They shouldn't have to. You're creating an extra step for no reason. We should be making it easier for more people to vote, not adding obstacles.
If someone doesn't have an ID, and has an epiphany on Election Day and decides to vote, they should be able to vote. There's no reason to get the DMV involved.
I'm still wondering why it's a good policy to create a law that will eliminate thousands of otherwise eligible voters in order to catch the far, far fewer fraudulent votes that, statistically, barely exist anyway. The protest of "can't you just go and...?" is irrelevant if you should have to in the first place.
Why? It's much more important for us to have people voting than to have people buying beer. There's not really a good reason to make it more difficult to participate in elections.
Having an ID isn't difficult. You and IP are making it seem like the impossible. This is minimum requirement shit.
Easy or hard isn't relevant. There's no reason, demonstrably, for there to be this requirement. The people who state that there's been practically no voter fraud without the ID requirement have hard evidence of this fact. Those who advocate the ID requirement can't do the same. It's a solution in search of a problem.
How many people are without an ID? Seriously. Of that number of people, how many want to vote? Guessing we are talking about a very small number, having an ID doesn't matter to the vast majority of voters or would be voters.
There are, according to the article I linked above, about 21 million Americans who don't have or use IDs. I still fail to see a reason to create a requirement for a problem that has not been proven, in any way, to exist beyond exceptionally rare circumstances. If the justification for having the requirement isn't valid or proven necessary, then why is the requirement valid or necessary?
That's beside the point. You're basically saying the government is free to impose whatever irrelevant requirement it wants, as long as it's "easy," as judged by the people who have already met the requirement.
It's a shame that a live scan voting wouldn't be practical. That would eliminate any thing and every thing.
No, I'm not basically saying that. I'm not sure how anyone goes through life without an ID, I don't see what the big deal is, I'm not advocating they draw DNA samples beforehand. It's an ID, something every normal functioning adult should have.
Watching this thread and seeing who is arguing against the government creating extra burden really is pure gold. Serious question... Why should we have IDs at all?
32,000 in North Carolina, as of the Democratic primary. "The vast majority" is not a compelling or relevant argument. You're talking about infringing on 32,000 North Carolinians' constitutional rights.
Why do you get to define "normal," and why does being "normal" matter in terms of constitutional rights?
How are lovers of government not advocating a door to door ID service here? Imagine the government growth and intrusion into the private lives of citizens that could spring forth from such a program.
