>> National IDs for voting, or proving citizenship, is an idea that is
>> being floated in the United States to crack down on voter fraud,
>> illegal immigration and foreign terrorists.
>
> The problem is if it is refused. For example, if a man in Missouri loses
> his driver's license for not paying back child support for some bastard
> he cannot possibly have fathered (but he was too stupid not to divorce
> the bitch decades ago and she kept right on breeding) he may not be able
> to get a photo ID.
Please explain WHY he could not get a (non-driving) photo ID.
Denying that because of back child support seems like a sure-fire
way to make sure he is never able to pay it.
Does Missouri law say that the man losing his driver's license
because of back child support WILL be denied a photo ID, MAY be
denied a photo ID, or is that not settled law? Or did this guy
just not think of applying for photo ID after losing his license?
> The above example is NOT hypothetical.
States may need to make some changes also. If the states are going
to use a photo ID for voting purposes, then they can't refuse to
give one to someone eligible to vote if they can prove that. Existing
Texas procedures for issuing non-driving IDs might have some problems
for the homeless (they won't accept a PO Box as an address, for one
thing).
At some point it might be necessary to *SEPARATELY* indicate on a
driver's license/non-driving photo ID different items like:
- This person is a US citizen.
- This person is not a US citizen but is allowed to be in the USA
permanently because ____________.
- This person has a driver's license.
- This person is eligible to vote. (It need not deal with which specific
town they are registered in, but it would try to keep the convicted felons
and non-citizens out).
- This person is old enough to buy alcohol. [*]
- This person is old enough to enter a bar. [*]
- This person is old enough to exit a bar. [*]
- This person is old enough to work in a bar selling alcohol. [*]
[*] I'm sure someone is going to try to deny these to people convicted
of DUI and killing someone while DUI. I also recall hearing
about some ridiculous situation where a young bartender/bar
owner could sell alcohol but not buy it, and could not enter
the section of the bar where the customers vomited to clean it
up, older employees had to do that.
- This person is a registered sex offender.
- This person is a deadbeat parent.
- This person is a terrorist (so what's he doing out of jail)?
- This person is permitted to work in the USA.
- This person is an organ donor.
- This person has a sex offender learner's permit.
- This person is a killer drunk (That is, they killed someone while
driving DUI).
States may also have to deal with details like a *suspended* license
still being good for voting. I see nothing wrong with forcing
people to turn in their licenses for amendment in situations like
being convicted of a felony or sex offense, being found delinquent
on child support, a DUI conviction, and various immigration status
changes such as becoming a citizen or being allowed to work in the
USA.
Our deadbeat parent in Missouri might not like presenting his photo
ID that loudly proclaims him to be a deadbeat parent and registered
sex offender every time he votes or tries to cash a check, but he
will still be able to vote.