Reader comments
Picture ID to vote isn't repressive

Bart | 6:02 a.m. Jan. 13, 2008

I don't see it this way at all. Why can't we be consistent? You can vote in nearly every state in the union by mail, and nobody ever asks for a picture ID to do that. Then why is it so gall-darned important to have one only at the polls. No, it is just an attempt by one group to try and control the other. Very unchristian.
The Republicans have made a living by keeping some groups intimidated and discouraging them to cast ballots. Shame on us!!

An easier way... | 8:01 a.m. Jan. 13, 2008

Just take their photo when they register to vote. Then it's there in the registry, any poll worker can see it. It won't exclude people who don't drive or carry ID all the time.

Anonymous | 8:54 a.m. Jan. 13, 2008

It's a pound of prevention. If your ideas are unpopular with people, make it hard for them to vote. That's the only way you can win.

Comments continue below

Joe Moe | 9:55 a.m. Jan. 13, 2008

It took years for it to sink in to my brain that I didn't have to take ID with me to vote. It seemed so obvious you would need it.

Attn: Bart | 10:11 a.m. Jan. 13, 2008

It's not "intimidation" to be asked for your ID when you want to cash a five-dollar check, so it isn't any more intimidating to be asked to show that same ID when casting the only vote you have.

Was it intimidating when Democrats in the Iowa caucuses had to actually stand and be counted? Contrast the results there with the results in New Hampshire, where a voter could walk in and register at the polls, simply by stating that they INTENDED to move to NH, then go right into the voting booth!

Attn: Anonymous | 10:26 a.m. Jan. 13, 2008

Not all unpopular ideas are bad ones.

It was "unpopular with people" when a handful of lawyers fought against the imprisonment (by a Democratic president) of 110,000 innocent people, mostly American citizens, because they had "one drop" of Japanese blood.

It was "unpopular with people" when Mormons in Missouri opposed slavery (which their neighbors and the Democratic Party supported).

The civil rights movement was "unpopular with people."

Giving women the vote was "unpopular with people."

Letting Vietnamese immigrate to the United States after the fall of Saigon was "unpopular with people."

See a pattern here? A lot of things which are unpopular are still RIGHT.

It SHOULD be hard to vote. If it's easy, you get careless. If you have to work to do it, you will pay more attention to where that vote is going.

samhill | 10:36 a.m. Jan. 13, 2008

The supposed fear of requiring identity verification expressed by some of the commentators and others seems silly at best and dishonest at worst.

What possible harm is there in being able to incontrovertibly verify someone’s identity? Why would anyone, legitimately, complain about this? Who is it that wishes to keep things in murky uncertainty? Every argument I’ve heard so far have all been easily addressed or, deservedly, dismissed.

I am hopeful that we will soon require a completely fraud-proof, biometric form of personal identity. The ease with which people can obtain and abuse the currently vulnerable identity authentication of other people is absurd and outrageous. Especially when the technology to completely eradicate such abuses is and has been, for several years at least, readily available.

Jeditoby | 12:56 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

I'm disturbed by the lack of research and critical thought put into this op-ed piece. Others watching this case have put forth not only evidence that the fraud this is seeking to prevent is quite rare but also that the impact of such fraud is inconsequential, while the impact of requiring positivie ID at the polls comes quite close to violating people's right to vote.

Positive ID is required to register to vote. That is sufficient to deter this crime. "Ballot stuffing" and the likes are not perpetrated by those who take a few minutes of their day to exercise their civic duty, but those whose job it is to maintain the integrity of the system: judges, clerks, and others in the process for whom ID doesn't matter. In fact, even this individual form of voter fraud would hardly be successful if the judges are being vigilant. More focus should be placed on finding good election judges and less on worrying about my neighbor voting for me.

Vote fixing | 4:42 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

There is no record of fraudulent voting in America. If you profess to keep government's role minimal, why pass laws to solve problems that have never occurred?

If you have any older family member you've experienced that they can loose track of things. It could take two months to track down the documents to get a new ID.

Anonymous | 4:55 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

The economy is going south. The natives are restless. People do odd things when they are starving.
The government knows this and are frightened.
Big Brother is watching YOU.

Grandma Jean | 5:03 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

I support requiring ID in order to vote. There was a time in the not too distant past when judges at the polls, workers at the banks, etc. knew everyone in the community and ID was not needed. Those times are past and we need to address current issues in different ways. We need ID to do almost everything in our lives why not for voting.

In the past, people went most places on foot or by horse and buggy. Most people didn't go far from home but our society is much more mobile and we can be in another state or country in less than a day.

My husband and I recently went on a cruise. When we checked in, our picture was taken and an ID card/credit card for ship purchases was issued. Whenever the card was swiped our picture appeared on the computer. Surely, if a cruise ship can have such a system our government can also. In Utah a State ID card is readily obtained at a reasonable cost. It shouldn't be much imposition to require either that or a Driver's License with picture ID.

Mark B | 5:45 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

We shouldn't do anything unless there's a problem which needs fixing. Voter fraud, first, has not been shown to be a problem, and, two, if it was one, it would probably balance out between two or more political parties. The proposal DOES have a purpose, however - Republican victory by cutting down the voting public. No, it makes no difference in Utah, but voting should, if we are true to our values, be EASY everywhere.

Flummoxed in Zion | 7:07 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

Jeditoby has the best comment. This type of voter fraud is rare and inconsequential. However, the ones pushing for these IDs are also the one's who have engaged in practices designed to effect the outcome of elections, such as "caging" to de-certify eligible voters, put notices at doorways and on cars, that because of bad weather, voting was delayed until the next day. The list goes on.

Until data shows a clear need for IDs changing the law is unnecessary. For those who support IDs they need to be reasonably easy to obtain and
"affordable." Surely, in this formerly wonderful country we can do something this simple well and fairly.

realist | 7:42 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

Let's not forget that when our Constitution was written only white male landowners were allowed to vote. This was because landowners actually had an interest in the health of the country. Once we started allowing people to "vote for Peter because he promised to rob Paul" and give it to them then things started going downhill or maybe you haven't noticed that the welfare state is unsustainable

jack daniel | 7:43 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

Why is it only voter fraud if a democrat loses? I haven't heard a lot of complaints when Democrats win

jr | 7:54 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

maybe because having to prove your identity would prevent people (illegals) from voting mmmmm is that such a bad idea? We have to prove our identity constantly in the stores etc to prevent fraud abuse, why not in the polling booth. Time to outsmart the bad guys in this one.

Glenn | 8:15 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

Great editorial.

Stewart | 8:40 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

I support photo ID to vote. The real problem is not at voting it is actually the registration of voters. Utah for example registered hundreds or maybe even thousands of illegal aliens before the driver's license procedure was changed, some of them actually voted. This information was reported to the legislature, but I guess the media missed reporting it.

As for the absentee ballot question, I doubt there is much problem here since the generally aren't counted for a few weeks and generally don't affect the election. If the vote were to be really close and they were to be counted and carefully examined, fraud could be easily detected by a check of name and address and the evil doers possibly caught and prosecuted.

Mark B | 10:41 p.m. Jan. 13, 2008

A lot of you are now speaking about "election fraud", which is the real demon here, and has nothing to do with individual registration. Election fraud refers to a concentrated effort from the TOP (city, county, state) to tilt the playing field one way or another. Why try to get people to defraud ONE vote at a time when clever use of hackable software can get the whole election to roll your way with a little tinkering? This proposal puts all the faith in government to run its own election fairly, while trying to prevent a crime which seems to be almost nonexistent. Am I coming through?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.