The real question is why voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday.

Whenever voter license legislation is proposed, there are no efforts to make sure every eligible voter is able to exercise their right to vote.

I think you responded to the wrong person. I didn't take any position related to or even reference anything you describe here. Good luck finding your right thread though.

Cute, but my response was received by its intended recipient. You can choose to respond to it, or continue dismissing it.

At first glance, I'm fine with that. I hope whoever took the opposing position responds to you though.

I'm unsure why you think I'm addressing someone with the opposing position when I merely stated a rhetorical question:

> The real question is why voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday

Why is it that voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday?

It's frequently brought up in response to voter license legislation, but it is never incorporated into their proposed legislation. Why is that?

First, no one is for voter licensing, a person is 'licensed' by being a citizen. The two (honest) sides of the argument are: ID is required to keep elections honest and requiring ID's keeps people from voting by being too onerous to acquire. The ugly truth is democrats know that sloppy voting tends to fall their way and republicans know that voter id laws tend to fall their way.

A good compromise would be free ID's for everyone, but neither side wants this and would rather keep fighting the id battle, because like most battles, its only purpose is to keep the people divided and easy to manipulate.

> First, no one is for voter licensing, a person is 'licensed' by being a citizen

With voting license legislation enacted, in order for a citizen to vote, they must have a government-issued license. It can't be just any government-issued license, either, it needs to be one of the specially designated licenses that you need to jump through hoops to get beyond being just a citizen.

For many people, obtaining such a license is both a monetary and time expense that is only necessary to participate in elections. A citizen living in a city might have little reason to have a driver's license, but they'll need one if they want to vote, and they'll need to renew it every few years at their own expense.

A solution to this problem is making sure every citizen receives a voting ID on their 18th birthday. For whatever reason, voting license proponents never seem to want to implement such a program.

> The ugly truth is democrats know that sloppy voting tends to fall their way and republicans know that voter id laws tend to fall their way.

And yet voting fraud is nearly non-existent, and there are numerous examples of courts finding that voting license legislation disenfranchises voters.

You can't know if voting fraud is nearly non-existent because we have very little in the way of enforcement and auditing systems to even know if there was fraud. And yet people are still arrested all the time for voter fraud.

Please stop portraying your political opinions as fact. Independent and government research has been done[1][2][3], and courts[1] have found that voting fraud is nearly non-existent in the US.

If you want to take issue with the methodologies used to determine that, you're free too, but right now what your post amounts to is denial of scientific evidence.

[1] Here are dozens of independent and government studies, and court rulings on voter fraud: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B...

[2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/02/low-rates-o...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-...

First it is ridiculous to point at studies that say we don't have fraud when we can't know if we have fraud because most votes have no way to audit them.

And none of those speak to my point, and the point of many others who study this in detail, is there were over a thousand recorded criminals cases of voter fraud over in recent elections. When you couple that with many elections having no way to audit a vote, then we have a huge problem, because without auditing tools, only the most stupid and egregious incidents of fraud will be caught.

If you agree that a fraudulent election would be catastrophic for our democracy, and that we currently have no tools to audit the integrity of our votes (which we can't without voter ID), then voter ID, free or whatever, is an obvious solution.

I'm betting Belarus wishes they had a way to audit their elections about now.

> First it is ridiculous to point at studies that say we don't have fraud when we can't know if we have fraud because most votes have no way to audit them.

Again, you insist that the methodology to audit isn't there, yet there are dozens of studies, audits and case law examples that disagree with your opinion.

Again, if you want to disagree with the methodology, you are free to, but please be specific about what you disagree with.

Question: Why does Texas allow a Texas Handgun License as an acceptable form of photo ID but not a University of Texas Student ID? It seems if we are so concerned about voting being easy with those IDs, we should let all the students with state issued photo IDs use them.

As for your question, supporting or not supporting voter ID is less about how difficult the IDs are to get, but rather that it is creating a requirement that makes both the act of voting and the preparation for voting much more time intensive. And this is all to solve a problem, voter fraud, that nobody has any evidence occurs at any appreciable volume.

But I'll just say, if a system existed where I could get a photo ID with no fees and no wait times, and I could do it on election day, then I'd be much more willing to support voter ID laws.

> Why does Texas allow a Texas Handgun License as an acceptable form of photo ID but not a University of Texas Student ID?

My guess would be because an LTC (like a driver license) clearly indicates if you are a state resident whereas a UT student ID does not?

