DHS continues to threaten states that resist the REAL-ID Act(papersplease.org)
papersplease.org
DHS continues to threaten states that resist the REAL-ID Act
https://papersplease.org/wp/2016/10/20/dhs-continues-to-threaten-states-that-resist-the-real-id-act/
95 comments
So basically this movement is saying that it is OK to have a massive identity theft problem, insecure banking and inefficient government services if that means no national id card? Even though most big public and private organisations have 95+% accurate full profiles of all the citizens? Data theft and privacy violation are rampant because data is duplicated. Data is duplicated because it can't be shared. Data can't be shared because movements like this opposing it because privacy issues are rampant. Bump.
DHS should just require passports or passport cards ($30) for domestic air travel and stop pestering the states. If states want to opt in to some program that provides the same information to the Feds as a passport, but in the form of state ID including a driver's license, then DHS can additionally accept those.
Set the Federal standard, and provide Federal ID that meets the standard, publish the standard so states can conform - and just leave it at that.
Set the Federal standard, and provide Federal ID that meets the standard, publish the standard so states can conform - and just leave it at that.
Actually, that's the system we have. The Federal ID that's not a passport is called the "Passport Card". The conforming state ID is REAL-ID. Implementation is blocked because many states are playing "chicken" with the federal government.
Does this mean we can use them to verify voting and thus the integrity of our elections?
If you really want to improve the integrity of elections, you should require less, not more pieces of ID to vote. Currently, the integrity of elections is compromised via policies that deliberately prevent poor and non-white voters from exercising their rights.
In Canada, you didn't need a proof of residence to vote for the longest time - if you had someone vouch that you live where you said you live. Someone vouched for could not vouch for another person. You could only vouch for one people.
Without this, I wouldn't have been able to vote. I lived with my parents, I didn't have bills addressed to my name, and I had no recent tax forms, by virtue of being a student.
The voter fraud impact on an election (As found by every study and investigation into the question is completely insignificant.) Disenfranchising people like me, or the homeless, on the other hand, is quite significant. Naturally, the Tories, who don't have much luck with either the student, or the homeless demographics, gutted vouching.
Turning one person away from the polls is far worse then allowing one case of voter fraud to slip through. In the case of voter fraud, you have after-the-fact redress - invalidation of ballots, jail time, deportation. In the case of disenfranchisement, its tough shit, try again in four years. Any policy that results in more of the former then the latter is contrary to its purported goals.
In Canada, you didn't need a proof of residence to vote for the longest time - if you had someone vouch that you live where you said you live. Someone vouched for could not vouch for another person. You could only vouch for one people.
Without this, I wouldn't have been able to vote. I lived with my parents, I didn't have bills addressed to my name, and I had no recent tax forms, by virtue of being a student.
The voter fraud impact on an election (As found by every study and investigation into the question is completely insignificant.) Disenfranchising people like me, or the homeless, on the other hand, is quite significant. Naturally, the Tories, who don't have much luck with either the student, or the homeless demographics, gutted vouching.
Turning one person away from the polls is far worse then allowing one case of voter fraud to slip through. In the case of voter fraud, you have after-the-fact redress - invalidation of ballots, jail time, deportation. In the case of disenfranchisement, its tough shit, try again in four years. Any policy that results in more of the former then the latter is contrary to its purported goals.
> The voter fraud impact on an election (As found by every study and investigation into the question is completely insignificant.)
A non-partisan elections monitoring group in Virginia has documented thousands of people who identify themselves on jury duty forms as non-citizens but who have registered and voted. Thousands of voters can easily sway local and state elections.
For example, in the 2004 Washington State Gubernatorial race the margin of victory was 129 votes. (The vote tallying was a complete mess. During the manual recount King County poll workers discovered a number of ballots that were invalidated for improper signatures, and also "discovered" 162 previously uncounted ballots in a tray in a warehouse. Additionally King County had 895,660 listed voters and 899,199 counted ballots. Election fraud happens and it has happened recently and it changes the results of races.)
> In the case of voter fraud, you have after-the-fact redress - invalidation of ballots, jail time, deportation.
No you don't. You might be able to jail and deport someone, but there is zero connection between a ballot and a voter. There is no way to remove the invalid ballot and have a correct count. Note that if it were possible to connect a ballot to a voter then you cannot have free and fair elections.
A non-partisan elections monitoring group in Virginia has documented thousands of people who identify themselves on jury duty forms as non-citizens but who have registered and voted. Thousands of voters can easily sway local and state elections.
For example, in the 2004 Washington State Gubernatorial race the margin of victory was 129 votes. (The vote tallying was a complete mess. During the manual recount King County poll workers discovered a number of ballots that were invalidated for improper signatures, and also "discovered" 162 previously uncounted ballots in a tray in a warehouse. Additionally King County had 895,660 listed voters and 899,199 counted ballots. Election fraud happens and it has happened recently and it changes the results of races.)
> In the case of voter fraud, you have after-the-fact redress - invalidation of ballots, jail time, deportation.
No you don't. You might be able to jail and deport someone, but there is zero connection between a ballot and a voter. There is no way to remove the invalid ballot and have a correct count. Note that if it were possible to connect a ballot to a voter then you cannot have free and fair elections.
> Additionally King County had 895,660 listed voters and 899,199 counted ballots. Election fraud happens and it has happened recently and it changes the results of races.
Given the typical procedure in these places (registered voters on a list, list is checked off as people vote) this shouldn't happen even if no verification of identity is done, which means those extra ballots appeared in some way circumventing normal procedure. Adding an ID check to normal procedure isn't going to help.
It seems particularly galling that abuse of the system by those powerful and connected enough to stuff the ballot box is used as justification to make it harder for the powerless to vote.
Given the typical procedure in these places (registered voters on a list, list is checked off as people vote) this shouldn't happen even if no verification of identity is done, which means those extra ballots appeared in some way circumventing normal procedure. Adding an ID check to normal procedure isn't going to help.
