Nathan Moore's Thoughts
More on the Photo ID for Voting, Women's #s Noticed
I have decided to reprint this exchange between me and my friend Ben who commented on the last post
Info from the League of Women Voters, published October 2008:
There are approximately 11 million eligible voters in this country who don’t possess a photo ID, and most of them can’t easily get one. Who are they?
18 percent of Americans over 65 (6 million) don’t have a photo ID and the percentage goes way up for those over 75 years of age
25 percent of African Americans don’t have a photo ID
10 percent of 40 million people with disabilities don’t have a photo ID
15 percent of low income voters don’t have a photo ID
There are lots of valid reasons why these eligible voters can’t easily obtain an ID. It requires at least one trip to a location which is usually a good distance from home. Those seniors who no longer drive don’t want to bother their friends or family to take them to get an ID; they save that favor to get groceries. People who live in the inner-city and those with low incomes very often use public transportation, which may not take them to the places they need to reach to obtain an ID. Furthermore that office may be open only from 9 to 5, hours when they are probably still at work and can’t take time off.’
And my response. I believe I found the reference for the aforementioned statistics here
The argument that it is not the most convenient thing to get is not a good enough one to not require it.
Let me get the numbers right, though.
Over 80% of elderly Americans have a photo ID already.
75% of black people have photo IDs already. Of course, race is not a disability, so it has nothing to do with the difficulties surrounding obtaining a photo ID.
90% of those with disabilities already have a photo ID. This is the only group that would remotely have a legitimate gripe. I am presuming that this includes any elderly individuals are disabled (see above). Fit elderly individuals are no more in need of assistance than you or me.
85% of low income voters already have a photo ID. There are indigency provisions in all these laws, anyway, so I’m not sure how that affects anything.
As for public transportation, there tend to be stops around government buildings. For instance, in Nashville Howard School is easily accessible by bus. We can certainly assuage that concern completely by requiring at least one photo ID location be accessible by public transit. Easily done.
The legitimacy of every person’s vote affects everyone’s vote. My vote is diluted (as is yours) every time an invalid vote is cast. It is not too much to ask that someone get a photo ID once every five or ten years to make the process air tight.
The problem though is that without admission of methodology on these statistics, I suspect the League of Women Voters is quadruple counting (an elderly African American disabled on a fixed income fits four boxes). The real number is what matters, but they skew that, too. (”As many as 11 percent of United States citizens do not have a photo ID” and there is no demarcation between non-ID holders who are and are not registered to vote).
Please pardon my en Francais, but their numbers are crap (I know! I know! Thomas Crapper was English…). And remember, the voter photo ID bill allows for provisional voting, anyway.

















March 4th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
“Keen conservative legal mind, Nathan Moore…” – NashvillePost.com
“Their numbers are crap . . . “Nathan Moore.
Thanks Nathan. I always wanted to know how a keen conservative legal mind might speak about the subject of intentionally restraining the vote of some people.
Your embracing the goal making it harder for certain people to vote and not easier is an interesting one. Does that come mostly from the keen part of your mind, the conservative part, or the legal part, or maybe just the reactionary, result-oriented part.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:15 am
…Stewart… you think req. a photo I.D. is restraining the vote….I thought the goal was as accurate a vote count as possible, with the least amount of discrimination as possible…to have an honest election that is not stolen by dishonest voting.
People have given up their lives for this freedom, and you “feel” that requiring I.D. is too difficult? Requiring I.D. that should curb, at least some of the illegal voting, is too harsh? I.D. is required for medicare, opening a checking acct., and a multitude of other daily activities, why not this?
Figures are most of the time misleading, full employment is 96%, 4% of the population will never work, are not interested in work, 100% can never be accomplished. The number of people without photo I.D. was mentioned at 11%, I suspect that the vast majority of these would not be interested in voting anyway, just an opinion.
So, the main effect of a photo I.D. is to curb dishonest voting, to keep your vote and mine from being erased illegally. Is this what you are against??
With the dealings in Mn., where more people voted than are registered, in Chicago, where graveyards cast election winning votes, where is your solution? Or, is this the type of elections you prefer?
March 6th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
[...] law that keeps even one person from exercising their franchise is one law too many. Some don’t feel that way and so to them, SB150, which would require photo IDs to vote and was passed out of the Senate State [...]
March 6th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Disenfranchisement? You people are begging to not be taken seriously!