Call Gov. McDonnell: New Law Would Eliminate CHP As Valid Voter ID

The new voter ID law would eliminate concealed carry permits as valid voter ID:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+SB1256

Governor McDonnell could line item veto this part of the law, or veto the law entirely.

E-mail him:

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm

Or call him:

Phone Numbers:
Office: (804) 786-2211
Fax: (804) 371-6351
TTY/TDD (For the deaf or hard-of-hearing):
1-800-828-1120, or 711


Tell him: WE DON'T NEED THIS STINKIN' LAW!!!

The change is to require photo identification, although school ID or employer ID seems a bit hazy. If they are going to go that route I would have liked to see only photo ID that contains the votere's residence address as being acceptable. I understand that such would create a hassle for folks wanting to use their military ID or othersin a similar circumstance.

IF they are going to finally get serious about cracking down on voter fraud they should simply require the new photo voter ID cards. Based on other parts of the legislation the Registrar could verify the address based on DL info and access the DL photo to use for the voter ID card. That would mean that 99.9+% of voters (who have DLs or non-driving ID cards) would simply get a new voter ID in the mail. The <.1% that would have to haul their butts to a DMV to get a DL/ID probably need one anyhoow, and if it is too much trouble then that's just too bad - if you want something badly enough you find a way to make it happen. (No, I am not suggesting they carjack some old granny on the way home from choir practice so they have a ride to the DMV!)

These are the comments (less the jacking of grannies) I am going to sshare with the governor.

stay safe.

I urge you to VETO SB 1256 in its current form.

Click to expand...

SB 1256 calls for the elimination of several forms of identification currently accepted as proof of residence and qualification to vote, along with the creation of a photo voter registration card.
If the Commonwealth is going to get serious about stopping voter fraud it ought to go strictly with the photo voter registration card. 99+% of voters already have a drivers licence or non-driving ID issued by the DMV, or some other state-issued photo ID with the picture tied in to the DMV system. The Registrar of Voters would only need to verify the residence address with the DMV record, upload the photo and mail the created pohot voter reistration card to the voter. The small number of voters who would need to get to a DMV office to have their picture taken should, with minimal effort, arrange for transportation to a DMV office.Additionally, the DMV has moblie offices it could dispatch to locations where it is believed significant numbers of voters without a current DMV photo ID reside.
If the plan is to require a photo voter registration card I would OPPOSE its use for identification for any other reason. I also OPPOSE access to my voter registration status by any agency except the Registrar of Voters. My status as a registered voter should only be a matter between me and the Registrar of Voters. Neither the police nor a bank teller have any business accessing that information.
Please inform me of what action you intend to take regarding SB 1256.

Click to expand...

skidmark said:

The change is to require photo identification, although school ID or employer ID seems a bit hazy. If they are going to go that route I would have liked to see only photo ID that contains the votere's residence address as being acceptable. I understand that such would create a hassle for folks wanting to use their military ID or othersin a similar circumstance.

IF they are going to finally get serious about cracking down on voter fraud they should simply require the new photo voter ID cards. Based on other parts of the legislation the Registrar could verify the address based on DL info and access the DL photo to use for the voter ID card. That would mean that 99.9+% of voters (who have DLs or non-driving ID cards) would simply get a new voter ID in the mail. The <.1% that would have to haul their butts to a DMV to get a DL/ID probably need one anyhoow, and if it is too much trouble then that's just too bad - if you want something badly enough you find a way to make it happen. (No, I am not suggesting they carjack some old granny on the way home from choir practice so they have a ride to the DMV!)

These are the comments (less the jacking of grannies) I am going to sshare with the governor.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I doubt that it is as high as 99.9%. And unfortunately, granny is more likely than most of us whipper-snappers to be among those without ID. She may not want to go all the way down to the Government Center to get a new "picture voter ID", and her social security card won't work anymore. Seems to me, making her drive to the Government Center is kind of like a poll tax. We were supposed to have gotten rid of those.

But then again, she probably shouldn't be driving, and probably also doesn't have a CHP. If she is driving, I am kind of on the fence about what she should do about the carjacker:

Pulling her handgun might be dangerous for both parties, and probably would at minimum dampen the enthusiasm of our putative pro-2A carjacking voter.

