E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Pat Sullivan / AP
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the NAACP annual convention on July 10 in Houston that he opposes a new photo ID requirement in Texas elections because it would be harmful to minority voters.
Updated at 2:42 p.m. ET: A federal court in Washington on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November, saying it would place an unfair burden on minorities and the poor.
A three-judge U.S. District Court panel ruled that that SB 14, described as the most stringent voter ID law in the country, imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.
“Texas, seeking to implement its voter ID law, bears the burden of proof and must therefore show that SB 14 lacks retrogressive effect. But as we have found, everything Texas has submitted as affirmative evidence is unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” the opinion said.
The Justice Department blocked the new Texas ID law in March, and now a federal court in Washington has done the same, saying it would hit minority voters especially hard. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
“Moreover, uncontested record evidence conclusively shows that the implicit costs of obtaining SB 14-qualifying ID will fall most heavily on the poor and that a disproportionately high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty. We therefore conclude that SB 14 is likely to lead to ‘retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.’”
The ruling was the second legal blow to Texas this week. On Tuesday, another federal court panel threw out a Texas redistricting plan, finding evidence of discrimination in voting maps drawn by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature.
The decision on the voter ID law involves an increasingly contentious political issue: a push, largely by Republican-controlled legislatures and governor's offices to impose strict identification requirements on voters.
Republicans are aggressively seeking the requirements in the name of stamping out voter fraud. Democrats, with support from a number of studies, say that fraud at the polls is largely non-existent and that Republicans are simply trying to disenfranchise minorities, poor people and college students -- all groups that tend to back Democrats.
Who can vote?: Special series on voter ID issues
The ruling comes in the same week that South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected in time for the November election.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed SB 14 into law on May 27, 2011. The law has yet to take effect because the state needs “preclearance” for any change in voting procedures from either the U.S. attorney general or a three-judge U.S. District Court panel.
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
The judges said such voter ID laws might well be approved if they ensure that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo IDs, and that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge.
But the judges noted the Texas Legislature tabled or defeated amendments that would have, among other things, waived all fees for indigent persons who needed the underlying documents and reimbursed poor people for ID-related travel costs.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
In the Texas case, the Justice Department called several lawmakers, all of them Democrats, who said they detected a clear racial motive in the push for the voter ID law. Lawyers for Texas argued that the state was simply tightening its laws. Texas called experts who demonstrated that voter ID laws had a minimal effect on turnout. Republican lawmakers testified that the legislation was the result of a popular demand for more election protections.
During an appearance at the NAACP convention in in Houston in July, Attorney General Eric Holder said Texas' photo ID requirement amounts to a poll tax, a term that harkens back to the days after Civil War Reconstruction when blacks across the South were stripped of their right to vote. The attorney general told the NAACP that many Texas voters seeking to cast ballots would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain the required photo ID.
In a statement Thursday, Holder said he was pleased by the court's action. “The court’s decision today and the decision earlier this week on the Texas redistricting plans not only reaffirm -- but help protect -- the vital role the Voting Rights Act plays in our society to ensure that every American has the right to vote and to have that vote counted," he said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the Texas law does not comply with the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices blamed for the widespread disenfranchisement of blacks. "As you know this administration believes it should be easier for elligible citizens to vote, to register and vote. We should not be imposing unnecessary obstacles or barriers to voter participation," Carney said.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state will appeal the panel's rejection to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld voter ID laws as a constitutional method of ensuring integrity at the ballot box,” he said in a statement. “Today's decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana - and were upheld by the Supreme Court. The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we are confident we will prevail."
The Associated Press contributed to this report compiled by NBC News' James Eng.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- One of most dangerous cities in US plans to ditch police force
- Ex-Marine Angela Madsen on her journey from homelessness to the Paralympics
- Dam collapse feared due to Isaac; thousands flee
- Video: Teacher joins classmates in bullying child
- Drifter who skinned cat, wore its tail sentenced to two years in prison
Leave a Comment:
please. this is nothing more than DNC in full discredit mode and liberal judges
please, this is nothing more than trying to make it difficult for the poor to vote !!!!
If it were free, it wouldn't make it difficult on anyone.
The poor and/or minorities that vote get to the voting places, so they can go get "free" id's.
I happen to be in favor of the notion that people who want vote should have valid ID, BUT what I'm not in favor of is having this legislation put forth so close before an election that it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people to acquire such documentation in time to vote. That was strictly a political move, and I think it stinks.
