While I hate that the beauracracy is making a mess again, this woman's process of deciding who to vote for is one reason the fedgov never changes for the better.
Voted for GOP for 65 years. Why change just because they have betrayed me for 65 years?.
Suffrage should be limited to those who can show thinking ability.

" the fog of bureaucracy"
Boy, my wife and I are finding this problem everywhere...seems no one knows anything but even if one should run into a competent person in one of our bureaucracies or insurance companies there is no guarantee that their up to speed with the latest perversion of the laws or regulations.

Just to be clear... in NC she can vote without a required photo ID... by voting by mail. Assuming of course she is registered to vote which does also require some ID. IF we are not going to verify voters when they actually cast a vote then we should get rid of the Federal and State Constitutional requirements for voting including being a citizen, being at least 18, being a resident (State and Local elections), not being incarcerated, not being a felon (in some States), and being alive. Anyone who presents themselves to vote can vote, no checking of any kind (which of course would be disenfranchising), anyone can vote anywhere, anytime, as often as they like (checking to see if they have already voted would also be disenfranchising.) That NC bureaucrats, who despise the Republican majority in the legislature for among other reasons no lavish compensation increases, cannot figure out how to issue free photo IDs is not surprising.

Naturally that article had to be written as an editorial and not hard news - as if we ever get any hard news these days. I'm blown away that she had a problem with her maiden name vs her married name. Seeing that her name as listed on her birth certificate and her other documentation was consistent with a married woman the voter registration should have continued without any fuss at all.

If the editorialist were interested in the truth he would have contacted the registrar of voters, the DMV, the assemblyman or senator that represented her town, and either the Secretary of the State or a county official, depending on how things like that work in that state. That would have allowed him to get several explanations of the current law vs past law and how current law is supposed to be implemented. That registrar of voters may not have followed the rules, or maybe the rules are seriously f'ed up right now, but at least we'd know. Instead he chose to write a sensational story about an old woman whose rights are being trampled by evil Republicans. (In CT each town has at least two registrars of voters, one Republican and one Democrat. If it's like that where she is then why didn't the editorial list which one turned her down? Was it both?)

The assertion that the Republicans intention was to make voting harder rather than easier is absurd, typical progressive bullshit. Nobody wants to make voting harder but the integrity of the voter rolls is one of the most important functions of government.

I have run for Secretary of the State of Connecticut twice, on the Libertarian ticket. During my first campaign I attended a candidates' forum with one of the registrars of voters associations. It was in the very early days of "motor voter," where voter registration was being allowed at the same time your got your driver's license. The registrars were, as a group, not at all pleased. They took their duty as protectors of the integrity of the voting lists extremely seriously.

One of the main duties of the Secretary of the State as described in the CT constitution is to maintain the integrity of the voter rolls. Our current SOTS has just proposed that people should be automatically registered to vote when they get their driver's license. Never mind that CT issues drivers licenses to "undocumented citizens." One can argue the wisdom of that, but one cannot make an argument that illegal aliens are permitted to vote in political elections in CT without tearing up the laws that say otherwise.

Democrats, Greens and other progressives get hopping mad when you bring up voter fraud and scream at you that there has never been any. They have to scream because otherwise people would hear your rebuttal listing many, many documented cases of rampant voter fraud in CT.

Lastly, one can look at every law or regulation that we consider "good" and find examples of people who are hurt by it, and it will always appear to be absurd. It will, in fact, probably actually be absurd. That's insufficient to declare it a bad law.

It's amusing that the party that wants to give the government more control over all aspects of our economy and our lives is steadfastly against voter id because the government is incompetent at giving out id cards in a reasonable fashion.

as for me, I do not care how difficult it is to get an ID
which will keep my voting privilege active. . I will do it
if it requires that I drive to yosemite and back to tennessee.
if there are people who find this a problem, it's something
which we should fix. . but in the meantime, I will fight
to maintain my voting privilege. . tooth and nail. -- j
.

I understood from way back (in fact, I remember
reading it in an encyclopedia), that in America a
person's legal name is the name by which he is
generally known. (I assume that this was done to
prevent the kind of "writ of error" issue which exists, or used to, in Britain, where a whole in-
dictment could be dismissed or overturned on
such a technicality). As to keeping one person
from voting several times in the same election,
I guess that could be prevented by checking the
person's address. So could two different addres-
ses result in two different votes? Maybe, but
perhaps the state government could check out
duplicate addresses or duplicate names a few
weeks before the election.

This article shows the need for a National ID which can be used to verify voters and recipients of govt benefits.

I wonder what the conversation contents were with the BMV worker?
Some people can't help but mention why they are getting something. Maybe it was mentioned that she wanted this so she could vote, (even further what party).

So that leaves the question that if such a subject was brought up, did the BMV worker knowingly not mention the form, (for whatever reason politically or agenda based) ?

I just have to wonder, because I know there are those zealots out there.

Remember that lady whom worked for a government agency and abused her authority by looking at the personal information of "Joe the Plumber", when he confronted Obuma? Of course she was let go, but then later rehired by the same agency (if my memory is correct), (Hummm).

Life Formula #34:
Government In.
Common Sense Out.

The real reason for objection to voter ID has nothing to do with the elderly, or the poor. The fact is that a whole host of takers/sheeple have warrants outstanding, and are nervous about showing ID anywhere there might be law enforcement presence. When you're trying to enlist as many of those who long for more free stuff to vote socialist, certainly you're going to try to discourage "outing" them at the polling place. Ironically, most of those people are probably legal voters, so fraud isn't the driving force.

So, they found one poster child for their cause. As stated in the article, there is a process to resolve the issue. End of story.
I'd rather that than have illegals bussed in to vote, or as happened (happens?) in Chicago, dead folks casting ballots from the grave. No system is perfect, but voter ID gets us closer.