Look, I am basically against the elimination of all of the alternate forms of ID, but IF they are going to get serious about voter fraud then the photo voter registration card is probably the best way to address it.

While I have nothing to back up this SWAG, I'm goping to the very end of the proverbial limb to make it: 99.9% of CHP holders will be PO at no longer being able to show their pasteboard permission slip, but that's about it. They all had some form of government photo ID they used to get it, did't they?

To keep some illegal sanctuary-seeking wanna-be citizenship-wishing dreamer from diluting my franchise I am willing to accept photo voter registration cards - so long as that is the only use of them that is allowed. Sort of like the Social Security card - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (except for voting).

stay safe.

I'll add this to what skid said,

I'd be PO'd at having to have a photo on my CHP when we have only recently managed to have the fingerprint requirement removed for certain localities in this state. If voting requires a photo ID then show the photo ID that you're required to carry with your CHP to show on demand to law enforcement when carrying concealed. DON'T go inviting further requirements for obtaining a CHP, I'm happy that mine is just a flimsy piece of card and that's how I want it to remain.

The Donkey said:

I doubt that it is as high as 99.9%. And unfortunately, granny is more likely than most of us whipper-snappers to be among those without ID. She may not want to go all the way down to the Government Center to get a new "picture voter ID", and her social security card won't work anymore. Seems to me, making her drive to the Government Center is kind of like a poll tax. We were supposed to have gotten rid of those.

But then again, she probably shouldn't be driving, and probably also doesn't have a CHP. If she is driving, I am kind of on the fence about what she should do about the carjacker:

Pulling her handgun might be dangerous for both parties, and probably would at minimum dampen the enthusiasm of our putative pro-2A carjacking voter.

Click to expand...

On a technicality here,

If granny has to drive to DMV to get a picture voter ID, then she could instead just use her drivers licence for the photo ID. To be car jacked on her way there she'd have to be driving, which requires a drivers licence, which would work for photo ID, so she wouldn't be driving to get an unnecessary one and wouldn't get car jacked on her way there.

scouser said:

On a technicality here,

If granny has to drive to DMV to get a picture voter ID, then she could instead just use her drivers licence for the photo ID. To be car jacked on her way there she'd have to be driving, which requires a drivers licence, which would work for photo ID, so she wouldn't be driving to get an unnecessary one and wouldn't get car jacked on her way there.

Click to expand...

Granny's drivers license expired in 1993, and she has forgotten to renew it ever since.

And when she really has to step on it to make it to her Canasta game, that nice young man in blue just tells her to slow it down a bit: she reminds him of his grandma too!

The Donkey said:

Granny's drivers license expired in 1993, and she has forgotten to renew it ever since.

And when she really has to step on it to make it to her Canasta game, that nice young man in blue just tells her to slow it down a bit: she reminds him of his grandma too!

Click to expand...

Granny's photo is still in the DMV system. The Registrar of Voters can upload it and mail her a new voter registration card.

And again, reading comprehension is your friend. Granny was NOT driving to the DMV to get a voter registration card photo made - she was coming home from choir practice. The your urban chauffeur wanna-be was the one wanting to go to the DMV to get a photo voter registration card.

Keep it straight, will ya?

And I agree with Scouser - we already showed ID to get the CHP. Leave it the &#%$ alone.

stay safe.

One person, one vote is a good and fundamental concept. Unfortunately, the technology of voter fraud has gone far beyond the crude practice of having people vote multiple times. That takes quite a bit of effort and involves a potentially large number of people, some of whom might rat out the scheme or get caught in some manner. Completely unnecessary with electronic voting. All you have to do is compromise the software that counts the votes and program the vote counting to switch a percentage of votes to the favored candidate. Few people have sufficient knowledge to even know if fraud is going on at all. Even a software expert is likely to have a difficult to impossible job identifying compromised software.

skidmark said:

Look, I am basically against the elimination of all of the alternate forms of ID, but IF they are going to get serious about voter fraud then the photo voter registration card is probably the best way to address it.

