the irony

[CUDA]

The NAACP will be holding a march to protest voter ID laws. In order to attend, all members are required to bring along a photo ID.

In a flier entitled "Important Dos and Don'ts for Marchers!!!," the NAACP state at the top that all protesters conduct themselves "in accordance with the historic custom of the Civil Rights Movement." They should also listen to their "marshals at all times" and follow the "Dos" and "Don'ts" underneath the opening paragraph.

Some of the Dos are sensible for any rally, such as, "look out for the elderly and the young" and "wear a hat andvery comfortable shoes" (emphasis theirs)...

In the middle of the list, however, is a drastically ironic "Do." To go to the rally, you are asked to have "photo identification (driver's license, passport or other valid photo id) with you and keep it on your person at all times."

hrm so if you're going to protest voter photo ID laws, you must produce a photo ID

[Tunnelcat]

This thread courtesy a conservative who's party's original platform was against any and all forms of national ID in the past. They were against it before they were for it.

By the way, I just had to renew my driver's license. The requested proof of address, likeness and citizenship is downright insulting. I've lived in this country for almost 58 years, and I never had to go through this BS. Now I have to go and collect my papers to prove that I'm a U.S. citizen. Thank you Republicans.

[Duper]

Hm. I can't remember who's idea this was, but the law is Oregon state only. Or at least it was a law passed in Oregon, not of the Fed level. It was to combat the number of "illegals" applying (and getting) oregon driver's licenses.

At least they don't requite women to present marriage licenses any more. I think it's a SSN, a power bill, and a birth certificate. (there are a number of substitutes for each of the 3 requirements.)

It may have been bi-partisan. albeit a royal pain in the tush.

[CUDA]

This thread courtesy a conservative who's party's original platform was against any and all forms of national ID in the past. They were against it before they were for it.

By the way, I just had to renew my driver's license. The requested proof of address, likeness and citizenship is downright insulting. I've lived in this country for almost 58 years, and I never had to go through this BS. Now I have to go and collect my papers to prove that I'm a U.S. citizen. Thank you Republicans.

Awe how sad for you.

but you dont need to prove who you are to vote. Makes total sense huh. Prove who you are to drive but not to affect the direction of the country.

OH snd FYI Oregon's legislature is Democrat controlled sorry TC you be blaming the wrong hypocrite.

[CUDA]

Also I just had to provide birth certificates of all my dependents and my marriage license to my employer this year for tax purposes this year.

[callmeslick]

Also I just had to provide birth certificates of all my dependents and my marriage license to my employer this year for tax purposes this year.

I had to do that, once, after which it was maintained on file. Sort of how voting should work. Prove who you are once(most states, when you get your driver's license) and then done. Clearly, the GOP is on a nation-wide campaign to keep people away from the polls. It failed, dramatically, thus far.

[CUDA]

REALLY this is a state of Oregon Multnomah county thing. Which FYI is heavily democratically control . looks like a blame FAIL on your part.

oh and FYI its the Democrats protesting voter ID that are requiring ID to protest the voter ID

[woodchip]

Clearly, the GOP is on a nation-wide campaign to keep people away from the polls. It failed, dramatically, thus far.

Where do you come up with such moronic statements?

[CUDA]

I didn't

Quote fail

[woodchip]

Fixed it

[CUDA]

Fixed it

[flip]

I've felt the same thing about Slick. Wonder how many of those there are on forums?

[Tunnelcat]

Awe how sad for you.

but you dont need to prove who you are to vote. Makes total sense huh. Prove who you are to drive but not to affect the direction of the country.

OH snd FYI Oregon's legislature is Democrat controlled sorry TC you be blaming the wrong hypocrite.

All right wise a$$, I'm MOSTLY blaming the right party and they DO deserve it. And since I've lived here all my life and voted diligently in the past, I shouldn't have to PROVE my identity to vote NOW. So I did some searching for you. You're partially right, but you're mostly wrong. Here's a little history.

