>>>>>...bigsnip...
>>>>>>>There's no doubt in my mind that the new law was put in place specifically to impede voting by poor people, old people, and minorities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...and illegals and dead people. I also would'nt overlook the photo "registration" of the citizenry angle. In this day and age of increasingly advanced photo recognition software it strikes me as the upping the ante from fingerprinting.
>>>>>
>>>>>writing from a country where you are obliged to carry a ID with photograph,
>>>>>which twice recently has been enhanced to be prcessed automatically and needs special photographs,
>>>>>Jake's upping the ante strikes familiar chords. And over here ID's get more expensive each time new features are added:
>>>>>but as it will cost you more to be found without valid ID over the long run, these costs have to be paid by everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dead men voting probably is not that big an issue here and should not be in any vote.
>>>>>Voting via mail will probably be tainted a bit, as some votes might not express the wish of the voter,
>>>>>but the one able to hold the pen...
>>>>>
>>>>>But in the long run I fear more for from processable individuals
>>>>>than from spurious dead man voting as in the US.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Interesting article from yesterday's Chicago Tribune (originally published in their L.A. Times subsidiary) ---
>>>>
>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-penn-voter-id-20120718,0,1039470.story
>>>>
>>>>Both parties are viewing voter ID as a potentially election deciding issue in the states where it is being considered. Here are opposing quotes from Pennsylvania, considered a crucial "battleground state":
>>>>
>>>
>>>>"If the election were held today, we would have more than 100,000 of our voters who could not vote," said Stephanie Singer, chairwoman of Philadelphia's elections commission. "It's a cynical attempt by the Republican leadership to steal the election. And absolutely it could sway the outcome."
>>>>
>>>>That view of the law's importance is not unique to Democrats. Last month, state House Republican leader Mike Turzai, who represents the north suburbs of Pittsburgh, ticked off this year's accomplishments before a meeting of state Republicans. "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: Done," he said.
>>>>
>>>>Distrust statements along the lines of "this is no big deal, just a perfectly reasonable thing to require." This is an intensely political issue. Notice that everyone who is for it is Republican.
>>>
>>>Note also that everyone who is against it is democrat
>>
>>I wasn't absolving them. "Intensely political" referred to both parties. I do agree more with the Democrats. (I would, wouldn't I? <g>). Voter ID is a proposed change to longstanding rules and practices that would benefit the other party.
>
>I guess it depends on where you live. I have lived in CT for about 30 years and I have always had to show an ID to vote. I was surprised to learn that in some states you do not and even further surprised that there would be such an uproar. CT is as democrat as you can get, right now even more so than MA and there has been no justice department investigation here.
>
>The latest app I wrote (in VFP by the way) is for a jewelry store/pawn shop that is owned by a very nice family from Columbia. The reason for the new app is a new law that requires pawn shops to get a digital photo of the customer and a digital photo of the jewelry (gold in this case) and then send a report including the photos to the police department every day. Perhaps stereo typing, but the vast majority of folks coming in to pawn or sell their gold are doing so because they need the money to live on. They ALL have either a driver's license or a state issued photo ID.
>
>And I think our DMV has to rank among the worst as far as customer service goes and the newly elected democrat governor has even closed some of the offices.
>
>I am currently in Iowa visiting relatives and getting ready to ride RAGBRAI next week. I just read in the paper that Iowa does not yet require photo ID to vote but it is being proposed (by a republican of course).
>
>Just some thoughts.
>

That business about taking digital photos of customers and merchandise and sending them out daily sounds like the kind of thing that gives government regulation a bad name. I hope you didn't think I would defend it.

A DMV worse than the ones in the city of Chicago?! Wow. In fairness, where I live now (about 40 miles north of the city's northern border) the local DMV office is terrific. You're basically in and out. I have been there a number of times, mostly shepherding two daughters through driver's permits, licenses, and driving tests, plus replacement of a lost Social Security card and a lost driver's license, and it's been pretty quick every time. At the city DMVs about the only improvements they have made is ordering more of those Next Window Please signs <g>.

Have run on the bike ride! That must be the one that goes across Iowa?