It seems particularly galling that abuse of the system by those powerful and connected enough to stuff the ballot box is used as justification to make it harder for the powerless to vote.
> A non-partisan elections monitoring group in Virginia has documented thousands of people who identify themselves on jury duty forms as non-citizens but who have registered and voted. Thousands of voters can easily sway local and state elections.
This should tell you more about how much people want to do jury duty, then how much they want to perform voter fraud.
Also, have you considered that they may have become citizens between the time that they were called up, and the time that they voted?
This should tell you more about how much people want to do jury duty, then how much they want to perform voter fraud.
Also, have you considered that they may have become citizens between the time that they were called up, and the time that they voted?
There are three possibilities:
1 - citizen who lies on their jury duty questionnaire to get out of serving.
2 - non-citizens who told the truth on their jury duty questionnaire.
3 - non-citizens who became citizens, but were registered to vote before they became citizens.
The first have committed perjury and are ineligible to vote. The second are ineligible to vote, plus there is some weirdness associated with them even being selected for jury duty, read on. As for the third, jury lists are drawn from voter registration as the requirements to vote and the requirements to be on a jury are the same. It's unlawful to register to vote if you aren't a citizen. So the third group has also committed a crime and are ineligible to vote. And ineligible to become citizens and would face deportation if anyone bothered to followup.
1 - citizen who lies on their jury duty questionnaire to get out of serving.
2 - non-citizens who told the truth on their jury duty questionnaire.
3 - non-citizens who became citizens, but were registered to vote before they became citizens.
The first have committed perjury and are ineligible to vote. The second are ineligible to vote, plus there is some weirdness associated with them even being selected for jury duty, read on. As for the third, jury lists are drawn from voter registration as the requirements to vote and the requirements to be on a jury are the same. It's unlawful to register to vote if you aren't a citizen. So the third group has also committed a crime and are ineligible to vote. And ineligible to become citizens and would face deportation if anyone bothered to followup.
I am a non-citizen, and I have been selected for jury duty. I have obviously declined it.
The jury duty selection process is done by picking drivers' licenses at random. You don't need to be a citizen to have a driver's license.
You're missing option #4, which is far more likely then option #3 - non-citizens who were called up for jury duty, who later became citizens.
Your analysis of group #1 is in contradiction with reality. People make up all sorts of reasons to get out of jury duty. In practice, they are not prosecuted for it.
The jury duty selection process is done by picking drivers' licenses at random. You don't need to be a citizen to have a driver's license.
You're missing option #4, which is far more likely then option #3 - non-citizens who were called up for jury duty, who later became citizens.
Your analysis of group #1 is in contradiction with reality. People make up all sorts of reasons to get out of jury duty. In practice, they are not prosecuted for it.
> I am a non-citizen, and I have been selected for jury duty. I have obviously declined it.
Based on researching my prior response, Federal courts use voter registration. Some states may use drivers license lists. However, Virginia seems to use voter registration.
There's actually a good chance that you are registered to vote. With the Motor Voter law that has been in place since the 1990s, nearly everyone who has received a drivers license has also been registered to vote. Even in cases where people mark they are not citizens, the systems are screwing up and registering them.
What basis do you have for saying that it's more likely that people have become citizens between being selected for jury duty and going on to vote? Given that 50% of the non-citizen residents are here unlawfully, it seems improbable that there is any majority that have become citizens. I'd just repeat the inquiry as to whether you have any research that follows up on your hypothesis.
Based on researching my prior response, Federal courts use voter registration. Some states may use drivers license lists. However, Virginia seems to use voter registration.
There's actually a good chance that you are registered to vote. With the Motor Voter law that has been in place since the 1990s, nearly everyone who has received a drivers license has also been registered to vote. Even in cases where people mark they are not citizens, the systems are screwing up and registering them.
What basis do you have for saying that it's more likely that people have become citizens between being selected for jury duty and going on to vote? Given that 50% of the non-citizen residents are here unlawfully, it seems improbable that there is any majority that have become citizens. I'd just repeat the inquiry as to whether you have any research that follows up on your hypothesis.
The first have committed perjury and are ineligible to vote.
Because they are felons? There's 3 problems with that argument. Some states allow convicted felons to vote, the people in question have not been convicted and it's a bad law to disenfranchise felons.
Because they are felons? There's 3 problems with that argument. Some states allow convicted felons to vote, the people in question have not been convicted and it's a bad law to disenfranchise felons.
There are two ways the disenfranchise voters:
The Supreme Court has found that there are some ID laws that address both of these problems and do not impose any undue burden on people greater than that of normal voting. [0]
Specifically:
Now, not all voting policies address both of these issues. Some address (1) by disenfranchising people, while other policies address (2). However, the Supreme Court said that the Crawford case is a perfect example of a policy that ensures that every qualified person gets a vote, and nobody can vote more than once.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...
1) not being allowed to vote, despite being qualified to do so (your vote doesn't count)
2) voting, but allowing people to vote twice. (this dilutes your vote)
The Supreme Court has found that there are some ID laws that address both of these problems and do not impose any undue burden on people greater than that of normal voting. [0]
Specifically:
1) voter ID is free
2) you can vote up to 30 days before the election
3) you can vote once and only once
Now, not all voting policies address both of these issues. Some address (1) by disenfranchising people, while other policies address (2). However, the Supreme Court said that the Crawford case is a perfect example of a policy that ensures that every qualified person gets a vote, and nobody can vote more than once.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Elec...
In some cases, voter ID may be free, but if the nearest place that issues it is in a town 50 miles away, that's only open 10-4 on Mondays through Thursdays, it may as well cost a million dollars to some people.
In other cases, the requirements for getting voter ID may be beyond what is possible for a voter. Again - consider the homeless, the recently relocated, people who don't pay bills.
And speaking of Indiana, you realize that this is also the state that just seized ~50,000 in-progress voter registrations, on suspicion that some number of them may be fraudulent (The bar for which is surprisingly low)? [1] Exactly how many of the non-fraudulent ones do you think will be forwarded by state police to their intended destination, before the election? Would failing to do so even be illegal?