Where you're mostly wrong is that in 2005, under Bush (who was a Republican last time I checked), and the 9/11 Commission, passed the Real ID Act into Federal Law, that requires that every State in the Union BE REQUIRED to verify the authenticity of every driver’s license applicant using certain listed documents. On the plus side for Obama, it looks like he tried to delay it in 2009. But alas, the Republican xenophobia steamroller that got going in 2005 had more clout than even the will of many Democratically controlled States, a Democratic President, past repeal attempts by Democratic Senators, and despite criticism by DHS head Janet Napolitano, it's now going to be fully implemented almost everywhere. Wussies.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/ ... d-in-2013/

So where you're partially right is that the Oregon Dems and the Democratic Governor, DID, in 2008, pass SB 1080, the Oregon Driver's License Law, that now requires all those draconian identification papers just to renew or get a damn driver's license, a license I had no trouble getting just by showing up, taking a proficiency test, and paying my money like a good citizen in the past. But where you're being disingenuous CUDA, is that the Fed's Real ID Law is what required every State in the Union to put IN these verification laws under penalty of law. So, it was not a Democratic idea originally, but the result of Republican anti-terrorist fears which morphed into the present anti-immigration fervor that's spread like the plague. Tough tooties.

http://www.aclu-or.org/content/oregon-d ... -1080-2008

Now it seems the Dems in Oregon baulked a little at going as far as the Real ID Act. Good for them, but unfortunately bad for Oregonians nationally, or internationally, if they want to travel anywhere in or out of our new, secure police state. Oregon only meets 28 out of the 39 standards set forth by the Real ID Act. Plus, it's going to be a very expensive law to fully implement, to the tune of $16.3 million over the next 6 years. Gee, an unfounded mandate forced on the states courtesy of the Republicans. How quaint. Republican mandates, OK. Democratic mandates, BAD. So that's why they only asked me for a Birth Certificate and not my SS number when I went to the DMV last week. We're not in full compliance with the Real ID Act ...... yet. However, to be somewhat fair, I can't fully absolve the Dems for this mess, because they were just as psychotic and fearful after 9/11 as everyone else was on the East Coast. So with their help, they assisted Republicans in getting this law passed, even championed it at the time, helping put the Real ID Act into existence, all in the name of security. Morons.

http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/lo ... t.html.csp

So on that note, I want to thank the xenophobic, unprincipled and hypocritical Republicans of America for this whole sordid mess that's now created what essentially can be called a National Photo ID Card in the guise of a Driver's License or Voter ID card, that requires your SS number and birth certificate, and God only knows what else, as required ID just to get. And remember people, the SS number was NEVER, EVER supposed to be used for any national ID when Roosevelt began the program years ago. People in the U.S. who've lived here all their lives now have to PROVE that they're American citizens to drive and vote. We're essentially guilty until we're proven innocent. I don't think that was the intention of the Founding Fathers or the Constitution.

[woodchip]

Michigan must of missed the federal requirement memo. To renew you need:



Requirements

If you used mail or renewed online the last time you'll need to renew at the office
If it has been four years since your last renewal
You need to renew at the office if they couldn’t verify your SS number online or by mail
Bring your driver's license or other ID with you
Bring glasses if you need them for driving
Take a vision test
Pay the $18 renewal fee
Written and road skills test is required if your driver's license has been expired at least four years

Guess those pesky Republicans didn't have enough clout .

[Tunnelcat]

Then your state hasn't fully implemented the law. Many states, probably yours, have asked for an extension. Tsk, tsk. You've got a Republican governor woody. He's not towing the party line so well, is he? Maybe he's an old-style state's rights Republican. In fact, I've noticed that a LOT of red states are dragging their feet. What's wrong boys? Don't like those federal laws that your own party dreams up?

http://www.governing.com/news/headlines ... y-for.html

From Wikipedia. The darker colored states are not in compliance as of 1/2014.

[woodchip]

TC, lets not confuse the Republicans that live in Washington DC from those that live in their respective states. Maybe while you're at it, look up who runs the states that have turned their states into budget surplus states and improved their economies the most.

[callmeslick]

TC, lets not confuse the Republicans that live in Washington DC from those that live in their respective states. Maybe while you're at it, look up who runs the states that have turned their states into budget surplus states and improved their economies the most.

those would be, overwhelmingly, Democratic. At least in the 'improved economies' category. Take Texas, for example.....last in virtually every quality-of-life issue. Looking at my locales, it is really stark. PA(despite massive income from oil-shale) and New Jersey wallow in unemployment and substandard schools. PA struggles to implement healthcare reform, New Jersey has seen negative job numbers at times during the recovery. Delaware, with a Dem leadership, has recovered at a steady pace, and has a far better quality of life than the other two. Down in VA, they spent two years of GOP leadership fighting over forcing women to have ultrasounds, while Maryland's economy took off under a Democrat. Running a budget surplus means essentially nothing, if the state isn't providing services.

