Poll tax in Georgia

Georgia's New Poll Tax

Published: September 12, 2005

In 1966, the Supreme Court held that the poll tax was unconstitutional. Nearly 40 years later, Georgia is still charging people to vote, this time with a new voter ID law that requires many people without driver's licenses - a group that is disproportionately poor, black and elderly - to pay $20 or more for a state ID card. Georgia went ahead with this even though there is not a single place in the entire city of Atlanta where the cards are sold. The law is a national disgrace.

Until recently, Georgia, like most states, accepted many forms of identification at the polls. But starting this month, it is accepting only government-issued photo ID's. People with driver's licenses are fine. But many people without them have to buy a state ID card to vote, at a cost of $20 for a five-year card or $35 for 10 years. The cards are sold in 58 locations, in a state with 159 counties. It is outrageous that Atlanta does not have a single location. (The state says it plans to open one soon.) But the burden is also great on people in rural parts of the state.

The Republicans who pushed the law through, and Gov. Sonny Perdue, also a Republican, who signed it, say that it is intended to prevent fraud. But it seems clear that it is about keeping certain people away from the polls, for political advantage. The vast majority of fraud complaints in Georgia, according to its secretary of state, Cathy Cox, involve absentee ballots, which are unaffected by the new law. Ms. Cox says she is unaware of a single documented case in recent years of fraud through impersonation of a voter at the polls.

Citizens who swear they are indigent are exempt from the fee. But since the law does not define who is indigent, many people may be reluctant to swear and risk a criminal penalty. More important, the 24th Amendment, which outlawed poll taxes in federal elections, and the Supreme Court's decision striking down state poll taxes applied to all Americans, not just to the indigent. A Georgian who votes only in presidential elections, and buys a five-year card to do so, would be paying $10 per election. That is no doubt more than many people on fixed incomes, who struggle to get by but are not legally indigent, are willing to pay to vote.

If Georgia's law remains in place, other states are likely to follow. There is also growing concern among voting-rights advocates that a self-appointed election reform commission, led by James Baker, the former secretary of state who played a troubling role in the disputed 2000 election, and former President Jimmy Carter, may be about to propose national voter ID standards that would similarly make it harder for poor people and blacks to vote.

The American Civil Liberties Union is planning to challenge Georgia's law. It will have several strong legal claims, starting with the 24th Amendment. The Supreme Court said in 1966, in striking down the poll tax, that "the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened." It still is.

____________

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/opinion/12mon1.html

This isn't something that I think will even last that long, once it reaches the Supreme Court, but I do think that in this day and age, that this is insulting that this was actually even put into place, something that was even stated in the first sentence of the article, we already said was illegal, 39 years ago.

"Whaaaaat?"

Now all they need to do is reinstate the Literacy Test and we'll be right back to where we started...YEEE-HAWWW!

now, before everyones panties get in a bunch, the TIMES, casually left out the fact that for "the poor" folks, the 20$ will be waived.

now with this new knowledge, debate away.

I have one of those state ID cards, they cost less than $8.00 here though. You'd figure everybody would have a drivers license or one of those by now anyway, because you always gotta get that smart ass clerk at the quik-e-mart down the street that won't sell you cigarettes without an ID when you're 26 years old and it's 3 in the morning and you're drunk as hell.

"I spit on you," I say to the clerk when that happens...then, as I weave out the door, I bang into it, do a 180, then barf all over the glass.

In all seriousness, I never thought about it that way...the state charges you for something you have to have to get into any federal building, in my case. Or, vote in Georgia.

Now ID is $21 in Gucci-ass California. My first one I got in 1989 cost $5. It's only good for five years, too. My ex had a license from Arizona, and that shit was good for FORTY YEARS! I wonder what brain surgeon thought that up. It's good for my thrifty purposes, but, dude, what about the photo?

Originally posted by angelofdeath+Sep 13 2005, 09:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (angelofdeath - Sep 13 2005, 09:02 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>now, before everyones panties get in a bunch, the TIMES, casually left out the fact that for "the poor" folks, the 20$ will be waived.

[/b]

really?

