The Republicans, thinking requiring a voter ID would discourage a segment of voting population more likely to vote Democrat, are huffing and puffing about requiring a photo ID to vote.
Well, I see a potential for fraud in obtaining photo IDs.
I would want to require having a photo ID, before you would be able to obtain a photo ID.
That would not prevent fraud. But it would lessen the likelihood, which is how I understand the Republican argument. I think the Republicans are missing half of the anti-fraud argument. If there can be fraud in obtaining photo ID, then how are you protecting the election process, from fraud, by requiring a photo ID.
Give me a good old fashioned poll tax and literacy test any day, over this photo ID thing, if the aim is to lessen the voting turnout of undesirables. But then the Repubicans, they want no new taxes, so the one's out. And a literacy test, that would be "nanny state" and that's verboten too. But photo ID, that's not "nanny state" at all, it's pure GOP, left behind by the marching, crusading elephant.
_______________UPDATE______________
 |
| photo from MinnPost, here |
Really, would a woman that old really, really have all her hair that blond, still? Wrinkle free? It looks bogus to me. It looks somehow - falsified. Inaccurate. Open to dispute. Contrived.
If you were an election judge, and the person below showed up with the photo on the left, on an ID, how would you handle it?
 |
| Same person? Or not? MPR photo, here (note - this from 2004 report, other from 2012) |