[woodchip]

TC, lets not confuse the Republicans that live in Washington DC from those that live in their respective states. Maybe while you're at it, look up who runs the states that have turned their states into budget surplus states and improved their economies the most.

those would be, overwhelmingly, Democratic. At least in the 'improved economies' category. Take Texas, for example.....last in virtually every quality-of-life issue. Looking at my locales, it is really stark. PA(despite massive income from oil-shale) and New Jersey wallow in unemployment and substandard schools. PA struggles to implement healthcare reform, New Jersey has seen negative job numbers at times during the recovery. Delaware, with a Dem leadership, has recovered at a steady pace, and has a far better quality of life than the other two. Down in VA, they spent two years of GOP leadership fighting over forcing women to have ultrasounds, while Maryland's economy took off under a Democrat. Running a budget surplus means essentially nothing, if the state isn't providing services.

I don't see what you're trying to image. Texas:

"Texas trounced the rest of the country our latest survey of the Best Cities for Good Jobs, with five metropolitan areas in the Top Ten, including the four best cities to find jobs in the next few years."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... good-jobs/

If you don't think a good job is at the top of the list to establish quality of life...I can sell you a bridge. Just name any one you want. With budget surpluses things like state pension fund are fully funded without have to borrow and kick the deficit down the road...kinda like Chicago and Illinois are doing (Illinois being one of the 5 worst run states).

"California, Illinois, and Nevada — the states with the highest unemployment rates as of 2012 — were among the five worst-run states."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/2 ... 33621.html

So keep trying to spin the Dems message bottle. It makes you look like a incompetent poster. Oh wait.

[Tunnelcat]

TC, lets not confuse the Republicans that live in Washington DC from those that live in their respective states. Maybe while you're at it, look up who runs the states that have turned their states into budget surplus states and improved their economies the most.

Don't weasel out of this with that stupid side diversion. You helped elect those Republicans in your state, AND the ones that represent you in Washington, so your hands are just as soiled. You WILL eventually HAVE to pony up your birth certificate and SS number, and maybe your eye teeth and first born, just to get a driver's license AND to vote, no matter what happens now. The die is cast and you will submit very soon.

I have just one observation. I tend to paint most modern Republicans the same, as hypocrites and unprincipled moralist shysters, just as you paint all Democrats as lowly toilet skid marks that need a good flushing. I actually think many of the Dems do need a good flushing. Ditto for many Republicans. As long as there is no middle ground compromising in Washington and no showing respect for each others situations in life, we'll get the same continuation of the back door, money-greasing, Plutocrat-schmoozing politics we've been getting. Nothing constructive will get done by our representatives that will help the sorry people who elected them, from any party, new or old.

[Duper]

OK, OK people.. yeesh.

Sanity check here.

It was Senate Bill 1080 from the 2008

July 2008: As of July 1, Senate Bill 1080 from the 2008 Oregon Legislature placed Social Security number verification in law, and added further requirements for Oregon driving privileges and ID cards. These new requirements included proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful presence in the country, document proof of Social Security number and proof of full legal name. Also, DMV began the final steps in installing "facial recognition" equipment and software under other state legislation.

Source

More info

It's been revised and toned down quite a bit since then. Kitzhaber seems to have put this bill forth.


Even more info (this some links)

[snoopy]

those would be, overwhelmingly, Democratic. At least in the 'improved economies' category. Take Texas, for example.....last in virtually every quality-of-life issue. Looking at my locales, it is really stark. PA(despite massive income from oil-shale) and New Jersey wallow in unemployment and substandard schools. PA struggles to implement healthcare reform, New Jersey has seen negative job numbers at times during the recovery. Delaware, with a Dem leadership, has recovered at a steady pace, and has a far better quality of life than the other two. Down in VA, they spent two years of GOP leadership fighting over forcing women to have ultrasounds, while Maryland's economy took off under a Democrat. Running a budget surplus means essentially nothing, if the state isn't providing services.

I tell you what, Nutter is doing quite the bang-up job in Philadelphia. (har har har)

[callmeslick]

snoopy, I'm sure you might agree that trying to manage Philadelphia is a damned near impossible job. The past 30 years have seen far too much industry move overseas, the infrastructure is aging, the tax base is aging. I don't know who would or could do any better than Nutter....who is a VAST improvement over his predecessor IMHO.