This nonesense is precisely what vouching is supposed to address.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10...
In other cases, the requirements for getting voter ID may be beyond what is possible for a voter. Again - consider the homeless, the recently relocated, people who don't pay bills.
And speaking of Indiana, you realize that this is also the state that just seized ~50,000 in-progress voter registrations, on suspicion that some number of them may be fraudulent (The bar for which is surprisingly low)? [1] Exactly how many of the non-fraudulent ones do you think will be forwarded by state police to their intended destination, before the election? Would failing to do so even be illegal?
This nonesense is precisely what vouching is supposed to address.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10...
The Census bureau goes through every town on every road. They talk to the poor and even those without homes. Why can't we give equipment to the Census bureau to create Voter ID for those people who are unable to travel to town once every 10 years?
In fact, that would be better than the current system, where people are required to obtain an ID on their own. We would give people ID.
The alternative is that we don't verify ID. If we don't verify ID, then there is no possible way to know that someone didn't vote twice or didn't vote in a district not their own.
My only question is this: Why is someone who works with the DNC describing how they would pay people to rent cars to drive to states where they would vote illegally? [0] Maybe he didn't do it -- and I don't know if he has. But the fact that any political organization would discuss it should raise questions of how we would root out people that would threaten the integrity of our elections.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
In fact, that would be better than the current system, where people are required to obtain an ID on their own. We would give people ID.
The alternative is that we don't verify ID. If we don't verify ID, then there is no possible way to know that someone didn't vote twice or didn't vote in a district not their own.
My only question is this: Why is someone who works with the DNC describing how they would pay people to rent cars to drive to states where they would vote illegally? [0] Maybe he didn't do it -- and I don't know if he has. But the fact that any political organization would discuss it should raise questions of how we would root out people that would threaten the integrity of our elections.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
Or we could give everybody an id card as a basic public service?
[deleted]
You're assuming that the democratic process is best served by having the largest number of people voting as possible. I, and Mike Rowe for another, don't believe that.
Democracy is not best served by voters who don't fully understand the issues. Someone who's not willing to invest the effort in getting proper ID (or one of the other ways of voting, like an absentee ballot) is likely also not investing much in becoming educated on the issues.
IMHO, setting a low threshold to weed out folks who are voting on a whim, without having invested in the process, will help the project of democracy.
Democracy is not best served by voters who don't fully understand the issues. Someone who's not willing to invest the effort in getting proper ID (or one of the other ways of voting, like an absentee ballot) is likely also not investing much in becoming educated on the issues.
IMHO, setting a low threshold to weed out folks who are voting on a whim, without having invested in the process, will help the project of democracy.
> Someone who's not willing to invest the effort in getting proper ID (or one of the other ways of voting, like an absentee ballot) is likely also not investing much in becoming educated on the issues.
Great idea. Why not bar people without a college education from voting?
Better yet, why not bar people who don't own land from voting? If you aren't willing to jump through a few hoops, why should you have a say in how the country is run?
The hoops that people need to jump through to become eligible are, by design, made more difficult for certain demographics. This is deliberate disenfranchisement.
The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to have a say in it - not just the people you like.
Great idea. Why not bar people without a college education from voting?
Better yet, why not bar people who don't own land from voting? If you aren't willing to jump through a few hoops, why should you have a say in how the country is run?
The hoops that people need to jump through to become eligible are, by design, made more difficult for certain demographics. This is deliberate disenfranchisement.
The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to have a say in it - not just the people you like.
Why not make a strawman argument?
I'm not advocating that we set up intentional barriers, like the poll taxes of old. What I said was that if a side effect of a legitimate effort has a side effect, it's not a bad thing. I was taking that from the idea that uninformed voters aren't helping the process; Mike Rowe explains that better than I can [1].
This is deliberate disenfranchisement.
No. There may be other folks who do want to gag people and would use this as a pretense. You shouldn't simply assume that I am one of those people. You're putting words in my mouth, and trying to say that I'm lying about what my motives are. If that's how you're going to approach debate, then I don't think it's worth wasting bits on you.
[1] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/19/mike-rowe-deliver...
I'm not advocating that we set up intentional barriers, like the poll taxes of old. What I said was that if a side effect of a legitimate effort has a side effect, it's not a bad thing. I was taking that from the idea that uninformed voters aren't helping the process; Mike Rowe explains that better than I can [1].
This is deliberate disenfranchisement.
No. There may be other folks who do want to gag people and would use this as a pretense. You shouldn't simply assume that I am one of those people. You're putting words in my mouth, and trying to say that I'm lying about what my motives are. If that's how you're going to approach debate, then I don't think it's worth wasting bits on you.
[1] http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/19/mike-rowe-deliver...
I'm sympathetic to Rowe's argument that people who don't care or don't know what they're talking about shouldn't vote, but that's different than saying they should be prevented from voting. If I'm remembering correctly, Rowe said that we shouldn't encourage people to vote who aren't otherwise motivated. I don't see anything wrong with that, but the issue then becomes what barriers you're setting up.
If the barriers we set up are costs, either for an ID card or lost wages, I think it's pretty easy to argue that we're excluding poor people, not uninformed people. If, on the other hand, the barrier is you have to mail in a ballot, then that's probably acceptable.
I think the best thing we can do is try to find ways to inform more people about public policy issues, not ways to casually disenfranchise apathetic or uninformed citizens.
I think the best thing we can do is try to find ways to inform more people about public policy issues, not ways to casually disenfranchise apathetic or uninformed citizens.
You're right that I'm taking it a step farther than Rowe did.
The thing is, those who oppose this really are putting forward a strawman, at least relative to what SCOTUS has told us is in-bounds. They've found that a law requiring ID for in-person voting was OK, because it also provided for
A) A means to obtain IDs for free; or
B) People without ID could still vote by (as I recall) going to city hall and showing other identifying documents
With these conditions, I think it clearly changes from a question of excluding people because of money, to one more like I said, where it's just testing whether people are willing to get off their butts and invest a little bit of effort.
