89 thoughts on “It Begins”

  1. Meanwhile, the GOP is working to suppress the vote in OH, FL, VA, NC, etc.

    It’s what they do.

    Looking forward, how can we make elections fairer from distortion by either party? We could pass a constitutional amendment establishing a right to vote. We could welcome impartial international election monitors, like every other country. We could move election day to a weekend. We could have national standards for voting machines, polling place regulations, etc., and vigorous federal enforcement.

    It would help if, to start with, both parties committed themselves to the idea that our country is best served when every eligible voter votes — and then to figure out what changes would move us closer to that ideal.

    1. I agree that we should guarantee that “every eligible voter votes”. And we should do this by requiring all prospective voters to show either a valid U.S. passport, a naturalization certificate, or an original, long-form birth certificate from a U.S. state or territory in order to vote. We should also create a law making it a felony crime to attempt to vote without such documentation.

      Better still, we should limit the franchise to those persons specified in the original, unamended Constitution.

      Not quite what you had in mind, is it, Comrade Jim?

      1. How does adding a requirement, which not all eligible voters can satisfy, make it more likely that everyone will vote?

        2. What requirement is that?

          And how exactly does a person function in this society without a whole host of valid IDs and ID numbers?

          Last month when I went to get a subsidized RTD trolley pass, they required a picture ID (and to walk through a metal detector) before they’d even let me into the building to take the picture for yet another ID I have to flash on demand.

          1. And how exactly does a person function in this society without a whole host of valid IDs and ID numbers?

            You may have trouble imagining it, but 10% of eligible voters do not have current, valid ID that meets the requirements of these laws. Instituting voter ID requirements makes it harder or impossible for those people to exercise their legal right to vote.

            It should be noted that voter ID laws are pickier than the places we use ID every day. When you got your trolley pass (or ordered a beer, or boarded a plane, etc.) they didn’t require that the name and address and gender on your ID match the name and address and gender on a master list, they probably didn’t even check the expiration date. They’d probably accept a student ID, or work ID, or other form of identification that won’t pass muster at the polls.

            There was a time when conservatives, libertarians and Republicans were the ones most likely to push back against the idea that every citizen be required to carry government-issued proof of their citizenship. But today’s GOP is terrified by the demographic trends, so now it wants you to show your papers.

          2. “You may have trouble imagining it, but 10% of eligible voters do not have current, valid ID that meets the requirements of these laws. Instituting voter ID requirements makes it harder or impossible for those people to exercise their legal right to vote.”

            Too damn bad for them, Jim. I’ve researched the law in several states, and it usually boils down to something on the order of “if you have $15 and one or two items from a laundry list of pseudo-identifying documents like a utility (including phone) bill, you can get a state-issued non-driving-license ID” that’s usually good for 4-10 years. If you can’t scrape together a phone bill, a birth certificate, and $15 every 4 years, frankly you don’t deserve to vote.

            And what Rand had in mind is probably closer to that than whatever deranged thing you think he meant, which is probably “Rand doesn’t want brown people to vote.”

          4. If you can’t scrape together a phone bill, a birth certificate, and $15 every 4 years, frankly you don’t deserve to vote.

            That’s what it comes down to: you don’t think those people deserve to vote, so you make a law to keep them from voting. But they are US citizens, and deserve to vote as much as you or any other citizen.

          5. If you can’t scrape together a phone bill, a birth certificate, and $15 every 4 years, frankly you don’t deserve to vote.

            That’s what it comes down to: you don’t think those people deserve to vote, so you make a law to keep them from voting. But they are US citizens, and deserve to vote as much as you or any other citizen.

            Jim, if they’re so little invested in civics they can’t spend the equivalent of roughly 2.25 hours in minimum wages’ worth of take-home pay and find their cell phone or electric bill, then no, I don’t think we as a nation lose much by losing their vote. And I’ve got next to no sympathy for “I can’t get to registration” complaints, either. Any half-decent church will have registration drives; my wife registered through our church.

            Up above, Jim Cramer’s father supposedly can’t vote because he doesn’t have a driver’s license. What state does he live in, that Jim apparently asserts doesn’t have a state-supplied ID? Is Jim claiming that that state doesn’t allow a DD-214 as an identity-supplying document? Seems unlikely to me. Was this guy baptized? Is the church still around? Historically, you could get a birth certificate after the fact on the word of a priest/minister; has Jim verified that’s no longer the case in the jurisdiction in question?

