Posted on 11/26/2005 5:36:51 AM PST by Borax Queen
Those with older driver's licenses don't meet citizenship guidelines ...
PHOENIX - A voter-approved proposition passed last year to prevent noncitizens from voting may also prevent Arizonans with older driver's licenses from voting as well.
Under Proposition 200, anyone registering to vote must provide proof of citizenship. The most popular form is usually an Arizona driver's license issued after Oct. 1, 1996, when the state began demanding evidence of legal U.S. residency to get a license.
But according to a report in The Arizona Republic, one in 10 Arizona motorists - more than 400,000 - currently hold licenses issued before that date which are not an acceptable form of voter registration identification.
The new rules allow a valid Arizona license, regardless of date of issuance, to be used as voter identification at polling precincts if the home address on the license matches the voter's current address.
But more than 100,000 Arizonans carry licenses with old addresses.
"I'm glad to see a little more security in the voting process, but I hope they'll take the time to educate people … to make sure people can get through this," said Mesa businesswoman Charlie Hendrix, who had used a post-office box as her ID address for years.
So far, improper documents have already resulted in more than 12,000 people being turned away from registering in the state's most populous counties - Maricopa and Pima - since January. Though some of those would-be voters were able to return later with proper documentation, county elections officials say it is a sign that Arizonans do not understand the ID requirements.
"If they (elderly) come to the polling place, that's a toughie … because I don't know how they would prove who they are," said Karen Osborne, Maricopa County's elections director.
Alternative forms of identification acceptable for registration or voting range from U.S. passports and birth certificates to utility bills and property tax statements.
People who show up at the polls to vote with an outdated address on their license will be offered a provisional ballot that will have to be verified within three to five days by county elections officials.
In the end, early voting could be the saving grace. It only requires a signature with no other form of identification. Voters may have a ballot sent to them, vote, then sign the envelope and send it in. If they wait too long to mail it, they may deliver it by hand to their regular polling place on Election Day.
No ID is needed because their signature on the envelope is compared with a registration signature in county computers. Signature verification by a trained county staff member is considered a form of positive identification.
Prop 200 Ping.
"But more than 100,000 Arizonans carry licenses with old addresses."
When you change addresses, you are supposed inform the DMV within 30 days.
If they can't vote, then that's their fault.
"In the end, early voting could be the saving grace. It only requires a signature with no other form of identification. Voters may have a ballot sent to them, vote, then sign the envelope and send it in. If they wait too long to mail it, they may deliver it by hand to their regular polling place on Election Day. No ID is needed because their signature on the envelope is compared with a registration signature in county computers. Signature verification by a trained county staff member is considered a form of positive identification."
Nice of the Arizona Daily Star to lay out the framework for Democrat voting fraud in case the Dems are too dumb to figure it out for themselves.
I'd bet there will be lots of "early voting" in South Phoenix.
Thank you for posting that. I didn't know the exact time frame, but yes, they really crack down on people here who don't contact the DMV quickly after changing addresses.
Yes. Exactly.
These people that the wrong addresses on their liscenses should notify the DMV, or better yet, go there and file a 'change of address' form.
They are generally issued a sticker to put on the back of their liscense with the new address.
Not doing so is just plain lazy and complaining about being 'disenfranchised' is just a political move.
What gets me in most of the media's articles about Prop 200, it's always made to sound like people are so helpless and clueless and simply must be protected by the state. Granted, most of the time, the articles come from the liberal press, but at the time Prop 200 was up for the vote, 99% of both sides of the aisle opposed it and fought against it, using whatever excuses they could muster. Despite the opposition, we commoners saw through it, and (obviously) the prop passed.
Does Arizona law require that you get a new license within 30 days of moving? The other 49 states do.
Can't see why 100,000 people who aren't motivated to udate their license would be anymore motivated to vote.
Non-issue.
There's always a loophole. As long as early voting and absentee balloting are common practice, we will never be able to assure integrity in our elections.
I suspect there's a constitutional issue with the new regulation affecting people who properly registered at an earlier time. If they were lawfully registered and entitled to vote before the new requirement I see a potential problem with the ''ex post facto'' application (Yes, I know that's a criminal concept) and a question of ''equal protection.'' It will probably be challenged. It raises an interesting legal question.
ping
And if that is really true, it's because the Secretary of State and individual County Recorders are not publicizing the requirements for valid voter ID.
Or they are, and the MSM isn't reporting it.
Either way, this is only a problem because those whose responsibility it is to inform the public have failed to do so.
Ya gots to read the article carefully, 'cause they're trying hard to fool ya.
The citizenship requirement is in place for registration, not for voting. If you're already a registered voter, you have no problem.
If they are turning away properly registered voters, then we have a real problem with the poll workers.
In my ideal world, all voter registration polls in the US would be purged on December 31, 2005. Then, all eligible voters would need to reregister prior to March 1, 2006. That should get it done in time for most election cycles. Then, I'd do it again every 10 years as a form of mid-cycle census.
Should reduce the fraud considerably, I'd think.
Law requires that the least onerous means be employed on citizens to impose such a re-registration demand as the means to prevent voter fraud. Your suggested ''ideal world'' would be far from such a least burdensome method.
Figures.
????
It figures that one sure-fire way to eliminate the majority of the voting fraud we have is not, according to you, legally possible. At least, that's the way I read your post.
No, that's what I am saying, that's what you are implying. Intelligent men and creative minds are not limited to your conclusion that there is one, and only one, method to achieve the end you think necessary. If that is the only way, then you may be correct. But the desired result surely can be done by a less intrusive method.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.