The thing is, those who oppose this really are putting forward a strawman, at least relative to what SCOTUS has told us is in-bounds. They've found that a law requiring ID for in-person voting was OK, because it also provided for
A) A means to obtain IDs for free; or
B) People without ID could still vote by (as I recall) going to city hall and showing other identifying documents
With these conditions, I think it clearly changes from a question of excluding people because of money, to one more like I said, where it's just testing whether people are willing to get off their butts and invest a little bit of effort.
Regardless of any other answers (or how you feel about voter identification), it wouldn't have any bearing on voting verification since the state takes care of that on their own. If a state didn't trust it's own ID to satisfy it's own voter ID laws then there are much bigger issues at play.
In all seriousness, I too think it's silly we do not ID folks before voting.
However, one of the common hurdles seems to be that ID's are not free, as-in folks need to pay to get government issued ID (which is crazy, if you think about it. you don't even own your ID - the issuing state does) and this may negatively impact our poorest population's ability to participate in elections.
Why don't we issue government ID's for free (paid via taxes, naturally), and then ID folks at the voting booth? Only citizens have the right to vote, why not protect that right?
However, one of the common hurdles seems to be that ID's are not free, as-in folks need to pay to get government issued ID (which is crazy, if you think about it. you don't even own your ID - the issuing state does) and this may negatively impact our poorest population's ability to participate in elections.
Why don't we issue government ID's for free (paid via taxes, naturally), and then ID folks at the voting booth? Only citizens have the right to vote, why not protect that right?
It's not even that you have to pay a couple of bucks for an ID, it's that you have to get to a DMV, wait in line for five hours (true story, thanks Connecticut), and then get sent home because you didn't bring 8 pieces of mail sent to your previous 3 addresses, and the raised seal on your birth certificate (if you even have your birth certificate) was the wrong diameter (not quite true story, exaggerated for dramatic effect).
If my mom hadn't been there to very vocally insist that yes, that is the original birth certificate that the hospital issued after I was born, and yes she would know because she was there, then I would've had an awfully hard time getting a photo ID.
Coupled with DMV closures that (depending on who you ask) were targeted along racial lines, these little cards that we take for granted can be damn near impossible for some citizens to get.
https://thinkprogress.org/after-alabama-enforces-voter-id-sh...
If my mom hadn't been there to very vocally insist that yes, that is the original birth certificate that the hospital issued after I was born, and yes she would know because she was there, then I would've had an awfully hard time getting a photo ID.
Coupled with DMV closures that (depending on who you ask) were targeted along racial lines, these little cards that we take for granted can be damn near impossible for some citizens to get.
https://thinkprogress.org/after-alabama-enforces-voter-id-sh...
Isn't that mostly an argument to fix broken bureaucracies around IDs?
And they are broken, to be sure. I recently moved away from NJ, but when I was there, renewing my driver's license was a real chore. Their antiquated computer system can't hold a string as long as "Christopher", so they abbreviate on my DL. That becomes a problem at renewal time, because my DL does not match my other IDs, so I always must supply my birth certificate, and jump through other hoops.
That system is broken, and needs fixing irrespective of voting rights.
And they are broken, to be sure. I recently moved away from NJ, but when I was there, renewing my driver's license was a real chore. Their antiquated computer system can't hold a string as long as "Christopher", so they abbreviate on my DL. That becomes a problem at renewal time, because my DL does not match my other IDs, so I always must supply my birth certificate, and jump through other hoops.
That system is broken, and needs fixing irrespective of voting rights.
Heh, try Texas. Vehicle registration and Drivers Licenses are done in different places. If you register the vehicle(s) first, you have to bring proof that you've registered any/all vehicle(s) when you get your license. This is very difficult when you have multiple vehicles, drive in one car with your wife and all vehicles are in both of your names.
The fun part is the registration is the window sticker and you don't need to keep any other paperwork as proof of registration (so we didn't). Also, they can't look up registrations because of different computer systems. We had to take pictures of all the registration stickers, email them to the person processing our license applications (while we sat at the desk), then waited for an hour while they called the state Police to verify the plates matched our address and our names.
After all of that, we both received our licenses in the mail with typos on them.
The most humorous part of the whole situation: We lived in Texas before (and both of our previous licenses were still within the expiration dates). But, we were told, because we had obtained licenses in another state we had to do new applications. Our new licenses have the same ID numbers as the previous ones.
The fun part is the registration is the window sticker and you don't need to keep any other paperwork as proof of registration (so we didn't). Also, they can't look up registrations because of different computer systems. We had to take pictures of all the registration stickers, email them to the person processing our license applications (while we sat at the desk), then waited for an hour while they called the state Police to verify the plates matched our address and our names.
After all of that, we both received our licenses in the mail with typos on them.
The most humorous part of the whole situation: We lived in Texas before (and both of our previous licenses were still within the expiration dates). But, we were told, because we had obtained licenses in another state we had to do new applications. Our new licenses have the same ID numbers as the previous ones.
That would be a valid argument if a) you didn't need your ID/Drivers license for virtually everything else that's good in society and b) You had to wait until registration day to get an ID card.
The fair thing to do is to require proper identification in elections. The fair thing to do is to make sure anyone that needs an ID/Drivers license is able to get one, if they are verifiable citizens.
The fair thing to do is to require proper identification in elections. The fair thing to do is to make sure anyone that needs an ID/Drivers license is able to get one, if they are verifiable citizens.
There's two main parts to it:
1. The actual amount of in-person voting fraud is incredibly tiny... something on the order of 30 cases per billion votes [1]. This means that any voting ID measure is basically guaranteed to interfere in more legitimate votes (easy example: ex-Amish people who never had government documents) than fraudulent ones.
2. There's a long, long history of people in the US claiming to support voter ID, while actually using the laws involved to suppress minority voters. For example, Republican legislators in North Carolina looked up data categorized by race and type of vote, then used it to remove the voting methods, days, and forms of ID most used by minorities, in the name of "protecting against voter fraud" [2].