<!--QuoteBegin-ILOTSMYBRAIN@Sep 13 2005, 06:28 PM

Citizens who swear they are indigent are exempt from the fee. But since the law does not define who is indigent, many people may be reluctant to swear and risk a criminal penalty.

so it's now easier to vote in iraq than in georgia.

they should tax people who won't vote instead.

hmmm. i was always under the impression that you needed 'legal' ID in order to vote. common sense told me that meant a license, a passport, or a state ID. if i was to lose my license (as in have it taken away, not misplace it in the couch), i would just automatically go and get a state ID so i could get into bars without being hassled or rent videos at blockbuster. apparently some folks live in a world were legal ID is not important. in either case, i dont know...i really don't see this as being a 'poll tax', since you need a legal ID for far more than just voting. infact, i believe it's illegal in many places to NOT have legal ID on you, so in that case, you're kind of damned if you do or you don't.

regardless, republicans are completely bullshit and should be slaughtered en mass. the end.

no, i don't think it is against the law to not have ID on you

..although the police can lock you up if you don't have one,

they cannot press a charge on you just for not having it.

a voter needs a voter registration card (free) in my state

this is how it has been for as long as i have been voting (ten years)

i understand the ridiculousness of not having legal ID

but some people in georgia don't want to pay $20

or they don't have transportation to go get it.

...."Until recently, Georgia, like most states, accepted many forms of identification at the polls. But starting this month, it is accepting only government-issued photo ID's. The cards are sold in 58 locations, in a state with 159 counties. It is outrageous that Atlanta does not have a single location. (The state says it plans to open one soon.) But the burden is also great on people in rural parts of the state."

we have voter registration cards also, which are free, but to get one i think you need valid ID. maybe not though.

and it might not be all states, but i know some states still have 'vagrancy' laws on the books, which means if you don't have legal ID and $4, you can be arrested for vagrancy. obviously it's a pretty old law, but whatever.

regardless, this is bullshit. no one is fixing an election by having people vote twice. you couldn't possibly get enough people to physically (fraudulently) vote to swing an election. i dont much care for the direction our world seems to be headed. i'd like a do-over.

funny you would say that, because both florida and georgia had serious vote fraud problems last election that included: people voting with a different name than they had (stealing people's votes),and dead people casting ballots.

yeah, i remember hearing about that, but was the belief that people actually voted more than once, or that someone had a list of names and ran through a shit load of votes under those names? i can see that easily, what i can't see is 10,000 people all driving to the polls, voting for themself, then driving to another poll and voting for someone else. people are lazy, and why go through all that hassle, when you can just rig the machines, or fradulently vote by absentee ballot?

Originally posted by seeking@Sep 27 2005, 07:55 AM

hmmm. i was always under the impression that you needed 'legal' ID in order to vote. common sense told me that meant a license, a passport, or a state ID. if i was to lose my license (as in have it taken away, not misplace it in the couch), i would just automatically go and get a state ID so i could get into bars without being hassled or rent videos at blockbuster. apparently some folks live in a world were legal ID is not important. in either case, i dont know...i really don't see this as being a 'poll tax', since you need a legal ID for far more than just voting. infact, i believe it's illegal in many places to NOT have legal ID on you, so in that case, you're kind of damned if you do or you don't.

 

regardless, republicans are completely bullshit and should be slaughtered en mass. the end.

Quoted post

I agree with your sentiment and this is how I see it overall. However a few points to think about:

1) If people indeed do not have ID that qualifies at the poll but otherwise allows them to live there lives <say, a subsidized living type of card for welfare or something> they may not think to or even know about this law - likewise older folks who may have expired cards but don't buy alchohol or need one becuase they are 85 rarely leave there homes. Not that all poor or disenfranchised people don't read the news, but I'd venture to guess fewer do and thus may not know until its too late. If you drive an SUV and are a member at the local gym you already have and ID nah' mean?

2) While this is an attempt to normalize election procdure and reduce the liklihood not neccesarily of the wrong people voting, but of the right people being turned away for the wrong reason, I see too much not being addressed. We need to remove the control of election from political party members who have been elected and need to remove any privatization of process or production for voting machine and oversight. Federal judges should control all aspects of the voting procedures, there must be a paper trail to voting machines, and voting machines and boothes should be distributed based on percentage <IE: 1 machine for every 100 people within a distrcit>. Any questionable activity regarding these rules or violation of such rules would fall under a blanket law such as "election tampering" and automatically be sent for review by grand jury...

...these are based purely on my own perception and ideas but I think they make sense...