Back to the voter I.D. thing, whatever a state, county or city wants to do at their own elections is fine with me but Federal elections should be citizens only and voter I.D. required. I’m going to write my Congressman and ask why such a proposal hasn’t been run through Congress or at least, have the matter placed before the Supreme Court. As it is, when Newson made it illegal to ask or show an I.D. at the polls, there should have been a hundred or more law suits initiated but it looks like the legal eagles are just sitting on their hands. So far as voter fraud goes, if a person is caught, they get a mandatory 25 year sentence in prison.
Just wondering how the matter would be "placed before the Supreme Court." Voter laws are set by the states as far as I know (which isn't very far).
States can generally do what they want for state or municipal elections but a Federal election is a different matter. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18 section:611 editionrelim) OR (granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section611)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true Not demanding proper identification for a Federal Election is simply an open invitation for fraudulent voting. California is now a “don’t ask, don’t tell” state when it comes to voting ergo the state itself is openly permitting fraud. Now, the way some states are bypassing the Federal edict is to include municipal agendas on the same ballot as the Federal one. Federal ballots should be totally separate from state funded ballots but in many cases, they are not. If Jose’ is legally voting for dog catcher, he can just as easily check off who he wants for Congress too and none will be the wiser.
The 26th Amendment established the voting age at 21 nationwide, so we can place nationwide election requirements, but the Supreme Court didn't do this. That doesn't necessarily mean that an amendment is the only way to accomplish it, but that is what was decided upon for a voting age. The 26th Amendment came about after some states considered lowering the voting age to 16, and at least one state suggested 14. However, when it comes to voter ID, the Constitution already mandates that voters be citizens, so I wouldn't think it should require an Amendment to make them prove they are citizens. Without ID, how do we know that they are 21? I am not a Constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV, but I don't think this should require a Constitutional Amendment. IMO, the federal government could withhold funding from any state that doesn't require voter ID, as was done for the 55 mph speed limit, and any objections to that could make their way to the Supreme Court.
I think the 26th amendment changed the voting age from 21 to 18. Congress could pass a law that required voter ID for Federal elections to comply with the Constitution. States such as California would then challenge it in the SCOTUS and the court would then decide if it was Constitutional or not to do so. Democrats probably would not support such a move and would filibuster it in the Senate since they thrive on vote fraud (my opinion only). There is no reason not to require ID except for fraud since photo ID is required for so many other things.
All this voter ID talk started in the early 2000s. Georgia's voter ID law took effect in 2006. In 2011 only 35 percent of all U.S. adults owned a smartphone. Only 72% of households in the United States even had internet access, and 9.3% of households didn't have a car. All that takes money. Some of the talk at that time was rather "elitist" in my opinion. ("If someone is too stupid to figure out how to get a voter ID they shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway.") In the meantime, we have been in a transition period. ONE DAY... soon.... there will be no reason to require an ID. ONE DAY we will probably have a chip placed in our shoulder when born, that identifies you, like dogs and cats. The largest group of people who aren't up on technology are those 65 and older. As soon as the Boomers and older die out, this won't be an issue. But some politicians will figure out something else to try and suppress voting. and distrust everything. Just my opinion.
It's not that complicated. Elitism is the assumption that black people and other minorities aren't smart enough to figure it out.
I do believe it isn’t elitist to say that anyone who can’t pass a driver’s test shouldn’t drive the same as anyone who can’t figure out how to get an I.D. shouldn’t be able to have a bank account, check into a hotel or…..vote. Ya know, as somewhat of a segue, I would be hard put if I were a politician and the word was spread that the only way I can be voted into office is through a corrupt system that allows illegal and fraudulent votes. As it stands, there isn’t a left wing politician in California who can say with all certainty that it was American, taxpaying citizens who pushed the vote count over the edge so they could hold office. Now, so far as tech goes, I am one who really likes the idea of each legal voter getting a code and with that code can vote via a home computing system. Duplicate votes are kicked and flagged for investigation, the code disappears when someone dies, if a code is entered that isn’t in the system then it doesn’t count and gets red flagged. I’m also a proponent of the idea that when a citizen turns 18 and has passed their mandatory civics class, they get their voter I.D. complete with their code. If a kid hasn’t passed a civics class then they have to wait until they do or turn 21.
If that's your definition, fine. It's not mine. I was thinking of my uncle and my mother (if I had died before she did), and probably other older relatives who I've lost track of in Ohio and WV. So it's not hard to imagine many others like them. Voter ID is just one of the many obstacles. These people were already on the books due to hoops they jumped through when they were younger. And suddenly they are not allowed to vote, unless they jump through more hoops. As I said, it will all resolve itself soon.