Oh, and today, I have to share, I did read an interesting letter to the editor in the Wilmington paper, regarding ID. The writer worked at the Delaware Park casino, and noted that you need current photo ID to gamble(or at least to collect significant winnings). He pointed out that many of the patrons there are elderly, minority, handicapped or all three, and that most of them found the motivation to get valid ID. It's a fair point. HOWEVER, Delaware is sort of densely settled, and getting ID is not that hard.....even getting a birth certificate if you were born here is easy. So, the challenges faced by people in larger, more rural states, with more difficult or less numerous places to get ID from, are far more significant. It is heartening to see the groups, such as those in North Carolina and Virginia, focusing on getting those who need ID to the proper authorities. What I was commenting on above isn't a mere ID requirement(although Republicans in PA and elsewhere have been caught admitting that such regulations are designed to supress Democrat turnout)....it is the convoluted mess being created in some states such as:
1. requiring the produce of the entire paper trail of name changes for women voters(ex:Texas and others)
2. reducing polling places, frequently in areas with high Democratic turnout(ex: North Carolina)
3. curtailing expanded voting hours that had worked fine for years(ex: Florida, Ohio)
4. relaxing of partisan 'challenge' laws that allow party officials to challenge individual voters.(ex: Virginia, Missouri)

these sorts of things were how Jim Crow was maintained in the South. They are not necessary, and the goal of such rules is dead obvious. Nothing about voting integrity, all about supression of turnout.

[flip]

Here, you need 3 different pieces of ID to renew your license. I found it more than reasonable.

[callmeslick]

to renew, Flip? That seems a bit much. I needed 3 pieces to move from PA to Del license(birth cert, old license w. photo, mail from utility provider), but all I need now when I renew is the actual license.

[flip]

You must have something that proves your primary identification, your social security number and proof of residence. Which makes sense to me, except that they will not accept your previous driver's license as one of them. Which kinda makes sense, if they are concerned with fake id's. All in all, not too over-burdensome for a natural citizen to do.

[callmeslick]

seems odd that they don't simply recognize the work that went into the original license application....if they are afraid of bogus licenses, and THEY cannot identify such, there is a problem with the design of the license. The Delaware license is so high-tech these days, I find it hard to believe that you could fake one plausibly.

[Tunnelcat]

seems odd that they don't simply recognize the work that went into the original license application....if they are afraid of bogus licenses, and THEY cannot identify such, there is a problem with the design of the license. The Delaware license is so high-tech these days, I find it hard to believe that you could fake one plausibly.

I agree. I've had an Oregon Driver's license since I was 16. Of course, I moved out of state for a while, but you'd think once I moved back and re-established my residency and took the tests, which did NOT require showing a birth certificate back then, they'd be happy as punch from then on. So when the winds of photo ID and proof of citizenship started up after 9/11, I decided to jump through the hoops and obtain a state certified copy of my birth certificate because I KNEW things were changing in the future and I'd probably NEED the stupid thing. Fortunately, the records still existed in some dusty state archives somewhere. I just wonder about older people, many who were never born in a modern hospital with any decent record keeping, might have a BIG problem obtaining a proper ID right now. All I've ever had in my original possession before was an old photostat of a hospital birth notice, which did not meet the legal requirement for identification and was never asked for, EVER. Some people have far less ID than I did.

Duper, thanks for the links. Fascinating things still going on in Oregon politics it appears. What gets me about SB 833 is all the opposition it's garnering. Think about this one very carefully. Wouldn't you personally want anyone who drives a vehicle in the state of Oregon, even if they are an illegal immigrant, to have read the rules of the road in the state manual, have taken the test to prove their proficiency that they know and understand those rules of the road and give them some form of license that indicates that fact, before they get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive on our streets? I'm thinking safety here. I don't want to drive around with a bunch of clueless idiots who don't know the rules of the road and are uninsured. If people have a problem with giving these people licenses, don't use them for ID. They should be marked for provisional driving privileges only, and not to be marked or used as a state ID. People are so knee jerk xenophobic these days that they're not thinking of the consequences of unlicensed and uninsured people driving around on the same roads they do.

[Will Robinson]

It should require at least as much ID to vote as it does to attend an NAACP rally on voting....
Seems more than fair.