The student IDs can certainly be modified to contain that info, but until they do it makes sense that they aren't a strong enough ID for voting.

A state should not let somebody register to vote unless the state confirms they are a resident of the state and otherwise eligible. As I understand the point of voter ID, it is to prove that the person casting the vote is who they say they are. If they are on the voting rolls, they are eligible to vote, that check has already been done. If the photo ID matches up with the person, they are who they say they are. All that matters should be the trustworthiness of the ID, and I see no reason why the state of Texas shouldn't trust the UT system.

I wasn't a UT student so real, honest question: Is a UT ID an acceptable form of ID to buy alcohol?

Buying alcohol requires an ID with age information, as that is an age check. Voting does not require age information, as you cannot register to vote unless you are the proper age. Just a reputable ID that can match a photograph to a person, for which the UT student IDs are deemed good enough for the security and safety within the UT system.

And of course, it's a state run university. If the state really cared about making voting accessible to people with valid IDs, they would update the UT IDs to meet whatever requirements they deemed necessary. They've had 6 years. Why haven't they done it? Students actively want the change.

It is not. In Texas, you cannot purchase alcohol with a school ID.

Not to mention I would be completely unsurprised to find that there were various forms of non-citizen immigrants attending the University of Texas and thus possessing such an ID.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that a Texas Handgun License requires citizenship.

Out of sheer curiosity, I've did a quick Google search and it seems that it does not.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/ltc/faqs/index.htm

> 12. Can non-US citizens obtain a License to Carry a Handgun? > Yes. Subject to the requirements of federal firearms law, and if not otherwise ineligible, resident aliens and certain nonimmigrant aliens who are lawfully present in the United States may obtain the license.

I have to say I am rather surprised!

> if a system existed where I could get a photo ID with no fees and no wait times, and I could do it on election day

Amusing how quickly the requirements grew.

This is literally just equalizing the hassle to states without voter ID laws. You are the one adding requirements for a citizen to exercise their right to vote.

Most states (29 of 50) don't have same day voter registration but of the 21 who do, they require Voter ID and proof of residency. Is your assertion that they're also suppressing the vote?

Ref: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-d...

Merely that they establish that they are a particular citizen. It isn't that hard to do. You need ID to go to most doctors, buy tobacco and alcohol, yada yada yada.

Probably because one goes through rigorous validation and one is just printed by a private organization?

The University of Texas is part of the state government. 25 of the 34 states with voter ID requirements even accept private student IDs.[1]

[1] https://www.campusvoteproject.org/student-id-as-voter-id

I don’t see that in your link. Maybe I’m overlooking it?

I see that 10 states will accept student ID, but there are restrictions on which IDs. For example, it has to have your signature on the card, etc.

The legend says green and yellow states accept student IDs. Stripes mean they only accept public student IDs. 27 states are green or yellow and only 2 have stripes.

Sure, just don’t make the waiver some joke that requires as many hoops to jump through as possible to discourage voters. Voter fraud isn’t as significant an issue as electioneering but if an ID makes one side of the fence happy I’ll support it so long as it remains free and universally available.

Waiving the fees isn't sufficient to make the ID ubiquitous immediately, so it won't remove that argument, at least not right away.

It would be a step in the right direction, but the concept of a universal ID requires everyone (well, except outlaws in hiding) to have it - if it's mandatory, then it becomes legally reasonable to require it for receiving all kinds of services as you can answer "How do I do X if I don't have a valid ID?" with "Step 1: Get the ID renewed/replaced/made" and "How do I do X without ever getting an ID" with "Sorry, that won't be possible, not ever getting an ID is not a valid option", like it is currently the case in many other countries.

In essence, if instead of "just" making it easy to have ID even for poor and disenfranchised people you go out of your way to ensure that it's weird for them to not have ID, then ID requirements won't suppress voters.

> Waiving the fees is sufficient to make the ID ubiquitous immediately,

No, it's not. Many people have difficulty finding the documents that will get them an ID. There are plenty of people working illegal jobs who are trying to figure out how to get a birth certificate, social security card or prove residence. This was even more common when more people were born at home.

I had a hard time getting ID when I was a teenager, and I needed it for migrant agricultural labor (to work on a legal crew doing corn detasseling.) Luckily, I got arrested a week before we were scheduled to leave, and I was able to con the DMV into issuing an ID based on my jail papers (although the clerk at the jail wrote down whatever I told them.)

