Letter: Voters Should Provide Photo ID at the Polls

Resident urges Adler to support move

Letter to the editor as submitted:

It has come to my attention that Congressional Candidate Shelly Adler is opposed to requiring photo identification for voting. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that there is no proof or no research has been done to show that there is a problem in New Jersey. We know other states have a problem and why wait until the problem gets to the point where it is no longer isolated. Why is it intrusive or inconvenient to ask for a photo I.D. to take part in this great American privilege? It should never be violated.
When you use a credit card or cash a check, you are asked for photo identification. To rent a hotel room or get a rental car you need to show photo identification. It is necessary when you have a prescription for a controlled substance, or even to go to the doctor's office. To board an airplane, drive a car, or travel outside the United States – identification is required. Even students from middle school, high school, and college are issued a photo I.D. You need a photo I.D. to enter a federal courthouse, or even tour one of American’s greatest symbols – the White House. Even if you don't drive, you can go to any MVC Agency in the State and get a photo I.D. I don't understand why Mrs. Adler would be against photo I.D.'s. Voting in the United States is the right of our citizens and it is a tradition that only American’s can take part in. Why would she want to take a chance on violating our system?

Susan Bond-Masterson
Toms River, NJ

Common Sense in Silverton July 13, 2012 at 05:35 PM
You see, Susan, some people believe that photo ID laws disenfranchise certain blocks of minority voters, and since by happenstance these same blocks tend to vote for one particular party, it's made out to be an attack by the other party to limit voter turnout. Common Sense, something I happen to know a thing or two about, does not really apply in Politics. These days, it's all about "feel good" politics, and it revolves around something my dad used to tell me all the time: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". This applies to both sides of the isle, of course. I may be a Republican but I'm not blind and stupid (no, this is not open to debate ;) ) Because of this, these days it's all about the message being conveyed to the people. Democrats can never be right (pardon the pun) according to Republicans, and Republicans can never be right according to Democrats. Therefore, regardless of the merit of an idea, it must instantly be rejected by the other party and portrayed as an attack upon one's constituents. Will it disenfranchise certain people? Probably, but I highly doubt it will in the numbers the doomsdayers are saying it will. Rather than work through those isolated cases and work to limit them, it's better for one side to simply say "nope, they're out to get you!" Again, this applies to both sides. So you all don't think I'm playing sides, here it's the Democrats, but on certain topics such as firearms, it's Republicans.
Common Sense in Silverton July 13, 2012 at 05:41 PM
I ran out of space above, so let me just wrap up my remaining thoughts really quickly. Photo ID laws should definitely be passed, but not in the usual haphazard way that Congress works these days. There are many arguments and studies on both sides of the issue saying it does/does not happen frequently/infrequently, but really, even one instance of voter fraud is too much IMO. I believe these laws can be passed with a minium of impact on people because, as you said Susan, you need a photo ID to do just about everything these days, unless you're a hermit who lives under a rock, in which case, you probably wouldn't leave the house to vote anyway.
a b t r July 13, 2012 at 06:56 PM
On one hand I agree and on the other I disagree. There are quite a few seniors that have voted for years that don't have photo id's and it would be difficult for them. If my mother (high 80's)had not passed away two years ago, it would have been difficult if not impossible. She didn't have birth certificate any longer, did not have her marriage cert. she had medicare card, ss card and that's about it. Catch 22
Sara Stewart July 13, 2012 at 09:24 PM
The right to choose one's leaders was an impossible dream for thousands of years. Many fought and died for our right to vote. In comparison, getting oneself to the courthouse and providing proof of identity for a photo ID is not too much to ask.
So Much to Say July 13, 2012 at 09:54 PM
You need a photo ID to buy booze, get on an airplane, drive a car, return merchandise at any store. So WHY would any democrat have a problem with someone showing ID to vote? I can tell you why.....VOTER fraud is now Obama is counting on getting reelected. As for Shelley Adler.....She doesn't matter....It will be a cold day in hell before she ever get's elected to office....GO JON RUNYUN>>>>>
wheres murrow? July 13, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Voter ID is just a suppression tactic used by repubs to try to keep people from voting. It is an imaginary solution for a problem that does not exist.
Donna Griffin July 13, 2012 at 10:36 PM
abtr - Your Mom cannot apply for Medicaid benefits without these points of identification. Additionally, PAAD has identification requirements as well. A county ID can be obtained at the mall....and Homeland Security (for a fee) will send you copies of all documents held by them (on a disk).
Donna Griffin July 13, 2012 at 10:37 PM
where's murrow? I guess that going to the doctors' office is also one of those "suppression tactics" because I've never received care without a photo ID or insurance card.
wheres murrow? July 13, 2012 at 11:18 PM
going to the doctor? boarding planes? i wouldn't compare those to a person's right to vote.
