to polls is a good thing, while laws regulating giving someone a water are a waste of time.
Sean Hannity is an ass that will never admit to anything that undercuts his message, a message that more often than not isn't helpful to any discussion.
On balance I will say that there needs to be rules and regulations in place for whom can vote and when and where they can vote, and I find myself in agreement more with what the Republicans have proposed, not all, but more of it and I find myself in disagreement with what the Democrats support, not all but most. So is me trying to express these thoughts from one man's perspective. Thank you for engaging, feels like old times for a minute or two!
@nebish I agree, both sides try to out-opposite each other on the issue. I don't think automatic voter registration is necessary, but I like it theory, or at least the intent. I very much question the intent of further tightening the rules without attempting to solve other problems related to the issue.
I always think back to South Africa's election of Nelson Mandela back in the early 1990s. People waited in lines for days to cast their vote. I doubt they all had driver's licenses, but I doubt they had issues.
My wife was turned away at the polls here in FL a few years ago, after waiting in line for about 2 hours (early voting on a Sunday). She brought everything listed, yet the board of elections site hadn't specified a minor rule for one form of ID, so they rejected it. So we went home, grabbed her passport, drove back and someone was nice enough to let her jump the line. If it was 5PM on voting day, or someone who didn't have access to transportation, would they get the chance to go back?
There are reasonable ways to easily identify yourself. When I renewed my driver's license, they asked me to sign on one of those little digital screens - I thought it was for payment so scribbled my signature quickly. In the moment, I didn't realize it was going to be on my ID and my voter registration, so now I have to double check it is similar when I go to the polls.
I take some issue with the map you posted. It is true in Illinois you don't need ID to vote, except in some limited cases, but you do need ID to register to vote. The actual polling places ask your name, ask that you verify your address, and then you sign the book - they then check your signature against those on file.
This is from the State Board of Elections, regarding what you need to register:
Two forms of identification with at
least one showing your current
residence address are needed when
you register in
-person. If you register
by mail
, sufficient proof of identity is
required by submission of your
driver's license number or
State
identification card number. If you do
not have either of those, verification by
the last 4 digits of your social security
number, a copy of a current and valid
photo identification, or a copy of a
current utility bill, bank statement,
paycheck, government check, or other
government document that shows
your name and address will be
required. A person may also
demonstrate sufficient proof of
identity by submission of an
identification card issued by a college
or university accompanied by either a
copy of the applicant's contract or
lease for a residence or any
postmarked mail delivered to the
applicant at their current residence
address.
https://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/ElectionOperations/PDF/RegisteringToVote.pdf
I'll definitely take your word for it Sang. The map and site was random off a search engine. Ohio is correct, you don't need photo ID although I always use mine. If you don't have acceptable alternative ID you vote provisional.
I don't want excessive early voting because you may know who is going to win before election day. Also with early voting there needs to be a mechanism that proves the voter is registered and who they are and some kind of ID is not unreasonable.
You need ID to do most anything now. One argument is poor people can't afford a car, don't drive, don't have a checking account and never fly so no ID. Well if they can get to the polls then the states should take them in and take a picture and laminate an ID for them.
Other than that make voting as easy as possible. So easy a caveman could do it.
But it's up to the states not the feds. With the makeup of the Supreme Court HR1 is likely unconstitutional.
Always vote against a big government socialist AND a right wing extremist. Both are likey to put you under an autocratic system that wants to tell you what kind of cigarettes you can smoke.
Small government with less rules and regulations is best providing they don't but into your private life and allow people to own machine guns and have roads with no speed limits.
I don't want excessive early voting because you may know who is going to win before election day. Also with early voting there needs to be a mechanism that proves the voter is registered and who they are and some kind of ID is not unreasonable.
Early voting is just like day of voter, just on a different day - you still have to verify your identity. And votes typically aren't counted until election day, and can't be reported until after polls close so you have nothing to worry about.
Wow, all the misunderstandings about the new voting law in Georgia. SB202 can be downloaded and read as a pdf. (Note: It's a searchable pdf.)
www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121
Water and food can't be given by political supporters. Poll workers can/will provide water.
Extra voting booths and poll workers provided at places expected to be crowded (more than an hour wait)
Saturday and Sunday early voting, and extended hours.
Mobile polling (buses) for over crowded voting locations.
Yes, challenges can be made of a voters' credentials, but it is up to the challenger to provide proof that the challenge is valid before the registrars take action.
Members of the State Election Board can hold no public office.
If the person applying for an absentee ballot can not provide a DL, state ID, or the last 4 digits of their SS card, they can use any accepted form from the Georgia code Section 21-2-228. Question, who doesn't have SS card?
Yep, that really suppresses the vote.
There has been quite a bit of misrepresentation going on the left and the right over the Georgia voting law.
So true. That's why I encourage people to read the damn thing.
Believe it or not MSN and CBS came out in support of the law. Ain't that strange?
So true. That's why I encourage people to read the damn thing.
Believe it or not MSN and CBS came out in support of the law. Ain't that strange?
Support, how's that?
So true. That's why I encourage people to read the damn thing.
Believe it or not MSN and CBS came out in support of the law. Ain't that strange?
Support, how's that?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-voting-law-9-facts/
Read the articles.
So true. That's why I encourage people to read the damn thing.
Believe it or not MSN and CBS came out in support of the law. Ain't that strange?
Support, how's that?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-voting-law-9-facts/
Read the articles.
The MSN link doesn't work on my phone but the CBS article worked which I read. That was a fair analysis of the bill in my opinion. Rather than saying CBS supports the bill or not, I don't think journalists should take positions, instead they should inform and that article does so. Out of everything, I think the removal of the secretary state for overseeing the election to an appointed committee and their powers is the most questionable or perhaps objectionable piece of the bill.
I just went to the link and I couldn't read any of it. It came back as a Korean news article.
Restricts mail-in voting.
This is what crossed the line and deserves the pushback it's getting. Voting by mail has been an American right for a long time, and they haven't shown any reason why they must deny Georgians the same right all other Americans have. But at the end of the day, there's no use arguing over whether it's suppression, or whether the people are being victimized. The only solution is for those affected to rise up and get the paperwork they need to vote.