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
[2]: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-n...
1. The actual amount of in-person voting fraud is incredibly tiny... something on the order of 30 cases per billion votes [1]. This means that any voting ID measure is basically guaranteed to interfere in more legitimate votes (easy example: ex-Amish people who never had government documents) than fraudulent ones.
2. There's a long, long history of people in the US claiming to support voter ID, while actually using the laws involved to suppress minority voters. For example, Republican legislators in North Carolina looked up data categorized by race and type of vote, then used it to remove the voting methods, days, and forms of ID most used by minorities, in the name of "protecting against voter fraud" [2].
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
[2]: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-n...
> The actual amount of in-person voting fraud is incredibly tiny... something on the order of 30 cases per billion votes
It doesn't matter what the national rate is (though it's likely higher than 30 per billion votes), what matters is that it happens. Plus there is more than simple impersonation. There is multiple voting. There is voting by ineligible voters. None of these can be stopped unless we can get to a place where verification can happen.
For example, a single county in Virginia has thousands of people who report on their jury duty forms that they are not citizens but who then go on to vote in elections.[1] The point is if they were not citizens then they were voting illegally. And if they were citizens but lied on their jury duty questionnaires they have committed a felony and thus ineligible to vote.
[1] https://pjmedia.com/blog/massive-non-citizen-voting-uncovere...
It doesn't matter what the national rate is (though it's likely higher than 30 per billion votes), what matters is that it happens. Plus there is more than simple impersonation. There is multiple voting. There is voting by ineligible voters. None of these can be stopped unless we can get to a place where verification can happen.
For example, a single county in Virginia has thousands of people who report on their jury duty forms that they are not citizens but who then go on to vote in elections.[1] The point is if they were not citizens then they were voting illegally. And if they were citizens but lied on their jury duty questionnaires they have committed a felony and thus ineligible to vote.
[1] https://pjmedia.com/blog/massive-non-citizen-voting-uncovere...
It's not silly at all. Many populations have difficulty maintaining current state-issued IDs with current addresses displayed on them. Remember that voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Driving is not. ID is not.
Example: Your mother falls and breaks her hip, requiring that she move into an assisted living facility in a neighboring town. How does she get to DMV to get her state-issued ID updated?
Example: You're a chambermaid at a hotel, which requires that you work from 5AM to 4PM daily. You don't own a car and you don't get PTO or paid breaks. DMV is open from 8-4, closed from 12-1. Your 1-year lease wasn't renewed and you had to move recently. What do you do?
You also have the issue of right to vote. Municipal elections in my city require residency, not citizenship. How do you distinguish between these elections?
Voter-ID proposals sound reasonable and neutral, but only exist to increase the friction associated with voting to decrease voter turnout, particularly among the poor, elderly and minorities. Just like Amazon has one-click to increase conversion, and eats the cost of accidental orders, the voting system needs to be as frictionless as possible for a strong democracy.
Example: Your mother falls and breaks her hip, requiring that she move into an assisted living facility in a neighboring town. How does she get to DMV to get her state-issued ID updated?
Example: You're a chambermaid at a hotel, which requires that you work from 5AM to 4PM daily. You don't own a car and you don't get PTO or paid breaks. DMV is open from 8-4, closed from 12-1. Your 1-year lease wasn't renewed and you had to move recently. What do you do?
You also have the issue of right to vote. Municipal elections in my city require residency, not citizenship. How do you distinguish between these elections?
Voter-ID proposals sound reasonable and neutral, but only exist to increase the friction associated with voting to decrease voter turnout, particularly among the poor, elderly and minorities. Just like Amazon has one-click to increase conversion, and eats the cost of accidental orders, the voting system needs to be as frictionless as possible for a strong democracy.
Some states do already have strict voter ID laws. I think Georgia is one of them. As they currently stand, they've been shown to disproportionally affect black and latino voters. There is nothing stopping any of these states from passing legislation to raise taxes to give ids away for free as well. You'll never see that though, because the states that have strict voter ID laws are Republican and giving away ids for free would give away their advantage over the Democrats.
You need to do more than make them free — they also need to be obtainable at times other than weekdays 9 to 5, when people are working. And they need to be obtainable without a car. Basically, it's been found that there are (presumably unintentional) roadblocks toward some underprivileged people getting IDs, and until those are sorted out, they are unsuitable for use as you describe.
Every citizen has a federally issued identification number, aka your social security number.
We could have a list at each voting center. You show up, tell them your SSN (or better yet, produce a card showing it - and yes, I know we'd need to do better than flimsy paper like the current cards are printed on), they cross it off the list and you go vote. Your ID can't be re-used - and your name doesn't matter.
1 ID, 1 Vote... sort of thing.
We could have a list at each voting center. You show up, tell them your SSN (or better yet, produce a card showing it - and yes, I know we'd need to do better than flimsy paper like the current cards are printed on), they cross it off the list and you go vote. Your ID can't be re-used - and your name doesn't matter.
1 ID, 1 Vote... sort of thing.
Nope, SSNs aren't mandatory. Many people don't have one, use the wrong one, have two or have some other issue. Voting is a right.
Every person lives somewhere. You register in advance.
The person sees a list of people, one of which is "Spooky23, 123 Spooky St, Spookytown, CA"
I walk up to the table and say "Hi, I'm Spooky23". I sign the paper, am assigned a number, get a ballot, and vote. You're name and address cannot be used again.
Every person lives somewhere. You register in advance.
The person sees a list of people, one of which is "Spooky23, 123 Spooky St, Spookytown, CA"
I walk up to the table and say "Hi, I'm Spooky23". I sign the paper, am assigned a number, get a ballot, and vote. You're name and address cannot be used again.
> Nope, SSNs aren't mandatory
That's not correct. Every citizen is assigned one at birth. You cannot choose to not have one, and it's not optional to pay into the system. I agree, however, some people have issues with theirs, but that doesn't preclude a voting ID system from being effective.
