State by State Voter ID Requirements

What kind of identification does your state require to vote? Here's a handy map by Headcount.org, just click on your state or scroll down to the text.

Also, different states have different policies on the type of identification college students need to vote. If you know a college student, here's a really handy color-coded map to pass along.

What's Headcount.org? It's a non-partisan organization that works with musicians "to promote participation in democracy." Their volunteers stage voter registration drives at concerts. They get the artists involved as well. [More...]

We’ve produced themed concerts, network TV public service announcements, and award-winning digital media campaigns starring the likes of Jay-Z, Dave Matthews, Pearl Jam and members of The Grateful Dead. A list of our most popular projects can be found here.

They have done a great job of collecting all sorts of handy voter information for all the states in one place. They also have a voter FAQ section.

Here's their vision and mission statement.

It's not too late to register in many states, so if you haven't already done so, please don't wait.

< Abu Hamza's First U.S. Court Appearance | Grumbles Over the Rumble >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Washington State has all mail-in voting, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by shoephone on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    like Oregon. It works great. I don't think Headcount.org's site reflects that. And to register to vote you don't even have to have a driver's license, just something to prove you live here and where you need to receive your ballot (such as a cell phone bill, a utility bill, etc.).

    Happy to say the site is wrong (none / 0) (#1)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 02:37:51 AM EST
    about my state.  Courts tossed out voter ID some time ago (for all voters; still required -- or equivalents -- for first-time voter registration).

    An appeal is not going to be taken up before this election.

    But on the downside, PPP poll shows big Romney post-debate bounce in my state.  The 11-point lead, per the most recent (other) poll, is down to a 2-point lead for Obama.  And that may hurt the Dem chances to hold the Dem seat in the Senate, too.

    Clearly, someone has to ask (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 07:11:25 AM EST
    those who switched from Obama to Romney, why they hate Big Bird.

    Santorum (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 09:16:24 AM EST
    did say:  "I've voted to kill Big Bird in the past. I have a record there that I have to disclose. That doesn't mean I don't like Big Bird. You can kill things and still like them, maybe to eat them"

    Maybe the bounce comes from those that want to eat Big Bird.


    Well, there you go (none / 0) (#13)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 02:32:51 PM EST
    Big Bird au Vin or Big Bird Cacciatore or Southern-Fried Big Bird.

    Ugggg ... not the only one (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:01:11 AM EST
    Polls Start Showing a Debate Bounce for Romney

    Have to wait a few more days to see how ugly this was, but I'm surprised that a debate would have this much of an impact.


    If you haven't already, you should check out (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    Matt Taibbi's piece for Rolling Stone, "The Presidential Race Should Never Have Been This Close."

    An excerpt:

    The mere fact that Mitt Romney is even within striking distance of winning this election is an incredible testament to two things: a) the rank incompetence of the Democratic Party, which would have this and every other election for the next half century sewn up if they were a little less money-hungry and tried just a little harder to represent their ostensible constituents, and b) the power of our propaganda machine, which has conditioned all of us to accept the idea that the American population, ideologically speaking, is naturally split down the middle, whereas the real fault lines are a lot closer to the 99-1 ratio the Occupy movement has been talking about since last year.


    The fact that Barack Obama needed a Himalayan mountain range of cash and some rather extreme last-minute incompetence on Romney's part to pull safely ahead in this race is what really speaks to the brokenness of this system. Bruni of the Times is right that the process scares away qualified candidates who could have given Obama a better run for all that money. But what he misses is that the brutal campaign process, with its two years of nearly constant media abuse and "gotcha" watch-dogging, serves mainly to select out any candidate who is considered anything like a threat to the corrupt political establishment - and that selection process is the only thing that has kept this race close.


    It's obviously simplistic to say that in a country where the wealth divide is as big as it is in America, elections should always be landslide victories for the candidate who represents the broke-and-struggling sector of the population. All sorts of non-economic factors, from social issues to the personal magnetism of the candidates, can tighten the races. And just because someone happens to represent the very rich, well, that doesn't automatically disqualify him or her from higher office; he or she might have a vision for the whole country that is captivating (such a candidacy, however, would be more feasible during a time when the very rich were less completely besotted with corruption).

    But when one of the candidates is Mitt Romney, the race shouldn't be close. You'll hear differently in the coming weeks from the news media, which will spend a lot of time scratching its figurative beard while it argues that a 54-46 split, or however this thing ends up (and they'll call anything above 53% for Obama a rout, I would guess), is evidence that the system is broken. But what we probably should be wondering is why it was ever close at all.