            Bear in mind Jim Cramer’s also the guy who claims Obama’s going to win with 400 EVs, so he’s a little…less than credible on electoral issues.

          6. 10% of eligible voters do not have current, valid ID

            Which is a good indication that they don’t have the mental capacity to see through demagoguery. Mental children should not be voting or giving their vote to those that would abuse them.

        3. “How does adding a requirement, which not all eligible voters can satisfy, ”

          Shenanigans!

          Do you actually believe this or is this just so you can argue with people on the internet?

          1. Do we really want people too stupid and/or lazy to get valid ID voting? I don’t drive, so I needed to get a non-driver ID from the state Department of Motor Vehicles, and although dealing with government bureaucracis are usually crazy-making, this was astonishingly easy and pain-free.

          2. Bilwick1,

            Nice to know you think the WWII generation that fought for your freedom is stupid and lazy.

          3. You don’t have to be stupid or lazy to not have a driver’s license, or not have easy transportation to a DMV, or not have the money to pay to get the documents that the DMV will require to get a non-driver’s id. I’m glad that the experience was easy for you, but other’s mileage may vary. Since when did conservatives or libertarians believe that the only good citizens are the ones who will jump through a set of arbitrary bureaucratic hoops?

          4. or not have the money to pay to get the documents that the DMV will require to get a non-driver’s id.

            $5 for a birth certificate in Massachussetts, Jim, and it’s a one-time expense. A pack of cigs costs more, Jim. Most states require more than one form of ID, but also include things like utility bills–which include cell phones–on that list. These are nonsense, bullsh*t “arguments.” BTW, Georgia, to pick a state more or less at random, offers voting IDs for free to certain individuals, and for those who don’t qualify, there are different terms, but it comes down to $4/year for the ID ($20/5y or $32/8y). South Carolina charges $5; I couldn’t find the term with a quick search. Note their website calls their list of identifying documents “lengthy.” Massachusetts has a lengthy list of documents too, and charges $25/5 years. CA? 6 years, 10 for seniors, and they have reduced-fee cards for some people. Oh, and seniors don’t pay, either, and anyone who gives up their drivers’ license for an ID doesn’t pay. Money, I baldly assert, is not a consideration at these amounts. Identifying documentation, I further maintain, is barely one.

            And before you continue to whine about the entire subject, tell me, how do these poor people who’re being disenfranchised do anything ELSE that requires ID, huh?

          5. how do these poor people who’re being disenfranchised do anything ELSE that requires ID, huh?

            There are lots of people who don’t need to do any of the things that require the kind of ID being required to vote. They’re still citizens, and should still be able to vote.

          6. Jim,

            Yes, its funny how so called Libertarians claim to be for small government and freedom while demanding that everyone have a government ID, which has always been the very symbol of Big Government and a police state.

            I guess “Your Papers Please” is coming to a check point near you 🙂

            Next thing you know they will be demanding everyone gets an ID chip put into their arm since papers are possible to fake if you really want to.

    2. In other news, the TSA is waging an all-out effort to suppress air travel, at the same time AMTRAK mounts a similar effort to suppress train travel…because, uh…ya see, you have to, you know, ah, present PHOTO F***ING ID to board a plane or a train.

      Sheesh, what a tool…

    3. About having elections on weekends instead of Tuesday: my understanding is that the elections are not on weekends to avoid religious conflicts with the Sabbath.

      I think the solution to that one is simple: Election day should remain on Tuesday, but national elections should be national holidays.

      1. Time isn’t a limiting factor for voter turn out. How many states don’t have early voting or mail in ballots?

        1. How many people stand in line for hours to vote in person? I’d say early voting/voting-by-mail isn’t a sufficient solution – not yet, anyway. I think those lines would decrease if more people had more times on Tuesday when they were able to vote and not miss work.

          1. In MI a Republican poll watcher was threatened with a gun and Republican poll watchers have been ejected by Democrats all over PA.

            And why would people be upset at the NBP party outside of the polls considering last time they had weapons. Oh, here is the NBP in Ohio, https://twitter.com/katieb_williams/statuses/265653862428450817?tw_i=265653862428450817&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed

            Then there are all the photos of poll workers wearing Obama clothes and giant Obama murals at polling places.