> I walk up to the table and say "Hi, I'm Spooky23
The problem is with people who do not vote, and someone else uses their vote illegitimately.
Showing a government issued ID of some sort solves that issue for the most part.
That's not correct. Every citizen is assigned one at birth. You cannot choose to not have one, and it's not optional to pay into the system. I agree, however, some people have issues with theirs, but that doesn't preclude a voting ID system from being effective.
> I walk up to the table and say "Hi, I'm Spooky23
The problem is with people who do not vote, and someone else uses their vote illegitimately.
Showing a government issued ID of some sort solves that issue for the most part.
At-birth SSN issuance is a relatively recent innovation, and there are living people born before that time. Paying into SS is not mandatory in the sense that it is perfectly legal to accept employment from one of the many (mostly public agency, but IIRC there are also some narrow exceptions in private industry) employers who are not mandated to, and have not chosen to, pay into SS.
You apply for a social security card at birth. You're not compelled to. (See: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10023.pdf )
Most people do, because you cannot claim a dependent for tax purposes without an SSN. But we're a nation of >300M people. There are many exceptions.
Most people do, because you cannot claim a dependent for tax purposes without an SSN. But we're a nation of >300M people. There are many exceptions.
So what happens if you go to vote and they tell you "no, somebody already used your SSN, too bad"?
So you propose we allow you to vote again - now knowing full well someone else committed vote fraud in some attempt to taint the election?
Social security numbers can and have been issued to multiple people[1]. And some people have been issued multiple social security numbers[2] (which would allow them to vote more than once). Social security numbers are not a good unique identifier.
[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/3004654/government/a-tale-of-...
[2] http://oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/audit-reports/A...
[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/3004654/government/a-tale-of-...
[2] http://oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-investigations/audit-reports/A...
"Again"? In this theoretical scenario, I never voted in the first place. Why should I be responsible for what someone else did?
Because there are many people who bristle at the thought of being required to possess a government-issued ID, and this would in effect be requiring that. Of course, most people _do_ have one, but there are enough who choose not to (or want it not to be a requirement for ideological reasons) that this is an obstacle.
Also, what good does that do for people who vote by mail? I live abroad, how would they check my ID exactly? I suppose we could do a public-key setup like Estonia, but I can't imagine that rollout going smoothly.
Also, what good does that do for people who vote by mail? I live abroad, how would they check my ID exactly? I suppose we could do a public-key setup like Estonia, but I can't imagine that rollout going smoothly.
Citizens living abroad are generally known, either via tax filings or you notified the embassy, etc.
I'd think people living abroad are a small enough number to manage some other means of verification (such as your social security number, which every citizen has for free, can only be used to vote 1 time per election).
> Because there are many people who bristle at the thought of being required to possess a government-issued ID
Fair point - however they all already have a government issued ID - a social security number. Instead of a driver's license, we could use that then. I'm just arguing for _some_ form of verification that you are who you claim to be, and that you only get 1 vote per election.
Right now, you can walk into a voting center and just make up a name. The person will find you somewhere on the list and either admit you to vote without any further scrutiny, or inform you that your voting place is someplace else (they'll even give you the address!).
I'd think people living abroad are a small enough number to manage some other means of verification (such as your social security number, which every citizen has for free, can only be used to vote 1 time per election).
> Because there are many people who bristle at the thought of being required to possess a government-issued ID
Fair point - however they all already have a government issued ID - a social security number. Instead of a driver's license, we could use that then. I'm just arguing for _some_ form of verification that you are who you claim to be, and that you only get 1 vote per election.
Right now, you can walk into a voting center and just make up a name. The person will find you somewhere on the list and either admit you to vote without any further scrutiny, or inform you that your voting place is someplace else (they'll even give you the address!).
You're proposing quite a lot of bureaucracy to solve a problem which literally does not exist.
Despite extreme focus on this issue by right-wing groups in the past decade or so, the number of cases of voter fraud is laughably small.
Despite extreme focus on this issue by right-wing groups in the past decade or so, the number of cases of voter fraud is laughably small.
A quick google search seems to claim otherwise. I've seeing articles as extreme as claiming 1 in 5 registered voters in Ohio are bogus individuals.[1] It seems, it matters greatly who does the "investigation" and in what light/political climate.
Regardless, even if there was zero voter fraud - it's crazy to think we check ID's to buy cough syrup, alcohol, every time you use a credit card, see a rated R movie, rent a car, rent an apartment, etc... but not when you vote.
[1] http://humanevents.com/2012/09/17/vote-fraud-alert-one-out-o...
Regardless, even if there was zero voter fraud - it's crazy to think we check ID's to buy cough syrup, alcohol, every time you use a credit card, see a rated R movie, rent a car, rent an apartment, etc... but not when you vote.
[1] http://humanevents.com/2012/09/17/vote-fraud-alert-one-out-o...
Given that investigations have found about 30 cases of voter fraud per billion votes [1], is there any indication that these ineligible voters on the rolls actual lead to more voter fraud?
Given that the actual article being indirectly clickbaited [2] suggests these ineligible voters are people who "haven’t voted in at least four years or [...] apparently have moved", is there any evidence to suggest that they are "bogus" rather than normal people with out-of-date paperwork?
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
[2]: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/16/vot...
Given that the actual article being indirectly clickbaited [2] suggests these ineligible voters are people who "haven’t voted in at least four years or [...] apparently have moved", is there any evidence to suggest that they are "bogus" rather than normal people with out-of-date paperwork?
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
[2]: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/16/vot...
>it's crazy to think we check ID's to buy cough syrup, alcohol, every time you use a credit card, see a rated R movie, rent a car, rent an apartment, etc
The difference between those things you listed and the right to vote is that they aren't listed in the constitution -- and it doesn't say anything about an ID card being needed to exercise that right. But it does say that race and a number of other factors should have no bearing.
It's funny that the "constitution party" (as some Republicans call themselves) seem to forget that.