While I have nothing to back up this SWAG, I'm goping to the very end of the proverbial limb to make it: 99.9% of CHP holders will be PO at no longer being able to show their pasteboard permission slip, but that's about it. They all had some form of government photo ID they used to get it, did't they?

To keep some illegal sanctuary-seeking wanna-be citizenship-wishing dreamer from diluting my franchise I am willing to accept photo voter registration cards - so long as that is the only use of them that is allowed. Sort of like the Social Security card - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES (except for voting).

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Kinda depends on how you look at it Skid: no doubt there is some "illegal sanctuary-seeking wanna-be citizenship-wishing dreamer" somewhere out there just waiting to dilute the vote of somebody like you.

But this guy is going to have to be pretty resourceful, diligent and lucky to pull this off: he is going to have to creatively identify some other guy in the precinct to impersonate who is both registered to vote and about his same age. Then, he is going to have to forge some non-picture ID with this guy's name on it, show up at 6:00 AM (he would not want to show up after they guy he is passing himself off as has already voted). He is also hoping that this guy's neighbors, who are standing in line with him, working as election officers behind the voter check-in table, and as party poll-watchers behind the election officers, are not going to realize that he is an imposter the moment he says his assumed name.

IMHO, changing the voter ID requirement again this year is much more likely to affect the folks who jog to the polls, or roll up with their strollers, and don't have picture ID because some flimsy piece of cardboard (usually a voter registration card, but certainly sometimes a social security card or CHP) worked just fine last year. After waiting in line only to be told that they cannot vote a regular ballot without going all the way back home again and returning with photo ID, they are most likely to just leave and forget about it.

The jogger guy, stroller lady, and illegal wanna be dreamer dude are all in the same boat: chances are almost certain that their one vote is not going to make a whit of difference, so if it is a pain, why go to the trouble? Voting is, for the most part, an irrational act.

There are probably some very few recent bona fide cases of "false identity" voter fraud out there, but it has been way overblown. One of the guys who has made something of a career over-blowing it, Hans von Spakovsky, just lost his position on Fairfax County's Board of Elections because he cried wolf about this too many times, and in October, got his lying self exposed on these issues by a journalist in the New Yorker.

So if it is worth it to you to complicate and sometimes effectively prevent the exercise of the franchise by granny, jogger man, stroller lady and hundreds like them, to prevent the vote of that one illegal dreamer dude who irks you, then something like this "photo voter ID" bill may be for you.

But I was prevented from completing my purchase of a six pack of Shock-Top last night because I accidentally left my drivers' license in some unknown shirt. So this bill is definitely not for me.

The Donkey said:

The new voter ID law would eliminate concealed carry permits as valid voter ID:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+SB1256

Governor McDonnell could line item veto this part of the law, or veto the law entirely.

E-mail him:

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm

Or call him:

Phone Numbers:
Office: (804) 786-2211
Fax: (804) 371-6351
TTY/TDD (For the deaf or hard-of-hearing):
1-800-828-1120, or 711


Tell him: WE DON'T NEED THIS STINKIN' LAW!!!

Click to expand...

This seriously made me laugh out loud.

Your completely transparent attempt to "tug at the heart-strings" of the gun folks to protest the new Voter ID law is laughable.

Thanks, I always appreciate a good chuckle.

TFred

I don't have a dog in this fight either.....but I may remove myself from the voter rolls over the ID part.

TFred said:

This seriously made me laugh out loud.

Your completely transparent attempt to "tug at the heart-strings" of the gun folks to protest the new Voter ID law is laughable.

Thanks, I always appreciate a good chuckle.

TFred

Click to expand...

Of course, Fred, as you know, I am one of the "gun folks." And, as you know from long experience with me, or hopefully have guessed by now, I am -- transparently -- also against this new voter ID law; a civil libertarian, a true blue Democrat, and I don't see anything contradictory about any of that.



But I am always pleased to give you a chuckle.