    It really should never have been this close...and yet, here we are.


    TPM (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    shows the bounce is already falling to Earth a bit (link).  Obviously Obama needs to show up next time.

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 11:35:10 AM EST
    do you suppose that he didn't show up for the first debate?

    I'm interested in your opinion.


    I hope not (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:52:43 AM EST
    But i think this is a "you're on your own election" with people splitting tickets.

    Dip you think people polled reacted t (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:42:03 AM EST
    The actual debate or to media reaction to the debate?

    My indie niece watched the whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 12:14:40 PM EST
    (oh my!). She thought Romney was smirky and bullish and Obama was humble and polite :) She may be an exception, but I don't think the media (about who won) will sway her decision in the end, as she watched the debates to see what they had to say. Forgot to ask (mom) if she had decided either way.

    My mom on the other hand is no longer supporting the R's. But she  came to this decision before the debate and couldn't watch it.  Hearing that Romney won is distressing and could make her vote for O (vs not voting).


    In a sane world (none / 0) (#15)
    by Politalkix on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    someone who bullied a debate moderator by threatening to downsize his job as well as that of big bird should have automatically been seen as the loser of the debate on style (not just on substance).

    I feel that the Obama campaign should make an ad that plays the clip where the Mittster says he is going to lay off Lehrer and big bird when he is President while telling them he loved them. The clip should be followed by a comment like "Yeah, Right!-We are sure that the workers whose lives Bain destroyed also heard that Mitt loved them while he was in the process of downsizing their jobs and collecting millions as consultancy remuneration."
    Mitts frantic blinks during the debate gave an appearance of a person who is extremely untrusworthy.


    I don't know; the data are iffy (none / 0) (#11)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 01:51:59 PM EST
    to me regarding related questions.  And I read word of other factors, dirty tricks, in recent days, too.

    We need more polls on the state -- where, as well, resentment remains regarding Obama's broken promise to stand with workers, which kept him away for so long.  Yet in recent weeks, including right after the debate, he finally returned to the state for pep rallies for large crowds.  Then again, the rally last week in Madison was at the state campus with a lot of non-residents of the state, so the boost would be for a lot of New Yorkers and the like to act now for absentee ballots.

    (He ought to have gone to the state campus in Milwaukee that has the most state residents, if that was the target; perhaps the aim just pr for a pep rally, but we often see outsiders from pols' handlers to pollsters not doing the research in so many ways on the state, its voting laws, etc.  So, in sum:  again, I dunno.)


    A thoughtful reply, as always. Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    college student bogus stuff (none / 0) (#16)
    by diogenes on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:26:52 PM EST
    They're telling my kid who goes to Michigan State to register to vote in Michigan because he is a "resident".  When it comes to tuition, though, he is most definitely a "non-resident" and we pay out of state tuition.  
    What's wrong with this picture?

    Voting is a right (none / 0) (#17)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:34:11 PM EST
    instate tuition is supported by both out of state students and state taxes/funding it makes sense.

    voting is a "right" (none / 0) (#18)
    by diogenes on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 09:22:02 PM EST
    You have the right to vote in your place of residence.  In-state benefits support state "residents".
    Ironically, if my son moved to Detroit he would much more quickly be deemed a Michigan resident and eligible for welfare and Medicaid benefits, although the wait to be deemed a Michigan resident for those purposes is longer than for a freshman college student to be able to register to vote.  Figure that one out.

    If he moved anywhere (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 01:16:01 AM EST
    for any reason, seems to me he would be eligible to vote there if he hit the deadline to register. Unless of course he's undocumented . . .

    I could vote in CA long before I qualified for instate tuition. You should have planned better. You could have gotten your son an apt in his name and established residency long before that outta state tuition was due . . . ;) (I'm guessing it's the tuition you have a problem with, not that it would take him longer to get welfare etc . . . )


    Even cheaper and easier (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    to establish in-state residency, in some states, at least, is to take a trip there ahead of time to get a driver's license -- and then get a (wired to the wall) phone number.  

    Checking ahead for each state system's or campus's residency rules can save mucho money.  I'm always surprised at how few do so -- and even more so at how few students, once there and already paying out-of-state residency tuition rates, continue to do so for years.


    Please compare and contrast with the (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 10:21:59 PM EST
    time period required to establish in-state residency for purpose of student status at U of M.