As far as I know the computer systems at the RMV are disgustingly outdated. I've had friends and relatives have a horrid time just trying to get a registration because their systems give up the ghost easily. They can't even deal with a pair of fraternal twins http://www.wggb.com/2012/02/17/identity-confusion-with-ludlow-twins-mass-rmv/

You cannot register a car in NH or another state and reside in MA. That was (prob still is) a huge problem several years back. Because insurance was cheaper elsewhere than MA people would register their cars in another state and live in MA. Neighbors started ratting each other out, and rightly so. If you own a vacation home in MA, you would not need to register a car here. Your own insurance would apply for your trip here.

Lori - I did not know that. So someone who resides in Florida but keeps cars at a vacation home in MA must register those cars in Florida? Strange, if true. My parents used to own a house in Florida but reside in MA. They were required to register the cars in Florida because, surprise surprise, Florida wanted the registration fees. Maybe that has all changed, I really don't know.

my aunt owns a vacation home in Florida. She has a mass and florida drivers license.

If you OWN a vacation HOME then wouldn't you have proof or residency? Real estate taxes? Water & sewer bills? If it's a condo you'd pay condo fees.

Oh, if ONLY that could happen! But the Commonwealth doesn't believe in showing proof of residence to be able to vote.

Countless times I've pulled out my license to show I am the person who is listed on their registrar voting sheets, and they say "Oh we don't require that." When I looked at them in disbelief, saying "So I could find out online that Jane Doe lives at 123 Main Street, Anytown, MA, and go in first thing in the morning and say I'm that person, and you'd have to accept that?"

They respond "Yes. We don't like it, but if someone gives us a name and address, we have to trust that it's actually that person." And every person who is manning the polls doesn't seem to like not asking for identification to prove you are who you are. It *really* seems logical to do so to avoid voter fraud, but then again - this is Massachusetts. Nothing when it comes to government in this state is logical.

Lori and Linda—coincidentally, a debate about a Mass. Voter ID law was a previously discussion piece we posted on Patch over Labor Day weekend: http://malden.patch.com/articles/tell-us-should-massachusetts-pass-a-voter-id-bill-40fb97e3

VERY interesting article, Daniel! Just read some of the comments and this one seems to make the exact points I've thought about regarding voter fraud and the excuses the Atty. General uses for not wanting to require an ID:

"Hacim Obmed
7:16 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Without an ID card you cannot get on an airplane, buy cold medicine, drive a car, buy alcohol, open a bank account, or enter a government building. The list goes on and on. Without nan ID you just cannot survive in the modern world. So a person needs to be able to prove they really are who they say they are before they vote. It is no different than any of these other things where you need ID. If you are an honest person then there is nothing to worry about and it won't cost you a dime."

BINGO!

Because in-person voter fraud is such a massive problem! Give me a break. It has been widely acknowledged that it almost never happens - something like 0.00001% of votes cast since 2000. Why? Because look at the risk/reward. If you pull it off, congratulations, you have added a drop of water to the ocean. If not, depending on which state you're in, you face fines up to $10,000, up to 10 years in prison and disenfranchisement. There are people that don't need a license - they don't have a bank account, don't drive cars etc. This cause has been taken up by republican state legislatures to discourage voting, and that's the truth. Here's some nimrod in PA admitting as much - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60.

Not sure I get your point. You do not need a license to buy a car. Anyone can buy someone else a car. It just cannot be on the street without being registered and insured. The family member using the car would need to be licensed and insured to drive it. Insurance companies have a right to know that only licensed people would be driving it.

@Gordon
You may want to actually read the article before going off half-cocked.
It does NOT say you need a driver's license to register a car but that you can USE a driver's license as proof of residency.

You do not have a right to buy a car, it's private enterprise. Additionally you do NOT have a right to drive a car in the commonwealth, it's a privilege. It can be revoked in a heart beat if you screw up.

There is no one named Cadillac in the article. I think you are confused.

BAV,he's not confused at all. "Cadillac Duval" is to whom Bob was referring.

Oh, he means Deval Patrick? I didn't realize that name calling was part of the debate. Naturally, I now I find Bob's point to be much more persuasive. Maybe next time he could use "Devoid" (HAHA, that is a good one too!). Thanks for the clarification, Linda.

BAV, not sure if that qualifies as "name calling." Actually, I just checked. it doesn't. The dude traded in Romney's Lincoln for a new Cadillac as soon as he took office. Ahhh, life is good when you are king.

Caddy earned that nickname *all* by himself by leasing the Cadillac for an additional $543/month. And getting those office drapes for the low-cost price of $12,000. And creating a previously non-existent chief of staff job for his wife for $72,000.

Instead of doing that, perhaps he could have, as Bob noted, figured out how to streamline the RMV and make the place an actual working government office.

Oh wait. How silly. That's an oxymoron, isn't it? One can't even dream of a having "working government office." At least not without a lot of Beacon Hill pockets that are being lined with a whole lot of green.

BAV, Not confused at all. Here let me give you his full name, Cadillac Deval Patrick better? I figured since he was spending my money like there is no tomorrow he would be ok with me using his nickname!

BAV, BTW - Nice attempt at changing the subject. Right out of the Saul Alinsky play book! I see you never actually commented on my factual post. Care to try?

Bob, I agree with some of your post. However, you attempt at a petty insult make me disregard what you have to say. All I see is another partisan hack who would be unhappy with ANYTHING done by someone in the opposite party. (NIce try others to day that Cadillac is not intended as insult. Doesn't ring true.)