The Donkey said:

Of course, Fred, as you know, I am one of the "gun folks." [Yes.] And, as you know from long experience with me, or hopefully have guessed by now, I am -- transparently -- also against this new voter ID law [Would be disappointed if you were not.]; a civil libertarian [Not sure that is possible with a "D" label, but I won't argue.], a true blue Democrat [Yes.], and I don't see anything contradictory about any of that.

But I am always pleased to give you a chuckle. [Always appreciated!]

Click to expand...

See answers in-line above.

What I will say is that I firmly believe that a fraudulent vote does FAR more damage to society than an illegally owned firearm, especially in this time of major state offices being decided by under 100 votes, and major party figures telling the world how to vote illegally.

Reeves defeated Houck by 86 votes and that one fact is probably what allowed us to FINALLY close the books on CHP information being open to the public. Houck probably never would have let even the original bill out of the CoJ committee, he was NOTORIOUS for being a nosy neighbor, and a very big friend of the news media.

TFred

TFred said:

What I will say is that I firmly believe that a fraudulent vote does FAR more damage to society than an illegally owned firearm

Click to expand...

If voting is one of the bedrock principles of representative government, vote fraud should be harshly punished. I'd prefer multiple year prison sentences.

optiksguy said:

If voting is one of the bedrock principles of representative government, vote fraud should be harshly punished. I'd prefer multiple year prison sentences.

Click to expand...

The fact that it does not, belies the current state of irrelevance that the people hold for their legislators. Years of apparent disregard for the will of the people have given those people a spirit of utter apathy about the legislative process, and look where that has led us today.

Very sad.

TFred

The Donkey said:

....

IMHO, changing the voter ID requirement again this year is much more likely to affect the folks who jog to the polls, or roll up with their strollers, and don't have picture ID because some flimsy piece of cardboard (usually a voter registration card, but certainly sometimes a social security card or CHP) worked just fine last year. After waiting in line only to be told that they cannot vote a regular ballot without going all the way back home again and returning with photo ID, they are most likely to just leave and forget about it.

The jogger guy, stroller lady, and illegal wanna be dreamer dude are all in the same boat: chances are almost certain that their one vote is not going to make a whit of difference, so if it is a pain, why go to the trouble? Voting is, for the most part, an irrational act.

There are probably some very few recent bona fide cases of "false identity" voter fraud out there, but it has been way overblown. One of the guys who has made something of a career over-blowing it, Hans von Spakovsky, just lost his position on Fairfax County's Board of Elections because he cried wolf about this too many times, and in October, got his lying self exposed on these issues by a journalist in the New Yorker.

So if it is worth it to you to complicate and sometimes effectively prevent the exercise of the franchise by granny, jogger man, stroller lady and hundreds like them, to prevent the vote of that one illegal dreamer dude who irks you, then something like this "photo voter ID" bill may be for you.

But I was prevented from completing my purchase of a six pack of Shock-Top last night because I accidentally left my drivers' license in some unknown shirt. So this bill is definitely not for me.

Click to expand...

Reading comprehension, once again, is your friend. SB1256 has provisions for a registered voter who does not have photo ID to cast a "provisional" ballot - one that gets cross-checked and if it passes gets counted just like all the others.

What your not having your DL so you could buy beer has to do with SB1256 is beyond me.

Your great concern for the exercise of the franchise by granny, jogger man, stroller lady and hundreds like them, over any desire I might have to prevent the vote of that one illegal dreamer dude who irks me, is touching. It might be meaningful if it were not for the fact that nothing I have posted would prevent any of them from casting a vote. You may have one more try at knocking me down. Use it wisely.

stay safe.

peter nap said:

I don't have a dog in this fight either.....but I may remove myself from the voter rolls over the ID part.

Click to expand...

I thought you did that over something else years ago. Might have been the quality of the candidates?

stay safe.

TFred said:

See answers in-line above.

What I will say is that I firmly believe that a fraudulent vote does FAR more damage to society than an illegally owned firearm, especially in this time of major state offices being decided by under 100 votes, and major party figures telling the world how to vote illegally.

Reeves defeated Houck by 86 votes and that one fact is probably what allowed us to FINALLY close the books on CHP information being open to the public. Houck probably never would have let even the original bill out of the CoJ committee, he was NOTORIOUS for being a nosy neighbor, and a very big friend of the news media.