            It would be nice if Democrats and the people they vote for were half as outraged at the corruption in the Democrat party as they were about GM crops or pure bread dogs.

          2. Republican poll watchers have been ejected by Democrats all over PA

            And Democrats have been told that they have to have ID, or that the election isn’t until tomorrow. One place printed up Spanish voting information with the wrong election date.

            There’s lots of stupid and illegal behavior to go around, on both sides. And both parties have lots of lawyers, so you can be sure that the egregious cases are being taken to the courts. If you see something illegal happening, report it.

    4. Jim, per your link,

      “Nov. 5 — VIRGINIA — Mormon issue raised in pro-Obama mailer. Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs are featured in a voter guide being circulated to African-American churchgoers in the Hampton Roads area. The brochure, by a coalition of black pastors in the Norfolk area, compares what it presents as the religious beliefs held by Romney and President Obama.”

      So here we have a confluence of religious bigotry and the theocracy of Obama. I guess separation of church and state doesn’t count when your candidate is a demigod.

      1. That isn’t voter suppression, it’s (bigoted) free speech. I got a mailer telling me that Obama’s mother was a porn model; that isn’t voter suppression, it’s free speech.

        the theocracy of Obama

        LOL.

        1. I’m glad you can admit Democrats are bigots.

          You should check out the Obama campaign video that implies he is a prophet. It would be nice if Democrats held themselves to the same standards of theocracy as they hold others.

          1. Yes, there are Democrats who are bigots. Wouldn’t you agree that there are bigots in the GOP as well?

            campaign video that implies he is a prophet

            The word “imply” is doing a lot of work there. The Obama campaign wants to motivate and inspire supporters. Obama is not setting up a theocracy.

  2. In Jims’ world instituting means to insure that people who vote are actually legally eligible to do so is “voter suppression”.

        1. Not quite. What he means by “legitimate votes” is votes for Democrats.

          Notice that for Democrats the easing of voting restrictions doesn’t include making it easier for overseas soldiers to cast a vote. Quite the contrary, they go to great lengths to make sure those votes never happen.

          1. I’m for every eligible voter voting — Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Independents, soldiers, civilians, everyone.

          3. I’m in favor of felons voting where it’s legal (e.g. here in NH, except for felons convicted of election offenses). I’m in favor of every eligible voter voting. Illegal immigrants aren’t eligible voters.

          4. “I’m in favor of every eligible voter voting. Illegal immigrants aren’t eligible voters.”

            Tell me, Jim, if you can, how does one prevent illegal immigrants and defranchised felons from voting, without an ID requirement? Any answer that relies on the honor system will be mocked.

          5. Tell me, Jim, if you can, how does one prevent illegal immigrants and defranchised felons from voting, without an ID requirement?

            You require proof of citizenship when they register, and drop them from the rolls when they’re disenfranchised.

            And if they still manage to vote, you prosecute them for felony vote fraud, and deport them if they’re here illegally (as is routine for felony convictions).

            You don’t have to create new requirements for law-abiding citizens who have already registered to vote.

          6. Illegal immigrants aren’t eligible voters.

            And how do you determine that without ID? Can you tell that someone is an illegal immigrant just by looking at him? Or by his accent?

            At the time our nation was founded, ID wasn’t necessary because most people knew every member of the community where they voted. That hasn’t been true for a long time.

            By the same token, when our nation was founded, it was possible to be a functioning member of society without any ID. For better or worse, that is not longer the case. So, having ID is hardly an onerous requirement.

            Leaving the question of fraud you aside, if someone was born in Cuba or Mexico or Vietnam, you would require him to pass a host of hurdles, including a test of basic civics, in order to vote?

            But if someone was born in New York or Wyoming or Vermont, all you would require is that he walk into a polling place? As many times as he chooses?

    2. It’s a bizarre situation when you need to provide a valid ID to buy Sudafed but not to vote. It’s even more bizarre that people believe that’s how things should be.

      Do you want to travel by air? Gotta show an ID.
      Do you want to visit the Justice Department? Gotta show an ID.
      Do you want to apply for welfare benefits? Gotta show an ID.
      Do you want to visit a health care provider? Many require an ID.

