Allah:
After years of lefty rhetoric about how even the smallest ID requirement at the polls is some sort of pogrom against minority voters and the poor, I … did not see this coming.
But maybe I should have. Per some polls, support for voter ID reaches 80+ percent. Maybe Bill’s already thinking about purple states in 2016.
With 34 states now requiring some form of identification at the polls, former president Bill Clinton and civil rights leader Andrew Young on Wednesday endorsed the idea of adding photos to Social Security cards as a way to prevent voter suppression…
Clinton and Young, a former mayor of Atlanta, expressed concern that the voter ID laws could discourage poor and minority voters from showing up at the polls, which would circumvent the intent of the Voting Rights Act.
“I’m not against photo identification, but only as long as the cards are free and easily accessible. Providing eligible voters the ability to obtain a photo on a Social Security card eliminates any genuine concern,” Young said. He called on Obama to issue an executive order making such photos available.
Clinton did not go so far as to urge executive action. However, he said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent “a way forward that eliminates error,” without having to “paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.”
Help me figure this out. Traditionally, the argument against voter ID is that it puts the poor at a disadvantage by making them spend money they don’t have. Even if the ID itself is free, as it is in some states, it costs money to collect the supporting documents for it, like an official birth certificate. Except that … you also need supporting documents proving your age, citizenship, and identity to obtain a Social Security card. To prove the first two, they ask for a birth certificate. To prove identity, “Social Security will ask to see a U.S. driver’s license, state-issued nondriver identification card or U.S. passport,” although certain other forms of ID might be accepted if those are absent. And SSA emphasizes that all documents must be original or certified copies; photocopies won’t cut it. All of which is to say, how is a Social Security card less burdensome for a voter to obtain than a state-issued ID would be? If anything, it’s more of a pain for the feds since it would require issuing two separate SSA cards — one, presumably without a photo, when you’re a child and can’t vote, and then another with a photo when you turn 18 and can.
The point here, I guess, is to leverage the ubiquity of Social Security.
I would have to hunt for it, but I seem to remember, printed on my original social security card, was a statement that in effect said “not to be used for identification purposes”…
Sounds like a back door to a National ID Card and “your papers, please …”
A dang good reason that STATES, and not the Feds, should be issuing the IDs … along with the fact that states are responsible for the conduct of elections.
And currently, Social Security cards don’t carry an address … poll workers wouldn’t have the direct check of an address beside the photo; they would have to contact the SSA to verify the voter’s address. Any breakdown in this communication could really gum up the works of an election (of course, to some, this would be a feature and not a bug).
@Scott in Oklahoma: #1
I remember reading some place that no person or business is allowed to ask for a person’s SS number. It is for SS use only. Did Bill meant that he wants ALL voters to have to show their SS card, which would include their number? It sounds like a perfect way for crooks to get SS numbers.
Actually Smorg, the crooks already have our SS numbers… oh, wait… you mean crooks other than the ones the work for the government… sorry 🙂
@Scott in Oklahoma: #4
I should have said the “unelected” crooks.
I’m tempted to have my name changed to “None Of The Above” and ask people to write it in. I bet I would get a lot of votes from people who don’t vote because they are tired of the choices they have. I might even get elected to something.
@Scott Malensek #4
Yep, you remember correctly. Mine does too.
However, I don’t know exactly when, but it has changed. While our HR folks were asking for updates on a lot of information, the SSN question came up and I mentioned (I thought jokingly) the ‘not for identification purposes’ statement. After a puzzled look from the young lady, I pulled my SS card out and showed her.
She was quite a bit younger than me – and when she checked hers, surprise, surprise at some point that statement has been removed from the SS cards.