[callmeslick]

It should require at least as much ID to vote as it does to attend an NAACP rally on voting....
Seems more than fair.

maybe to you, but the rules for a rally set by a private citizen group should not reflect the rules made for voters, in a public election. Hell, in this nation, we had voting for years without a CITIZENSHIP requirement.

[Krom]

The solution to getting around most places that require multiple forms of ID is to carry a passport, it has gotten me around so many "2x 3x forms of ID" requirements anymore that I have just about lost count. Pretty much the most you will ever need is a current drivers license and a passport, because the drivers license verifies your address, and the passport verifies your identity better than anything else out there.

[Will Robinson]

It should require at least as much ID to vote as it does to attend an NAACP rally on voting....
Seems more than fair.

maybe to you, but the rules for a rally set by a private citizen group should not reflect the rules made for voters, in a public election. Hell, in this nation, we had voting for years without a CITIZENSHIP requirement.

Private groups doDon't get free run over the public.
The photo ID requirement for voting is associated with racist intent.
Do private groups get to enforce racist policy to attend a function in public?!?
I don't think so. Maybe they wanted to suppress their own turnout...lol.
Of course acknowledging that calls into question the legitimacy of the 'racist intent' charge all around doesn't it?

[callmeslick]

Private groups doDon't get free run over the public.

who said they did? I said they have the right to set stricter rules if they wish.

The photo ID requirement for voting is associated with racist intent.

well, a bit more than that. It is clearly intended to supress votes of a range of people, most of whom vote for one party most of the time.

Do private groups get to enforce racist policy to attend a function in public?!?

sure, the Ku Klux Klan does so at public rallies.

[Will Robinson]

... Do private groups get to enforce racist policy to attend a function in public?!?

sure, the Ku Klux Klan does so at public rallies.

No. They get to express racist opinion in public. That is different.
They don't get to control who attends based on racial preference. They don't get to stop black people from showing up to watch, etc.

If demanding photo ID is a racist violation of civil rights, as Dems claim it is, in voting policy....then photo ID is also the same racist ploy in the NAACP requirement to join them in their march on public land.

Equal justice be damned huh?

[Top Gun]

If demanding photo ID is a racist violation of civil rights, as Dems claim it is, in voting policy....then photo ID is also the same racist ploy in the NAACP requirement to join them in their march on public land.

Did you ever stop and think that oh hey, maybe the ID requirement for the march is due to liability reasons, i.e. if someone has a medical emergency and they need to be identified so that their family can be contacted? But nah we'll just avoid that irritating little process called critical thinking and jump right to ridiculous conclusions.

[flip]

I disagree Slick. Seems to me a good way to be sure without having to put much more thought into it.

[Spidey]

Critical thinking…lol that sounds a lot more like speculative thinking…hell with reasoning like that you should need a photo ID to go to a baseball game.

[Top Gun]

Critical thinking…lol that sounds a lot more like speculative thinking…hell with reasoning like that you should need a photo ID to go to a baseball game.

If you ever happen to look at the back of a baseball ticket, there are a bunch of legal disclaimers stating that the team isn't responsible for any bad stuff that happens to you at the game. That sort of thing obviously doesn't apply for a march event in a public location, so having everyone carry ID is a good idea. I really shouldn't have to explain this.

[Spidey]

I thought the issue here was "photo" ID*, anyone in their right mind would never leave the house without some kind of ID to help anyone that might need it, in case of an emergency. (clean underwear too )

In fact I do believe the law requires you to have ID on you at all times here in Philly (outside the home) although I can't confirm this.

*the more difficult to obtain type.

And JFTR any liability for finding your family if you got hurt at a baseball game, would fall upon the owners of the venue, the police or perhaps the hospital staff, not the team.

[woodchip]

Did you ever stop and think that oh hey, maybe the ID requirement for the march is due to liability reasons, i.e. if someone has a medical emergency and they need to be identified so that their family can be contacted? But nah we'll just avoid that irritating little process called critical thinking and jump right to ridiculous conclusions.

You could say the same thing for voting. Long lines can be stressful and who knows what medical emergency can happen. No tickets in the voting line with any ex-claimers printed on them either.

[callmeslick]

I thought the issue here was "photo" ID*, anyone in their right mind would never leave the house without some kind of ID to help anyone that might need it, in case of an emergency. (clean underwear too )

In fact I do believe the law requires you to have ID on you at all times here in Philly (outside the home) although I can't confirm this.

no, it doesn't. In fact, to do so is forbidden.