      The list goes on and on. Yet to require an ID to vote is somehow wrong according to liberals.

      1. It’s a bizarre situation when you need to provide a valid ID to buy Sudafed but not to vote.

        Why should voting be like buying Sudafed? Is buying Sudafed vital to democracy?

        Do you want to travel by air?

        Then you’ve got to go through a body scanner. Should we therefore require scanners at polling places?

        Gotta show an ID.

        Those ID requirements are there to address specific problems. Voter ID requirements do not solve any known problem, and they discourage or prevent voting by eligible voters, weakening democracy.

        1. Hi Jim,

          This is a peculiar set of issues, and I don’t have any grand solution, but I can share a story: I have an old friend who leveraged his volunteer work at polling places here in Chicago to become an OSCE election monitor. He gets sent to various places in the ex-USSR and Eastern Europe, and judges their elections in terms of fairness,etc. ( He just got back from Ukraine, where the OSCE slammed the process as being one sided. Prior to that, he was in Azerbaijan, where he dismissed the elections as hopelessly unfair.)

          Anyway, my friend agrees with all of the points you’re making: any effort at voter suppression, from Republicans or Democrats, makes him furious. (By the way, he is a lifelong Democrat.) So, here’s the punchline: my friend pointed out to me that the OSCE will criticize a country if it doesn’t use tamper-proof national voter ID cards!

          1. I’d be fine with first making sure every eligible voter has a tamper-proof national voter ID card, and then requiring that they be shown at the polls. The GOP wants to skip the first step.

          2. So would I. And this demonstrates that the disagreement between liberals and conservatives isn’t really over voter ID laws, it is over vote suppression.

        2. ” Is buying Sudafed vital to democracy?”

          No, but insuring the legitimacy/legality of the election process is.

          2. Yes, Jim. Just look at any number of cases of Democrats committing voter fraud over the last 12 years.

            And it isn’t just voter impersonation, it is also rampant violations of campaign rules like collecting money from foreigners, campaigning at the polling booth, and voter intimidation.

          3. Wodun,

            You mean like this Republic group that just got banned for altering voter forms?

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/true-the-vote-ohio_n_2082362.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

            True The Vote Barred From Ohio Polling Stations

            Or this Republican election worker getting caught altering ballots?

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/deanna-swenson-oregon-election-worker_n_2082882.html

            Deanna Swenson, Oregon Election Worker, Fired After Allegedly Changing Ballots For GOP

            The Huffington Post | By Daniel Lippman Posted: 11/06/2012 2:57 pm EST

            or this GOP firm involved in massive voter fraud in Florida and potentially other states?

            http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-registration-fraud-gop-backed-firm-spreads/story?id=17370445#.UJmKJIajfRc

            9 Florida Counties Report Faked Voter Registration Forms From GOP-Backed Firm

            Sounds like the Republicans are actually doing everything they accuse the Democrats of doing 🙂

          5. any number of cases of Democrats committing voter fraud over the last 12 years.

            Haven’t there been just as many cases of Republicans?

            And it isn’t just voter impersonation

            The only problem that voter ID can claim to address is voter impersonation, a crime that virtually never happens, much less in the numbers required to threaten the legitimacy of elections.

            Long lines at polling places are a much bigger threat.

          6. Haven’t there been just as many cases of Republicans?

            No, but that has never stopped you from saying so.

            If you believe that’s true, Jim, why aren’t you able to find an equal number of Republicans who argue for making it easier to commit voter fraud?

            The only problem that voter ID can claim to address is voter impersonation, a crime that virtually never happens, much less in the numbers required to threaten the legitimacy of elections.

            You need to read some history, Jim. That’s how John F. Kennedy became President. Unless you believe those dead people really crawled out of their graves to vote for him.

          7. I’m not in favor of this stuff regardless of which party does it and I would like to see measures put in place to insure.the integrity of the vote.

            I wont claim voter fruad doesn’t happen or that because both parties engage in shenanigans that it doesn’t matter.

        3. they discourage or prevent voting by eligible voters, weakening democracy.

          Well, there’s your problem, Jim. The United States is not a democracy. It’s a republic. That word does not mean what you think it means.

          The Founding Fathers deliberately rejected democracy because they recognized it was not a viable form of government, only worked in small city states in places like Greece (and then only for a small fraction of the population), and, if implemented on a large scale, would lead to tyranny of the majority.