BAV wrote "(NIce try others to day that Cadillac is not intended as insult."
~~~~~~~~~~

I never said it wasn't. I just said Patrick earned the nickname on his own. It wasn't given to him until he gave cause to do so.

Linda - you are making my point. Thank you.

Interestingly, BAV - I'm not. I'm an Independent. I don't vote either party line. And I'll make fun of *any* public figure should the occasion warrant, regardless of which party they belong to.

I thought Sarah Palin was a moron and McCain tanked his run for the Presidency when he chose her as his Veep candidate.

But I also think Patrick is an idiot, as are most on Beacon Hill who continue to strip us of our tax dollars and line their own pockets with pensions and pork barrel spending. Yet again - don't do anything stupid like Patrick did in his first term, and the nicknames are harder to come by.

BTW, are the Dems and their followers innocent from not using derogatory nicknames for members of the other party? Of course not. That pendulum swings both ways quite readily, so stop playing innocent little preacher boy as if the Dems have never done what you're accusing those on the other side of the aisle of doing.

P.S. BAV - I'm done discussing this. I think that an RMV proof of residence law is a GOOD thing, while Patrick doesn't "because the RMV doesn't have the man power", amongst other nonsensical reasons. Do a shifty-movey on some of the tax funds going to nonsensical budget items and Beacon Hill pockets, and perhaps the RMV can come into the 21st century and actually function as a reasonable entity. Highly unlikely, but perhaps.

I was trying to point out that if you _start_ by insulting a politician before you've said anything of substance, you've undermined any attempt to have your comments taken seriously. You just look like a partisan hack. If that is your goal, no worries.

Bob you are right on..only reason why they keep tabs on you is because your a productive citizen feeding the machine...

BAV,You post is most humerous and if you knew me, or look at anything I have posted you know why. I am an unenrolled voter who has voted both D and R based on candidate not party. In one post on the Patch, I told Don Ordway that Romney was not a strong candidate and I am on the fence about the election.
Unlike you who are a partisan hack, I look at job done and make decision based on that. I don't like either party and have openly called for the disbanding of both. Partisan hacks like you who will vote D if they run anyone are the issue as are those on the right who vote R regardless of candidate.

Bob - If you knew me or anything about me you'd know I am an un-enrolled who has voted both D and R (most recently for Brown in 2010). Nice try, though. I suspect in your other post which you speak of, you didn't start by referring to Romney as "Mittens" or some other such garbage insult (which I would find equally silly). If you want to raise the level of discourse, dump the insults and discuss the issues. Until then, not sure what your posts add other than preaching to your GOP base.

Great idea, about time. Good point from Raj, the fact that the registrar has the power to make exemptions will be providing a huge loophole for non compliance and favoritism......so it will be interesting to see just how effective this will be and IF it will in fact be enforced.

Ah, being fiscally minded is a democrat trait, I see. :)

Why bother??? yeah....why bother enforcing laws...right AHM?

aunt zetuni, the project rat?how bout drunk uncle omar? this state is crawling with illegals not just obamas relatives. and they qualify for our health care:
http://www.massresources.org/masshealth-standard.html
Undocumented noncitizens cannot get MassHealth Standard. Noncitizens who qualify for MassHealth as MRRP paticipants can only get MassHealth Standard for eight months from the date they entered the U.S.
MRRP is just a fancy word. I work in health care all they have to do is come into the country go to the ER and they qualify for refugee status since they are not from here and have no money. check the website I posted they get cash, housing, food stamps.

Remember that Romney is the one responsible for all your complaints about MassHealth.

romney did create romney care to revise our free health care fund that this state always had for the poor. this law held employers accountable for providing healthcare. Just like anything else things get ammended. are you sure Romney had in his original bill illegals could be provided healthcare? Seems kind of a liberal minded thing to do if he did.

Jennifer got that right. I was at Targets to buy a can of Air to blow out the dust from my computer. I had to show an I.D. just for a stoooopid can of AIR. What am I going to do at 66 yrs old with a can of AIR. Getting rediculous

No need to steal your vote before you go when it can just be changed after you cast it.

Which one? Voter fraud happens most often with means that wouldn't be fixed with a voter photo ID law, a law that is difficult to enact within the confines of the constitution. To commit fraud it's easier to simply destroy or alter ballots or, in the case of e-voting machines, just reprogram the machines to count wrong.

in 1982 i was 6. I do know my parents say how great it was in the 80's and how reagan was a great president. Only two prezs they ever talk about is reagan and clinton as being great. I dont think Clinton was a great president, I was out looking for a job during his reign and it was not good. So in my opinion being 35yrs old, I have never worked under a great president, they have all sucked in my opinion.

We've covered this. Repeatedly. Unconstitutional. Why do you hate the Constitution, Dan?

Hi Jack,

My opening sentence is "The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is readying to implement a new law that goes in effect Jan. 1 and would require people registering a motor vehicle or trailer to provide proof of legal residence, the Boston Herald reports."

I take it you're referring to the "Is this a backdoor way for immigration enforcement, or common sense" line in the subhead. There's no implication there, merely an attempt at a concise contrast of the debate. You'll notice the end of the article contains the same line, albeit attributed: "Is this a backdoor way for immigration enforcement, as Gov. Patrick suggests, or a common sense reform?"

All we're doing here is providing both sides of the debate and letting you, our Patch users, discuss the issue. If you read the whole article above, I believe I presented both sides of the argument.

You can see the thread Daniel linked to for an in depth discussion of this, where I and many others already posted examples of it.

You need an ID to give blood, to get a library card, to pick up a prescription, as well as a host of other things, you dont think voter fraud exists? You must be pugging your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming "LALALALALALALALA" While getting people out to vote is an issue, there is no infringment of rights in requiring an ID to vote, again, its common sense.

Mary, You do not need to have a license to register a car in Mass.