So Much to Say July 13, 2012 at 11:19 PM
@wheres murrow? Minorities have no problem producing an ID to buy booze. So I guess all the corpses that voted in all the elections is OK in your book as long as your criminal prez gets elected. Obviously so!!!
wheres murrow? July 13, 2012 at 11:26 PM
And we have a winner, just a little paranoid and racist? At least you proved my point, it is about denying younger, poorer, more mobile, non-white americans from voting.
Donna Griffin July 14, 2012 at 12:11 AM
where's murrow? Clearly, you're joking. If you are unable to negotiate the difficult and intellectually challenging task of applying for an I.D., then perhaps you ought not be voting. It is truly not rocket science and quite honestly, why would you not argue that your doctor is using "suppression tactics" when you have to show him your insurance card. Your logic is weak. Might I suggest you change the channel?
Donna Griffin July 14, 2012 at 12:13 AM
And let's not forget our deceased citizens who may be disenfranchised.
wheres murrow? July 14, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Griffin ... The dead voter paranoia. Seen any black helicopters lately? If you are unable to negotiate the difficult and intellectually challenging task of research or information vetting maybe you should just let the grown ups talk.
a b t r July 14, 2012 at 12:52 AM
donnagriffin, i did not say medicaid i said medicare. and medicare does not ask for birth cert. neither does PAAD as she did receive that benefit. Maybe because she was in her 80's and was on medicare since 65 she was just grandfathered along...as I said catch 22.
Donna Griffin July 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM
abtr - A birth certificate is something which can be located simply by knowing your mother's city of birth. If she was born in a foreign country, Homeland Security can supply you with a copy of her immigration documentation. I'm sorry for your loss, however, I have a sense that you sound like the type of person who would have been kind in assisting her in this task. I'm fairly certain as well that senior centers and the VFW would aid those seniors wishing to exercise their votes in acquiring the appropriate documentation. Voting is a privilege and may require some effort, but clearly no more effort than acquiring the proper ID to buy a 6-pack of beer or to board a plane. My hunch is though that those strongly opposed to voter ID requirements are not all that concerned about our senior population voting. Their intentions are far more dubious based upon the comments of where's murrow. In fact, the Seattle Times reported last week that voter registration forms were issued to dogs and deceased citizens....even deceased dogs. Without a doubt, the system needs some help.
RPtoTR July 14, 2012 at 03:35 PM
The truth is there is no documented voter fraud problem in NJ or any where else, it is a fabricated issue. There are however, many many documented cases of voter suppression and voter intimidation in our great land. We should be looking for ways to increase voter turn out, not make it more difficult. Other than the 2008 election, percentage of eligible voters actually making it to the polls has dropped in almost every election. If our politicians made the same effforts to encourage participation in our democracy as they do limiting our rights and freedoms perhaps this entire conversation would be moot.
Donna Griffin July 14, 2012 at 04:17 PM
RP....In 2010, Washington, DC removed nearly 98,000 confirmed dead from election rolls. Nearly 2.8 Americans have more than one registration from 2 or more different addresses. The FEC reports that nearly 12 million records contain incorrect address information entirely. South Carolina reports that at least 900 votes have been cast in recent elections by deceased individuals. NO state requires proof of citizenship to vote! Please show me an election system that is more ripe for exploitation. Even in Mexico, in order to cast a ballot one must provide a photo ID, signature and thumbprint. Increasing voter turnout is more a matter of increasing participation in good citizenship. It has ZERO to do with providing identification at the polls. I'm all for LEGITIMATELY cast ballots by as many American citizens as possible. To promote complacency in the process is surely not what defines our great nation. I almost get a sense that those opposed to voter ID requirements find the general American populace to be too stupid to conform to the guidelines and the law. Talk about the dumbing down of a nation!
wheres murrow? July 14, 2012 at 05:42 PM
@RP.. well said. This is a non existent issue. One need only listen to the Pa. majority leaders comments to understand the motivation behind it. Unfortunately the truth has been drowned in misinformation and outright lies.
Martin July 14, 2012 at 06:17 PM
Less than 1/10th of 1% of all votes were fraudulent, so why are Repubs. demanding photo IDs for 100% of all voters? Because they want to disenfranchise working people, senior citizens and others who might have to go out of their way to exercise their right to vote and might vote against the Repub. candidates. This isn't a voter fraud problem, it's a fairness problem -- just like the Repubs' tax breaks for the 1% (millionaires, oil companies, hedge-fund brokers, etc.) at the expense of the 99% (the rest of us).
wheres murrow? July 14, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Poisoning the election process with money and influence is not enough--Republicans are waging a war on voting through voter roll purges, hyping negligible threats of voter fraud and pushing voter ID laws in over two dozen states--all of which disproportionately impact Democratic leaning voters: low-income citizens, college students, women, the elderly and people of color. "While it's the money they flaunt, it's the people they fear