          They looked upon a republican form of government as the system most likely to protect the liberties they had won during the Revolution. They did not view voting as an end in itself, as you do, but merely a means to an end. The notion that everyone should vote merely to ensure themselves a fair share of the “goodies” was inherently repugnant to them.

          1. Edward,

            Yes, and its why they created a Electoral College to select the President and Vice-President.

            Rather then going through the motions of it perhaps a movement should arise to restore it by prohibiting President/Vice President candidates from being on state ballots or individuals even declaring for those offices.

            Instead folks would be forced to vote for members to the Electoral College from their state and the members of the Electoral College would both nominate and vote on who will be President/Vice President like when the Republic was founded.

            In short, going back to selecting Presidents and Vice-Presidents that way the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution versus the circus we have now.

          2. The US is a democratic republic, and discouraging voting weakens its democratic basis.

            The founders were averse to democracy, but their preferred alternative — reserving the franchise to white, male, propertied elites — is repugnant to us today. If we don’t want every eligible voter to vote, we should be explicit about what sort of electorate we do want, and why. Just saying that we don’t want democracy isn’t enough, you have to say what you want instead. Is it “government by the people who have a driver’s license”?

            The electoral college was partly about creating a level of indirection between the voters and the presidency, but mostly about giving Southern states a political subsidy for their slave populations (at a rate of 1 slave = 3/5 free person).

          4. If we don’t want every eligible voter to vote, we should be explicit about what sort of electorate we do want, and why.

            I want an informed electorate that understands the issues, understands the underlying principles of our Republic, and cares about the common good rather than simply getting their shares of “goodies.”

            If that’s not explicitly enough for you, so be it.

            Just saying that we don’t want democracy isn’t enough, you have to say what you want instead. Is it “government by the people who have a driver’s license”?

            No, the ability to pass a driver’s license exam says nothing about your ability to cast an informed vote. At a minimum, a native-born voter should have at least as much knowledge as we require for a naturalized citizen.

            Of course, the reason for requiring voter ID today has nothing to do with establishing qualifications. It’s to ensure people only vote once. As I’m sure you’re well aware even if you pretend otherwise.

            So the question for you, Jim, is what qualifies a person to vote *twice*? And how is that consistent with your principles of “democracy”?

          5. I want an informed electorate that understands the issues

            Then propose required civics tests, not voter ID.

            To a rough approximation, government will serve the interests of the people who elect it. A government elected by people with photo ID will serve the interests of people with photo ID. A government elected by people who can pass a test will serve the interests of people who can pass a test (not to mention the people who write the test). I want a government that serves all the people, so I want everyone to vote.

            what qualifies a person to vote *twice*

            Who said people should vote twice?

          6. A government elected by people with photo ID will serve the interests of people with photo ID.

            Oh, yes, the elite, the one percent, the people who can afford photo ID!

            I sometimes wonder why you post a picture that makes you look like Joe Biden on LSD — then I read these posts. 🙂

            I want a government that serves all the people

            Yes, it’s obvious that you view the nanny state as your servant. What else is new?

            You assume the purpose of government is to minimize personal freedom and maximize public expenditures because that’s what you want. The purpose of the Constitution, Jim, was to protect freedom from people like you.

  4. Let the progressives keep playing their tricks and they will get what they claim to want… revolution.

    But you can’t blame them. The fault clearly lies with those that believe in our constitution but do not protect it.

    1. You know Ken, voting is run mostly by citizen volunteers who work under the local County Register’s Office.

      So why don’t you practice what you preach and become a volunteer election clerk? Its only one day and few hours of training every couple years, surely a small price to pay if you truly believe voter fraud is preventing the Constitution from working.

      2. [[[I have a problem. My dad, a vet, won’t be allowed to vote in Pa. because he does not drive, he is elderly, and can’t prove his citizenship.]]]

        So why don’t you practice what you preach and become a volunteer election clerk?

        So I’ll turn that around. Why don’t YOU help your father? Why did you let his IDs lapse? My father is also a vet, and a naturalized citizen, and there’s no way he’d let any of that paperwork go bad. Why is it so important that we dumb down the entire process so that a few don’t have to take the time and effort to keep their voting registration current? Why is the Big Government, let’s treat everyone as a helpless child, the only possible solution?

