How long did it take for you to vote?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Same in Colorado. I showed my DL.

I showed up at my precinct and told them my name.

They found my name in their book ... and they handed me a ballot.

No ID necessary.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I showed up at my precinct and told them my name.

They found my name in their book ... and they handed me a ballot.

No ID necessary.

I have no problem showing my DL. I carry it with me wherever I go.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by kavika411

Went to wrong voting place initially, but entire process was less than 30 minutes, including travel time and such.

Serious question, and will show my ignorance. First location I went to - St. Luke's Church in Birmingham - had a large, clear sign: "must present identification." And indeed you did have to present it. So (again, showing my ignorance), is that "voter ID."

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

Here (Texas) they require ID only if you don't have your voter registration card. And as I understand it, the ID did not have to necessarily be government-issued.

Seemed to me like almost everyone in line was simply showing a driver's license instead of the voter registration card.

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Same in Colorado. I showed my DL.

Here is the weird thing..

I would think that any identification that is used to apply for a job should be used for voter ID. In this case, everywhere I've been in the US, a driver's license, ID card, United States-issued Passport, military ID, and/or Native American registration card would qualify for such an ID. All of these are legal forms of ID in the US plus show legal age and/or DoB at the time it was issued. Why one would need a separate ID to vote is preposterous at the least, idiotic at the most.

BL.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by bradl

In this case, everywhere I've been in the US, a driver's license, ID card, United States-issued Passport, military ID, and/or Native American registration card would qualify for such an ID. All of these are legal forms of ID in the US plus show legal age and/or DoB at the time it was issued.

I wouldn't have a problem with using any of those things as an ID to verify that you are eligible to vote.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I wouldn't have a problem with using any of those things as an ID to verify that you are eligible to vote.

Nor would I.. yet we have people in places like Minnesota who don't like that, to the point of putting it on the ballot that Indian tribal ID cards should not be a valid form of ID, though it is perfectly fine everywhere else. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

The only thing I could see that could be potential problems would be undocumented immigrants getting driver's licenses. That has already reared its ugly head, so that will be saved for another thread.

But that still doesn't take away the fact that requiring a separate ID altogether to vote is the biggest piece of red tape going around in an election season.

BL.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I wouldn't have a problem with using any of those things as an ID to verify that you are eligible to vote.

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. I keep mine sewed to my hip. (figuratively)

But then you have skottichan telling us that her precinct dipstick claimed hers was forged and she needed to show even more proof!



So apparently even a drivers license isn't sufficient.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. I keep mine sewed to my hip. (figuratively)

But then you have skottichan telling us that her precinct dipstick claimed hers was forged and she needed to show even more proof!



So apparently even a drivers license isn't sufficient.

But that also begs the question: How do election officials know if an ID is forged, let alone what other forms of ID are valid? You would think that they should be familiar with other valid legal forms of ID. If they aren't, that is a training issue that they need to deal with, or they shouldn't be in that position at all.

BL.

[gmanist1000]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I live in Northern California, and it took me no more than 10 minutes this morning on my way to work around 8:00 am. When I walked in my precinct I was the only voter there with a good dozen polls standing empty. Two other people walked in by the time I left.

It seems like an anti-Florida experience, where I've heard of people having to wait for hours to cast a ballot.

What was your experience like?

How is it possible that we tolerate situations like Florida? Can anybody rationalize why it should take so long to vote? It's deplorable, IMHO.

Voted early, mail in ballot. Took me about 10 minutes to fill it out.

[Sital]

Took me about 10 minutes. The ballot questions slowed me down.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by bradl

Why one would need a separate ID to vote is preposterous at the least, idiotic at the most.

Originally Posted by bradl

But that still doesn't take away the fact that requiring a separate ID altogether to vote is the biggest piece of red tape going around in an election season.

You keep saying something about a "separate" ID - what are you talking about? Separate from what?

Originally Posted by bradl

But that also begs the question: How do election officials know if an ID is forged, let alone what other forms of ID are valid?

In my precinct, they either looked up the voter registration ID and matched it with the register, or they swiped your driver's license. Yes, I guess those could conceivably be faked, but those would fool any but the most incredibly prolific ID sleuths.

[danpass]

Originally Posted by leenak

Oh the first amendment says that? How interesting. Considering as taxpayers, we already pay for healthcare for people at a much higher price than if we had a comprehensive healthcare plan in place. We could reduce our healthcare costs if we weren't so busy fighting to not provide citizens with a basic necessity.

lower their tax burden and they could pay for it themselves.

Lasik has never been covered and it is cheaper and better today than when it was first introduced.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by danpass

lower their tax burden and they could pay for it themselves.

