Somebody tweets a question to @AskTSA regarding use of a TWIC card as ID.

The response from @AskTSA is that TWIC cards are not acceptable as ID and gives a link to the list of acceptable IDs, the last one of which is "Transportation worker identification credential"

So much for @AskTSA. :D

But are they still checking ID's at all?
 

Last week we flew out of PHL and this week we flew out of TPA. At neither airport were we asked for ID at the check-in counter or by the TSA. In Tampa I had my passport out from habit and offered it to the check-in agent. She said she didn't needed it, just needed my reservation number. Same with the TSA ticket checker: "Put that away, we don't need to see ID."

So if they're no longer even looking at your ID, what does it matter what kind you have?

Except that:
(a) the number of incidents of in-person voter fraud in the US is vanishingly small (at most a few dozen votes total in the last 15 years, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-ballots-cast/), so the "problem" that requiring ID to vote is claimed to resolve is essentially non-existent.
(b) there are a sizable number of people who are entirely eligible to vote who don't have government-issued photo ID, and for whom it would be a hardship to get one, making requiring ID a real impediment to their ability to exercise the right to vote
(c) the people in (b) just happen to tend to very heavily vote for one party, while the people advocating for voter ID laws (even though there's no problem to be "solved") just happen to overwhelming be officeholders who belong to the other party. Purely coincidental.

When people are added to the voter rolls just by getting a driver's license the opportunity for non-citizens to illegally vote grows.

I, for one, do not understand how showing any kind of ID or license to TSA improves the security posture one iota. However, I think to cast a vote in any election, local or national, a persons identity and right to vote should be determined.

Given the legal punishment for willful illegal voting is rather substantial, who in their right mind is going to try to vote when not entitled to vote when the chances of one's unlawful vote clearly changing the election outcome is so very slim?

Given the legal punishment for passenger's willful use of fake "souvenir" ID (or false representation of identity) with the TSA is _____ while the benefit of getting away with such false representation is a clear benefit of flying, I would expect more willful ID shenanigans with the TSA than with elections for national office.

And I don't think we in the US should be asked for ID in either circumstances. The government should get out of the game of airport passenger ID checks and get out of the voter ID checks except where there is a prosecutable offense and suspect who should be prosecuted and convicted for voter fraud.

Except that, as I cited above, the number of credible reports (not even confirmed, or leading to convictions) of fraudulent in-person voting is something on the order of 30 votes over 15 years. It's essentially zero. The push for a voter ID requirement is a completely transparent effort by Republicans to keep people who tend to vote Democratic from the polls.

^^

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-ballots-cast/

I question your data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...mber-election/

Tell me, what is wrong in determining the identity of a person before they are allowed to vote? Who among us does not have some form of ID? Even those who don't drive can obtain a state ID card, free of charge in most cases, and anyone getting benefits from the state must have an ID in order to obtain those benefits. AS far as I am concerned the only reason to oppose having ID to vote is in order to allow non-citizens the ability to vote which does clearly benefit Democrats.

Lots of people. Particularly elderly people (who don't drive) and minorities.

So long as you can produce a birth certificate and social security card, can get to the DMV (not so easy if you're elderly and in a rural area), can wait there, etc. etc.

You really should have read the entire article you cited.

"We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted."

These non-citizens voted because they were on the voter rolls and registered, not because they were fraudulently pretending to be someone they're not in order to vote. Requiring ID at the polling place wouldn't have done anything to stop that.

I wonder if these elderly and minority people don't draw SSA or other government benefits and if they do just how they accomplished this feat without having ID?

If progressive states like California (and others) stopped putting people on the voter rolls just because they get a license to operate a motor vehicle then having ID to vote would be more effective.

But less get back to your claim that non-citizen voting isn't happening to any degree that should concern anyone. I disagree. Even one vote from a non-citizen should be concerning to everyone who believes in the rule of law.

Of course if you are a Democrat and getting your candidate into office is the overriding goal then I can understand not wanting to have clean elections.

I had trouble getting US-state and US-federal-government issued ID. And that was despite having had a long history of having US passports -- literally since the year of my birth. And that was despite having had my IDs and background repeatedly checked out as part of my roles in the federal government. And that was despite having all my expired driving licenses covering me for decades with little to no interruption. I'm not going to go into more details about that, but it took me many, many weeks and way more than $30 to get acceptable ID. It was nearly possible that I would have missed my legitimate voting opportunity due to some asinine bureaucratic rule changes probably done in the name of "security" of some sort.

I'm more concerned about a US citizen like myself being deprived (by my government)!of a chance to vote and to fly due to ID than I am of a non-US person committing a violation of law that is punishable by my government. I find there to be no good reason why a law-abiding individual like myself should be made to lose my rights due to criminals. It makes no sense to punish non-criminals for criminal acts.

From the link I posted above:

Just some quick thoughts:

Federal ID card. Tied to your Social Security Number. Do away with the patchwork of 50 different state ID's/DL's.

Then you can have endorsements on it such as Drivers license, any hunting/firearm licenses/permits, residency/citizenship status. Make it mandatory just like the ACA and everyone will have to comply.

Millions can vote in multiple states
 

Yes, well, the logical fallacy in your argument is that you are citing the very low reported incidence of one specific type of voter fraud (in-person impersonation) and applying it to ALL types of in-person voter fraud.

As Boggie Dog points out with the WPssst article (I also would have quoted it had someone else not done so) there are a whole host of other types of in-person voter fraud as well as "non-in-person" voter fraud.

Here is just one particularly pernicious type of fraud: http://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-s...-abc7-reporter

Note that the data for this story is in many ways MUCH more reliable than the data of the study you referenced, plus it shows that elections in multiple states very easily COULD have been impacted (although we wont ever know because it is near impossible to determine).

So the potential exists; the ability for voter fraud to affect results is real; and voter fraud is proven to occur as documented by convictions of voter fraud (even by the study you referenced) and even as it has not been shown to significantly impact results.

A national voter ID system, possibly similar to what Mexico uses that I mentioned above, would go a long way to reducing many of the weaknesses in our current hodgepodge of 50+ voter systems. And no, as GUW pointed out, national voter ID would not prevent all types of fraud, nor even 100% of many types of the frauds it could be designed to specifically prevent (if someone really wants to subvert a system, any system, then they will find a way).

Now, surely the US has the ability (will is an entirely other subject) to do at least as well as Mexico in implementing a voter ID system. And if we can do that for voting surely we have the ability (if not will) to come up with a system for a national ID document that would be acceptable for travel.

While I understand why a common carrier (or any other company for that matter) might require identification from its customers to receive its services, what is not answered by this is why the government "requires" an identity document (even as it actually does not) for domestic travel at all? Indeed, since millions of domestic passengers (minors) fly without identity documents - many without undergoing additional security screening - why is ID required of any of us? Methinks (me knows) it is to allow us to better keep tabs on people without any cause - and that is decidedly un-American.

You really hate the federalist system set up by the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution? I'm asking because our constitutional system was set up with the constituent states of the USA having their own powers too.