        1. Big Government isn’t the only solution. We can take people’s word for who they are, and charge them with a felony if they lie. It works pretty well.

          1. Which leads immediately to the question, “How do you know whether or not they are lying?” How do you catch them lying, or if you determine later that they must’ve lied, how do you find them again? Because, you know, they … lied.

            /facepalm

          2. You catch them because someone recognizes them, or knows the person they are impersonating. You won’t catch every one, just as you won’t catch every person committing other crimes, but the risk is high enough, and the personal benefit so trivial, that all but a handful will be deterred.

          3. You know what is really funny? The new voter phots ID laws actually make it easier to vote illegally since all you need is a fake ID to do so.

            If teenagers are able to get fake IDs to drink don’t you think folks seriously wanting to vote illegally couldn’t do so as well? And since folks believe the system is more secure they are even less likely to look for such fraud.

            Mayor Daley would have probably loved the new laws as it would really make it easy for his operatives to practice the old Chicago rule of “Vote early, Vote Often” 🙂

          4. Riiiight, Jim. Very low chance of that shit happening, at least in every place I ever voted (including some small towns). And even if it did, what’s to keep the guy from walking? Are those octogenarian poll workers going to stop him?

        2. Raoul,

          If you read the article you see that Jim Cramer did. But a number of older folks may not have family anymore to help.

          Also I worked a number of elections as an election clerk. Have your worked any?

          2. Yes, like you some folks just like to complain without doing anything to solve a problem. Instead they leave it to government to solve…

          3. You never complain about anything do you TM?

            I guess by your standards you shouldn’t complain about the TP unless you are a part of it.

  5. “Nice to know you think the WWII generation that fought for your freedom is stupid and lazy.”

    Huh? Want to take me through that syllogism, Aristotle?

    1. Bilwicki,

      As I noted above a large percent of those without ID are folks like Jim Cramer’s dad who are of the WWII generation and no longer drive.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/jim-cramer-voter-id-laws_n_1874243.html

      Jim Cramer On Voter ID Laws: ‘My Dad, A Vet, Won’t Be Allowed To Vote’

      [[[I have a problem. My dad, a vet, won’t be allowed to vote in Pa. because he does not drive, he is elderly, and can’t prove his citizenship.]]]

      So basically you are saying with your statement is because the elderly haven’t kept their ID current are too stupid or lazy to be allowed to vote…

      But then I guess since they are retired they are also in the 47 percent Governor Romney referred to since they also get Social Security, Medicare and in many cases veteran benefits from the government while no longer paying taxes…

      2. So basically you are saying with your statement is because the elderly haven’t kept their ID current are too stupid or lazy to be allowed to vote…

        No, Tom, you are saying he is saying that.

        You don’t need a driver’s license to vote in Pennsylvania, just a Voter ID card. Which a registered voter can obtain just by supplying his name, address, date of birth, and social security number.

        That isn’t much harder than registering to vote. Cramer’s father might need some help to do both, but he has a son, doesn’t he?

        That having been said, the bureaucratic assumption that an expired driver’s license is no longer valid for purposes of ID (rather than driving) is inane. The reason for having an expiration date on a driver’s license is to verify that driving credentials are up to date. Having an expired driver’s license means you’re no longer legal to drive; it does not mean you’re no longer you.

        1. Edward,

          Actually you don’t even need ID as a judge blocked the new law from going into effect.

          http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121002/judge-halts-strict-pennsylvania-voter-id-law

          Your theory is interesting, but not doesn’t mesh in the real world. – try cashing a check with one or getting on a plane with an expired driver’s license. Most places that require an ID will not accept an expired one.

          In specific terms of the new Pennsylvania voting law, expired IDs are only good for 12 months past their expiration date.

          http://www.votespa.com/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1174114&mode=2

          [[[PA Driver’s License or Non-driver’s License photo ID (IDs are valid for voting purposes 12 months past expiration date)]]]

          1. try cashing a check with one or getting on a plane with an expired driver’s license.

            I’m not idiot enough to think just because TSA makes a rule that it’s a good idea.

            Use a driver’s license to cash a check? I’m not even sure how to do that. I use my ATM card or scan it into my cell phone. But I did set a bank account with an expired license — no problem.

Comments are closed.