Martin July 14, 2012 at 06:28 PM
The Koch Bros. and other arch-conservative millionaires (and their secret political PACs) are behind the anti-voting scheme. It's blatantly anti-American.
Donna Griffin July 14, 2012 at 07:19 PM
Martin....Continue following the ideology of George Soros. The only voter suppression tactics in recent years were those demonstrated by the Black Panther Party at election sites in Philadelphia. Where is a competent attorney general when you need one? Oh....that's right....responding to contempt charges!
wheres murrow? July 25, 2012 at 01:10 AM
A non existent issue http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ApplewhiteStipulation.pdf In a stipulation agreement signed earlier this month, state officials conceded that they had no evidence of prior in-person voter fraud, or even any reason to believe that such crimes would occur with more frequency if a voter ID law wasn't in effect. "There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” the statement reads. According to the agreement, the state “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” nor will it "offer argument or evidence that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of the Photo ID law
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress August 18, 2012 at 12:15 AM
If you are already registered to vote, and you do not have a photo id to present at the polling place, what stops you from submitting a mail-in ballot? I have hundreds of mail-in applications for Ocean and Burlington County available - we will be travelling to the towns in this district to provide voter registration and absentee ballot opportunities in the weeks leading up to the election. I do not agree, however, that an ID requirement at the polls disenfranchises anyone in these modern times. ID is readily available if you have non-photo id to prove who you are. I and my fellow candidates are independents, running as "Democratic-Republicans" - the historic party of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and JQ Adams. We believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution - the WHOLE Constitution, including "Article the First" of the "Articles of Amendment" (The "Bill of Rights"), which was thought to have failed ratification until last Fall, when the ratification votes of Connecticut and Kentucky "turned up" in our research. With 80% of the then Fifteen States assenting, Article the First has been the law of the land since 1792. A lawsuit is pending in the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals - "LaVergne v Bryson, et al", Docket # 12-1171, compelling recognition of the historical fact of the ratification, AND the interpretation under the Constitutional Law-making process and the application of this Amendment to the present decennial apportionment. - Frederick John LaVergne
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress August 18, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Oral Arguments are Scheduled for 09/14/2012. In Ocean County, your Democratic-Republican Candidates for Freeholder are Tracy M. Caprioni and Scott Neuman. For Congress, in the Fourth District, we have Len Marshall, formerly of the New Jersey Conservative Party. In the Third District, I am the Candidate for the House of Representatives. We will be "bracketed" together on the ballot...in spite of our First Amendment Right to use the slogan "Democratic-Republican" - which IS our political philosophy, and which, as a party, predates the modern Democratic Party (the "Jacksonian Democrats") by nearly 30 years, and the modern "Republican" party by over 60 years. We have been blocked from using this historic name for our political affiliation in violation of our First Amendment Rights - this will have been remedied before the election...the initial denial was purely political and will not stand up to scrutiny even in the lowest court. http://www.facebook.com/FrederickJohnLaVergneForCongress?ref=hl
Lakeland63 September 08, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Everyone of age and residence has the right to vote. What is being suppressed is voting, two, three or four times under different names at different polls.
Frederick John LaVergne for Congress September 08, 2012 at 05:29 PM
If you want to see where voters were counted more than once, look no further than the Primary Election in June. If I told you that, by going in and pulling a lever for President, Vice President, Senator, Congressman, Freeholder x 2, Sheriff, Mayor, Councilperson...heck, the only one left out appears to be "dog-catcher"...that, for the purposes of determining "major party" status, the two major parties have, for YEARS, counted each of those lever-pulls as an individual ballot, because each has often failed to meet the mandatory standard of 10% of the total ballots cast in the prior NJ Assembly Election...without which, they do not enjoy a State-funded primary (that's right, you pay for it), a secure "Ballot Line" or "Bracket", and other preferential treatments? This last June, using the Constitutional interpretation of the law, the Democrats squeaked by because of the hotly contested race in NJ won by Bill Pascrell, but the anemic turnout of primary voters for the Republican Party, counted as individual voters, fell over 50,000 short of the required >267,000 votes necessary to retain Major Party status (and benefits). Meanwhile, we DO bracket...we being "Democratic-Republican" candidates in your community. The necessary litigation has been filed to compel the Board of Elections to follow the law as written, and to place our bracket appropriately on the left side of the ballot, with only other Democratic-Republican Candidates. Too bad we have to sue to be treated fairly.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something