Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS Upholds GOP-Pushed Voter ID Laws (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because its a redundant, purposeless requirement (0+ / 0-)

    It's an imaginary issue.  When one registers to vote, each person AT THAT TIME already provides a photo id.  Once you register, the agency then scans your data into their system.  Some scan the photos, some scan just the signature - they're all different.  But once having registered, you can show up on election day and have your signature matched to the specimen that you provided with your registration materials.  If you have moved and not updated your records, or if your signature does not match or if there is some other irregularity, then the laws already require for some backup documentation, including photo id.  What would you do with folks who vote absentee, by mail?   What would you do if you showed up but your drivers license had been surrendered for a speeding ticket?   The fact is that the greatest number of people screened out by this sort of requirement is the poor and minorities.

    •  They don't check on the spot (0+ / 0-)

      At least where I vote, they do require a signature but they certainly do not cross-check it against anything...I could easily go in, give a name of someone my gender and age whom I know has not voted yet, and forge their signature. Or, someone could do that using MY name.

      And, even if the signature doesn't match, if I insisted that I was in fact that person, what then? You're saying no ID needs to be shown, so they can't ask me to prove I'm them? So without a final "authority" on whether I am or am not the person I say I am, how do we resolve it?

    •  They do not, since you can register by mail. nt (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site