The difference between those things you listed and the right to vote is that they aren't listed in the constitution -- and it doesn't say anything about an ID card being needed to exercise that right. But it does say that race and a number of other factors should have no bearing.
It's funny that the "constitution party" (as some Republicans call themselves) seem to forget that.
The Constitution Party is an actual minor party, not an alternative name for the Republican Party.
You need a picture ID to enter a federal courthouse but you have a right to enter a courthouse.
You're clearly forgetting (or choosing to ignore) the part that says Citizens have the right to vote - not "every person".
ID'ing voters is simply a mechanism to protect Citizen's rights, as well as the integrity of our democracy.
ID'ing voters is simply a mechanism to protect Citizen's rights, as well as the integrity of our democracy.
Yes, absolutely. I think it's silly to not ID people at the voting booth, but we can't change it without fixing the accessibility of IDs first.
I hate to be cynical but there are groups who push back on ID'ing folks for voting, and my suspicion is their motivation is the illegitimate voters that weeds out. It really is the only reasoning that makes sense to me.
Federal judges recently struck down portions of voter ID laws in North Carolina and Wisconsin
In the case of Wisconsin
> “The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” Peterson wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.”
In North Carolina,
> “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-c...
In the case of North Carolina the representatives actually asked for information on how the proposed law would affect African American voters, then went ahead and did exactly the worst things.
Besides that
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
In the case of Wisconsin
> “The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” Peterson wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.”
In North Carolina,
> “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-c...
In the case of North Carolina the representatives actually asked for information on how the proposed law would affect African American voters, then went ahead and did exactly the worst things.
Besides that
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
NC is also terribly gerrymandered. It's a shame, I really liked living there. But, politically, it's a mess. A great state for higher education (Duke, the various UNCs, NCSU) and working in the tech industry (and others), but absolutely pitiful handling of K-12 education, voter and civil rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/19/gerrymanderi...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/19/gerrymanderi...
Given that investigations have found about 30 cases of voter fraud per billion votes[1], what illegitimate voters are you talking about?
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
Given that there are statistically NO illegitimate voters to be weeded out, I think you have to look elsewhere to find the source of the pushback. Maybe check out the several states have used voter ID laws as a way to target and suppress minority voters (and been slapped back by various appellate courts over the past few months) for a start.
Probably not. It is in the interest of a political party to get as many people to vote as possible, legal or illegal. Because after the fact it doesn't matter. Winning is the goal, not upholding a fair and legitimate process.
And it's in the interest of the other parties to get that party the smallest amount of votes.
The article is titled to kind of make it sound like its a bad thing, when its not. The discrepancy in different IDs and how different states issue them and whats accepted is ridiculous.
That's called state's rights and there are various legitimate reasons for the individual states to have that sort of autonomy. It is also the right of DHS to not accept ID cards that it does not feel comfortable accepting.
I wouldn't say that either side is particularly wrong in its actions.
I wouldn't say that either side is particularly wrong in its actions.
I kind of feel like this relevant to how the feds operate.
https://youtu.be/b3fIRQa8vys?t=109
https://youtu.be/b3fIRQa8vys?t=109
> there are various legitimate reasons for the individual states to have that sort of autonomy
People say that about a lot of things, but so much of the time the reasoning isn't clear to me.
Why does Montana need a different style of ID than Washington?
A separate system, that I could understand. Not necessarily agree with, but understand.
People say that about a lot of things, but so much of the time the reasoning isn't clear to me.
Why does Montana need a different style of ID than Washington?
A separate system, that I could understand. Not necessarily agree with, but understand.
Lots of reasons. Immigration affairs aren't a state matter, regulating the roadways is.
So a state like New York that has lots of immigrants, whose status may or may not be legal has a compelling public need to license drivers, as licensure is required for things like liability insurance coverage.
A place like Montana may find that some of the consequences of higher levels of identity proofing are difficult or onerous because it's a huge state with few people and many Indian Reservations with other complications.
So a state like New York that has lots of immigrants, whose status may or may not be legal has a compelling public need to license drivers, as licensure is required for things like liability insurance coverage.
A place like Montana may find that some of the consequences of higher levels of identity proofing are difficult or onerous because it's a huge state with few people and many Indian Reservations with other complications.
We don't normally discuss freedom in this way. The other things in the Bill of Rights - Speech, Right to Legal Counsel, etc., we never ask "why do you need to exercise that right?".
So why would you ask why a state needs to exercise the 10th Amendment?
So why would you ask why a state needs to exercise the 10th Amendment?
Why does the federal government need to force the states to accept their standard? If you have a great program or proposal, you generally don't need force of law to convince others to participate. If the standard benefited everyone, I am sure the states would implement it.
There's something overriding state's rights though, and that's interstate commerce. People have to be free to move from state to state unimpeded, and states have to allow for open trade across their borders. With that in mind, the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade.
If my state chose not to require an address on a driver's license, other states would not be able to enforce their laws on me while I am in their state, for example. If they don't require birthdates, other states can't enforce their drinking laws. If they don't require height and weight, other states would have a hard time verifying it's me. The list goes on and on. For interstate commerce, it makes sense that the federal government can mandate that states have to have at least some amount of minimal information on their licenses, otherwise the feds should issue a card with that information printed on it.
If my state chose not to require an address on a driver's license, other states would not be able to enforce their laws on me while I am in their state, for example. If they don't require birthdates, other states can't enforce their drinking laws. If they don't require height and weight, other states would have a hard time verifying it's me. The list goes on and on. For interstate commerce, it makes sense that the federal government can mandate that states have to have at least some amount of minimal information on their licenses, otherwise the feds should issue a card with that information printed on it.
>"the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade"
This logic gives the Federal Government almost unlimited power, since almost everything affects commerce. Are you proposing that commandeering of state governments by the federal government be permitted? What limits would you place on this 'right to encourage commerce'?
This logic gives the Federal Government almost unlimited power, since almost everything affects commerce. Are you proposing that commandeering of state governments by the federal government be permitted? What limits would you place on this 'right to encourage commerce'?