The reason requiring ID is a problem is because there's no widespread voter fraud, and declaring that you're someone else is very difficult without that person agreeing not to go vote. It's a requirement whose administration cost dwarfs by orders of magnitude any benefit. The intention is to exclude people who have ID problems, not the people who don't believe it's possible that anyone could possibly have ID problems.

Also, just let felons vote. Put voting booths in prisons. If your population is so prisoner-heavy that they make a significant difference in the outcome, your society is broken.

Ouch, sorry, of course I meant that waiving the fees isn't sufficient to make it ubiquitous immediately, I fixed the typo.

Even aside from the fee, there's the time involved, which is an indirect burden on many people.

For whatever historical reason, we've entrusted the DMV with validating everyone's identity. The one which is open 9-4 M-F in the best conditions, and has been basically shuttered since Coronavirus.

In some states, you can go to 'third-party offices' which are privately run and offer longer hours, but it's still a several hour endeavour (and then you're paying $30 extra for their services).

I would completely support voter ID laws if everyone could walk into any post office and easily get a passport for free.

Ok I sort of am lying since vote by mail is pretty much the only system I support and voter ID laws make no sense for that.

I said free and easy to acquire. It wouldn't be enough for states to waive the fees if there are still hoops to jump through to acquire it. Getting an ID in many states requires spending hours at a DMV office that is probably only open during business hours and might be in the next county over from you. Voting should be an easy and seamless process. It shouldn't require hours of administrative prep work beforehand.

Getting a driver license the first time requires hours of sitting at the DMV. When I first moved to Texas, I had to do it twice in fact.

It sounds like your criticism is of government (or at least DMV) complexity/ineffectiveness in general, not the ID laws specifically.

Voting is one of the few government services that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I can stomach complexities and ineffectiveness when it comes to something like acquiring a drivers license. I can't stomach anything that puts unnecessary obstacles between a US citizen and the ability to quickly and easily vote. If you want to require voter ID to vote, that is fine by me as long as you also take on the responsibility of ensuring every citizen has an ID.

I suspect you should check your sources.

This was my first result searching for "us constitution voting" https://www.votefortheconstitution.com/voting---what-does-th...

I'm not sure your point here. The Amendments are generally included when someone refers to the Constitution. Several of the Amendments are directly related to protecting the right to vote.

I like that logic. It works great for the 2nd amendment. You'll agree that an ID requirement for firearms is unacceptable, yes?

Constitutional protections for voting are far more limited.

This thread is already on the verge of being too political for HN. I'm not going to take the bait and get into a debate about something that is not even tangentially related to the topic of the link.

> Voting is one of the few government services that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Voting is not defined as a "government service" and voting itself is barely defined at all in the Constitution or any Amendment. The Amendments assert a right to vote but the means, methods, and even timing are left heavily up to the discretion of the Legislative branches (Congress or State).

Therefore, the vast majority of existing election law can be changed as easily as legislators pass any other law versus the complexity+effort+time of a Constitutional Amendment.

I used the term "service" there to distinguish it from the more passive rights that we have. For example, freedom of speech is something that restricts government power while voting is something that the government organizes and must allow us to participate in. The former puts a passive restriction on the government. The latter requires action by the government.

Beyond that, I'm still not sure your point. We aren't debating the means, methods, or timing of voting. We are debating who has the right to vote. As far as the Constitution is concerned, that seems to be everyone but felons.

> We aren't debating the means, methods, or timing of voting. We are debating who has the right to vote.

Providing ID or not is quite literally the means and methods aka the process to vote. I haven't referenced "who" in any way, shape, or form.

> As far as the Constitution is concerned, that seems to be everyone but felons.

Again, check your sources. That's not in the US Constitution and is left up to the States. Here's the full text so you can check yourself: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full...

>Providing ID or not is quite literally the means and methods aka the process to vote. I haven't referenced "who" in any way, shape, or form.

No, when you require ID anyone without ID is prevented from voting and therefore you are dictating who can vote and not the means or method of voting. This is no different than a poll tax which is also unconstitutional.

>Again, check your sources. That's not in the US Constitution and is left up to the State

My source is the 14th Amendment, Section 2. It specifically calls out a lack of voter protections for people who had any "participation in rebellion, or other crime". A lack of protections does not mean felons don't have the right to vote. It simply means it isn't federally guaranteed.