Lasik has never been covered and it is cheaper and better today than when it was first introduced.

Huh? What?

We aren't talking about elective procedures, we are talking about basic checkups, preventative procedures, etc. Things that aren't caught early can be costly to taxpayers when the person is finally sick enough to go to an emergency room. Other people may eventually have to go on disability or similar due to their inability to work because they couldn't get basic medical care. Many people have a choice of buying groceries or going to the doctor, guess which one they choose?

[bradl]

I forgot to answer this.

Took me 20 minutes.

This was with no line at the polling place at all.

Walked in with two kids in their double stroller, told the polling people that the 2 year old and 7 month old were here to vote, picked up the ballots, and went to town. 6 minutes later, I was done.

the other 14 was reading the ballot to my SO, as she's blind.

BL.

[Sydde]

My polling place looked like this:

(The white box to the right of the fire hydrant)

I went there around 7:30pm Tuesday, not too long before they were to shut it down. A guy in an orange safety vest took my envelope and gave me an "I Voted" sticker. Heavier traffic in the P&R than I expected. Was kind of cool, better experience than I have had at the fire station or school gym.

[Rt&Dzine]

Voted at a church midday. Took about 5 minutes. I saw feet in booths but I was the only one in line.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

You keep saying something about a "separate" ID - what are you talking about? Separate from what?

My understanding is that some states require a different ID to be used for voting, as opposed to any other government-issued ID.

The issue in Minnesota is that on the ballot there, some other forms of government-issued ID wouldn't be recognized as a valid voter ID:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...-part-2-143909

Minnesota

Voter ID Versus Tribal Identification Card: On Election Day voters will be asked if the state should require all voters to present valid photo identification. Many Indians are concerned that the vague wording of the amendment may lead to tribal IDs being rejected as legal identification. In 2004, about 200 tribal members were turned away from the polls—Mary Kiffmeyer, then secretary of state, ruled tribal IDs were not a form of legal identification for voting. The National Congress of American Indians, the ACLU and Native plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Kiffmeyer and the state, and won. Since her 2008 election to the Minnesota House of Representatives Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake) has sponsored two voter-ID bills that were vetoed by governor. In August, the ACLU lost its argument that the amendment is misleading and unclear, and the state Supreme Court upheld it as written.

That is the problem here. If such an ID could be used to show proof of identification for starting a job, and that is valid, why wouldn't it be equally as valid for voting?

In my precinct, they either looked up the voter registration ID and matched it with the register, or they swiped your driver's license. Yes, I guess those could conceivably be faked, but those would fool any but the most incredibly prolific ID sleuths.

So the question becomes how would the person's ID pass the muster of every other local official, including police, who are trained to recognize portions that would be fake, but *not* fool an election official who simply glanced at it?

BL.

[mcrain]

I voted in my hometown at about 6:30 a.m. - took about 10 minutes. Drove 2 hours here, voted again, took about 20 minutes. Drove over to Rochester, that took about 15 minutes, then Decatur, that took about 10 minutes, and finally, I voted again in Champaign then Urbana. 45 minutes, then 15.

Yes, I'm a typical Illinois voter.

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by mcrain

I voted in my hometown at about 6:30 a.m. - took about 10 minutes. Drove 2 hours here, voted again, took about 20 minutes. Drove over to Rochester, that took about 15 minutes, then Decatur, that took about 10 minutes, and finally, I voted again in Champaign then Urbana. 45 minutes, then 15.

Yes, I'm a typical Illinois voter.

I thought typically Illinois voters vote at least 10 times.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by bradl

My understanding is that some states require a different ID to be used for voting, as opposed to any other government-issued ID.

My guess is because tribal ID's, while government-issued, are not US-government issued. Tribal governments are typically thought of as sovereign in that regard. In any event, I doubt such a measure would pass with the federal courts, seeing how Texas' voter ID law was struck down by them.

That still doesn't address a "separate" voting ID. I've still never heard of one of those being required, outside of a voter registration card.

So the question becomes how would the person's ID pass the muster of every other local official, including police, who are trained to recognize portions that would be fake, but *not* fool an election official who simply glanced at it?

Because a police officer, or anyone else who simply holds and looks at your driver's license, doesn't scan the magnetic strip on the back. If you're pulled over for a traffic violation and the cop has a computer in his car, he can swipe your card; but someone who simply looks at it can't do that.

Where we were voting, the poll workers had a computer with a card reader and they were swiping driver's licenses to verify them as valid; they didn't simply glance at it. What I was saying is that yes, that magnetic strip could conceivably be faked, but it would be really hard to do so - and someone who went to enough trouble to fool the computer with a fake license probably also made it well enough to pass a visual test, as well.