Unfortunately that is what has happened. The commerce clause has become so broad that growing crops on your own land to feed your own animals counts as interstate commerce.
Yes, I think Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and must be overturned, regardless of stare decisis. It seems that the comment I replied to had actually proposed an even more expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, which would broaden the federal government's power to regulate all state government activities with an impact on commerce, which I would interpret as absolutely everything.
As it is, it's only by agreement (preserving state sovereignty) that Virginia allows you to use a Maryland ID to buy beer in Virginia in the first place. Or to drive on state roads in Virginia, for that matter. And if your state-issued ID doesn't have a birthdate on it (some don't), then you don't get to use it to buy beer. The system works now why do you think it needs to be mandated?
Side note, do you also think that passing one state's bar exam should allow you to practice law in every state? Or that there should be one national bar exam? Or a uniform set of laws in every state?
Side note, do you also think that passing one state's bar exam should allow you to practice law in every state? Or that there should be one national bar exam? Or a uniform set of laws in every state?
But the federal government was not granted the power to enforce how states issue IDs.
Nor is the federal government mandated to accept a state ID for federal identification purposes if it decides that the procedures for issuing those IDs does not meet certain minimum standards.
The problem is that the federal government is pestering the states about it. If they wanted to just require you to use a federal passport they could, but then citizens would object to that for much the same reasons they object to this.
One scenario is that federal regulations might require you to acquire and show a federal passport in order to board a flight originating and terminating in your own state.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was raised to believe that requiring internal passports for travel is a hallmark of repressive authoritarian regimes.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was raised to believe that requiring internal passports for travel is a hallmark of repressive authoritarian regimes.
That's the issue. People see straight through it when you require an actual passport, so they're trying to turn a driver's license into an internal passport and hope nobody connects the dots.
It's turtles all the way down.
I think you'll find that many of the activities they want us to use a federally-acceptable ID for are not, themselves, covered in Article I Section 8.
I think you'll find that many of the activities they want us to use a federally-acceptable ID for are not, themselves, covered in Article I Section 8.
But they can specify what kind of IDs are necessary to enter federally managed areas such as military bases and other agencies.
To some degree perhaps, but it also cannot discriminate against citizens of certain states, as that would be a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.[1] Depending on the test you use for what counts as discrimination, you might find that disallowing certain states' IDs is illegal and/or unconstitutional; for instance, it is clearly discriminatory based on a disparate impact analysis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
There are no federal ID's other than a passport in the US.
Unless they pass a new federal identification law what they are doing is unlawful.
This is what people often seem to miss, and it also is going on in the EU sadly too much.
The Federal government was granted certain powers by law, it can't just decide that it would grab more power or interfere in things it was intentionally prohibited from interfering.
This isn't because everything the fed's do are malicious but because the separation of power between the state and local governments is a key element of how the US government and political system is structured.
The federal government can't crouch over state rights any more than a state can decide to reinstitute slavery or ban women from attending school, once you start messing with that things can get murky really fast.
Unless they pass a new federal identification law what they are doing is unlawful.
This is what people often seem to miss, and it also is going on in the EU sadly too much.
The Federal government was granted certain powers by law, it can't just decide that it would grab more power or interfere in things it was intentionally prohibited from interfering.
This isn't because everything the fed's do are malicious but because the separation of power between the state and local governments is a key element of how the US government and political system is structured.
The federal government can't crouch over state rights any more than a state can decide to reinstitute slavery or ban women from attending school, once you start messing with that things can get murky really fast.
> Unless they pass a new federal identification law what they are doing is unlawful.
How so? The Federal government can set ID standards in areas that it has jurisdiction over, and reject IDs that don't meet these standards in its jurisdiction, which is all that's happening here.
Like other federal levers over state behavior (No highway funding if your drinking age is under 21!), this is grating, but it's not illegal. This has been going on in one form or another for decades and has been consistently ruled legal, as long as its not an unfunded mandate on the states.
How so? The Federal government can set ID standards in areas that it has jurisdiction over, and reject IDs that don't meet these standards in its jurisdiction, which is all that's happening here.
Like other federal levers over state behavior (No highway funding if your drinking age is under 21!), this is grating, but it's not illegal. This has been going on in one form or another for decades and has been consistently ruled legal, as long as its not an unfunded mandate on the states.
There are, in fact, federal IDs other than passports. They include resident alien IDs, military IDs, and numerous others.
No, what's ridiculous is the Federal government using drivers licenses as a backdoor internal passport to travel.
If you look the NIST standards for identity proofing, very few things actually require higher levels of identity assurance, and those that do generally aren't met by driver's licenses anyway, REAL-ID or not.
If you look the NIST standards for identity proofing, very few things actually require higher levels of identity assurance, and those that do generally aren't met by driver's licenses anyway, REAL-ID or not.
Yes, exactly.
And the problem with this internal passport losing it in a different state. If you lose your US passport in the UK, you have a chance to get it replaced by going to the US Embassy or consulate. But New York doesn't have any embassies or consulates in California, so good luck getting home from California if your license is stolen.
And the problem with this internal passport losing it in a different state. If you lose your US passport in the UK, you have a chance to get it replaced by going to the US Embassy or consulate. But New York doesn't have any embassies or consulates in California, so good luck getting home from California if your license is stolen.
Why do you need ID to go between states? I've driven from one coast to the other and never had to show ID or was even stopped once.
You don't need ID to go between states. You need a driver's license on your person to drive in any state, however. All states have laws requiring this.
Flying?
If you're stopped by the police, you'll get arrested in flyover country.
If you need to conduct business in a federal facility, you won't get in.
If you're stopped by the police, you'll get arrested in flyover country.
If you need to conduct business in a federal facility, you won't get in.
Flying without ID is pretty hard, and driving without it (if you're the driver) is illegal in most states.
Here's EFF's page: https://www.eff.org/issues/real-id
And Cato's most recent commentary, by Jim Harper: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-id-decision...