Comment by WaitWaitWha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by WaitWaitWha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

California also has a requirement that ID for any traffic violation, including non-vehicular ones must be shown. Which makes ID ownership and carrying one at all the time a de facto requirement in CA.

With the REAL ID Act of 2005, most of the State ID cards (not just driver's licenses) are REAL ID-compliant, meaning they can be used for any state and Federal identification.

Some fees:

New York: $9.00 - $13.00 (varies based on age and duration of the card). For individuals under 62, the standard fee is $13.00 for an 8-year ID. Those 62 or older with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) can get it for $6.50.

Texas: $16.00. The ID card is valid for six years. Reduced fees are available for individuals aged 60 or older and those who are disables.

Florida: $25.00. This is the standard fee for a Florida ID card. The card is valid for eight years. The state offers free ID cards to individuals who are homeless or are 100% disabled vets

California: $38.00. The fee for a regular ID card in California is $38.00. However, the state offers free ID cards to low-income individuals, seniors, and those who are homeless under specific programs

The costs for the ID themselves isn't the only difficulty.

For example, someone who is homeless, either newly or chronically. The event that leads to homelessness often coincides with losing most of their possessions. It isn't uncommon for people to lose identifying documents, such as birth certificates, social security cards, etc.

If they made it into homelessness without losing those items, they're still a stone's throw away from losing them. Theft, vandalism, or even encampment cleanouts can leave someone with nothing.

So now instead of it being the cost for the id, it's the cost for the ID, for the copy of the birth certificate, social security card, etc. To get these things often requires a maze of bureaucracy, and very often a stable address.

Now there are services that will provide an address and assist, but one wrong move can throw that out the window. At the end of the day, there's many moving parts and you need to get them all to align at once to be issued an ID.

The ID requirement can easily be considered an anti-voter policy.

I don't want to be that guy, but... Is someone who lives on the street really the best person to ask about who should be running the country? Where exactly do you consider a person like that to be a resident, given that they don't have a residence? With no ID, can't they vote in many different areas, or are you going to fingerprint them to ensure that they don't vote again and again?

Given that an ID has no monetary value, I think it would be relatively easy for a homeless person to hang on to it. They ought to carry it at all times separate from the rest of their stuff, because it's so essential. Then once they get fingerprinted and register in a central database, they can pick a location to reside and vote there in person.

I'm not trying to say that the problems you've mentioned are completely insignificant, but they are relatively rare problems that affect a tiny percentage of the population. Those problems also affect people who live out of vans and travel all around the country. We have much bigger issues than these to worry about.

> Is someone who lives on the street really the best person to ask about who should be running the country?

What? Are you saying the person who has least benefited from the current system should also have the least say in how the country is ran?

>What? Are you saying the person who has least benefited from the current system should also have the least say in how the country is ran?

As much sympathy as I have for the homeless (more than average probably), I'm sticking with that. Just because someone is in a bad position today does not mean that they have benefited the least! Lots of things can make a person homeless, including a deliberate decision to live like that. But let's just say that broadly speaking, and notwithstanding some very awful possibilities of disenfranchisement that are pure fantasy, someone who cannot manage their own life properly should not be telling us how to run ours or how much we owe them out of our pay. The law is the law and this homeless voting issue does not concern me enough to actually fight it. But let's just say I don't care what the homeless think of who should be elected. Before you argue more, just know that I know you don't respect my opinion about how the government should be run either, and neither of us is homeless or a criminal (I assume).

That view of mine is completely aside the point that we need to ensure that only authorized people vote and one person gets one vote. There are lots of people I would rather didn't vote, and whom I would not trust to do anything for me. But that's a separate issue from ensuring the integrity of the election for people we deem fit to vote.

voting is a right. driving is a privilege.

Voting in US elections is for US citizens only.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com