TFred

Click to expand...

Yup, I must agree that Sen. Houck did some constitutionally edgy stuff with respect to privacy and 1st Amend. issues, and not only regarding CHP holders:

http://landrecs.com/privacy-and-public-records/bj-ostergren-knows-more-about-you-than-you-think/

On the other hand, Sen. Reeves is no great champion of one person, one vote:

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2013/012013/01302013/751507?rss=local

Reeves' thinking on issues like this concerns me greatly. But even while recognizing that 86 seats was very close when the control of the Senate was at stake, my fellow Democrats and I are not wasting our time out yammering on about the potential for fraud in this "Republican run race" for years like some of your tinfoil hat squad conspiratorialist copartisans have been and are about the close race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. Politically, we realize that there is nothing to be gained from it.

If I were a Republican, I would want to consign these factually challenged theories about voter identity fraud to the dustbin as fast as possible. Otherwise, Republican "true believers" will force Republican lawmakers to pass even more legislation that appears to make voting more difficult for democratic constituencies. That is almost as good an issue for Democrats as trans-vaginal ultrasound was last year for getting our people to the polls. In 2013 -- like 2012 -- I'd bet if McDonnell passes this, it means far more votes for Ds than the idiot voter ID legislation will likely suppress.

So, if I were thinking purely in partisan terms, my private attitude about this new voter ID law would be: "go ahead, make my day." And I certainly would not be blogging about this law.

But then again, there is no reason for you to believe any of this. After all, I am a Democrat.

:dude:

skidmark said:

Reading comprehension, once again, is your friend. SB1256 has provisions for a registered voter who does not have photo ID to cast a "provisional" ballot - one that gets cross-checked and if it passes gets counted just like all the others.

What your not having your DL so you could buy beer has to do with SB1256 is beyond me.

Your great concern for the exercise of the franchise by granny, jogger man, stroller lady and hundreds like them, over any desire I might have to prevent the vote of that one illegal dreamer dude who irks me, is touching. It might be meaningful if it were not for the fact that nothing I have posted would prevent any of them from casting a vote. You may have one more try at knocking me down. Use it wisely.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

As of last year, under Virginia law, "no ID" provisional ballots are counted only if the voters get his/her IDs into the registrar's office by noon on the third day following the election. Lots of voters who showed up on election day in 2012 and had to vote provisionally did not bother.

Some Virginia county election boards refused to count provisional ballots even if ID was provided if there was some immaterial defect in how the form on the provisional ballot envelope was filled out. For example, some provisional ballots were not counted because the election officer at the precinct where the provisional ballot was cast forgot to sign the envelope -- a mistake which happened many times. Other ballots might not be counted if the voter did not provide their middle initial, or only provided the last 4 digits of their SSN. So, for reasons having nothing to do with doubts about these voters' identities or qualifications to vote, these votes, and many others, were lost.

If I were a truely Machiavellian Democrat, of course, I would be hoping that the votes which are lost would be mostly those of people more like jogger man: he is a libertarian privacy activist who vainly hoped to vote with his CHP based on his experience in 2012, and does not like providing his SSN. Also, he is a guy, so, I would guess, he is much more likely to vote for Cuccinelli. I also might not be too worried if Granny left her glasses at home and is having trouble reading the fine print on that provisional ballot envelope because statistically, I might think that old people are somewhat more likely to vote Republican (although, then again, Granny is such a nice lady).

I might be inclined to do more, on the other hand, to chase stroller lady down so as to help her get back to the polls with her ID,or at least, get it to the Office of Elections for her. She is more likely to have strong feelings about Cooch's showdown last year over the regulation of abortion clinics, and may be concerned about his ideological stands against the health care law, the environment, and science. She has a kid to worry about, after all.

But then again, if we are talking about a Republican leaning precinct down where you live -- well, perhaps my Democratic ID chase efforts are better spent up in a precinct in Arlington with 80% democratic performance. Why should I help you get YOUR votes to be counted, after all?

Now do you see the problem here?