Nana, the DNC does not write Federal Courts decisions, and this was a unanimous decision by this three member US Court of Appeals, including U.S. district judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush; hardly a "liberal" judge.
If the state of Texas did not have such an infamous, egregious history of gerrymandering, and unlawful discriminatory efforts at suppression of voting by blacks and other minorities, it would not remain under Federal revue and supervision under the Voting Rights Act.
This case and unanimous decision by the Court is more evidence that those discriminatory efforts at voting suppression continue in Texas, and that Federal oversight of Texas therefore needs to also continue.
Checks and Balances
The judicial branch checks and balances the legislative branch. It is in the U.S. Constitution.
I really hate that these laws all come forward right before Presidential elections. It's rather transparent what the intentions are.
This article is so slanted. The reality is that the one state that has had a voter ID law in place for an election cycle, Indiana, found that it had no effect on minority voting. This is nothing more than a bunch of liberal judges with an agenda. They claim that there is no significant fraud going on, but they could not possibly know because the current system does not make it easy to detect. There are organized efforts by certain groups to go through looking for people who died within the last year or so who are likely to still be on voter rolls. They then tell the illegals what name to use and what polling place to go to to cast their ballots. This is so easy to do it is ridiculous.
Getting a photo ID is not a problem. You need a photo ID in this country to cash a check, by cigarettes, by alcohol, etc. - why shouldn't you need one to do something as important as voting. All states issue non-driver IDs for a minimal fee, if any. Also, most will also waive the fee if you can demonstrate that you can not afford to pay it. The idea that getting a photo ID is some huge burden is a joke. The only people that are against this are ones who want the fraud to continue because they or the political party they support benefit from the fraud.
I am in CA and when I was voting in the last election when the person in front of me was told he had already voted. He said that was BS and that he had just gotten off work and come to vote. It seems that someone else had come to the polling place and said they were him and voted in his place. Without the requirement for a photo ID to vote this is very easy to do. All you have to know is a persons name and where they live to determine where their polling place is. Since no photo ID is required, it is very easy to just say you are someone else and vote in their place. The person I am talking about was eventually allowed to cast a provisional ballot, but the problem is that they have no way of determining who the impostor had voted for, so if it was for the opposite candidate of the real person, they effectively cancelled out the real person's vote.
This ruling is the ultimate sexist / racist ruling there is, IMO.
To suggest that anyone in this society is not capable of accomplishing the impossibly difficult task of getting a photo ID because ... of any reason.
What is next? Are women and minorities not going to be expected to learn to read because it places too much of a burden on them?
This ruling INSULTS me as woman. Democrats are going to make women and minorities look incompetent and incapable forever just to keep the votes.
No wonder there have to be laws to force employers to hire women and minorities. Who in their right mind would want to risk doing so?
First of all, you need an ID for a job. You need an ID to drive, You need an ID to buy a car, house, get a bank account, etc. You need an ID to obtain welfare. They use this perception that the poor cant vote.. Oh boo hoo. That is the very response the democrats are wanting to illicite. If you dont have an ID, go get one. I am in law enforcement. In my 18 years of service, EVERYBODY that I have met poor or rich has an ID. People who are illegal do not have ID.
One such problem discovered in a county was many people who were on the role to vote were dead. Over 30% of the voter register was actually dead. THATS WHY THEY NEED AN ID. Somebody said that voter fraud does not affect much. Look at Florida with Bush's election. They were checking the "Chads". The votes came down to literally less than 100 people for Bush. EVERY VOTE COUNTS. It may be those fraudulent votes that put somebody in that does not have and ID or Birth Certificate as president. OOPS. Did I say that out loud?
This law is another law written by ALEC, a lobbyist group, and then handed over to legislators to be put forward. The American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC) is a tax exempt group that's been around since Nixon, and funded by very right-wing foundations like Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, Bradley Foundation, Olin Foundation, etc. The board includes representation from Exxon Mobil, AT&T, Koch Industries, GlaxoSmithKline, PhRMA, Johnson & Johnson, ect.
Yeap, this is what happens when you hand over loads of cash to a politician...just submit your wants, in the form of a bill, to your bought-and-paid-for guy in the House so he can submit it for passing...with his own name on it, of course.
THESE are the guys writing the laws you and I may get to live under.
This is a solution looking for a problem. No poll on this subject will accurately portray how Americans feel about these laws because the people that these laws affect are not the kind that are asked to comment on polls or the kind that most of us know personally unless you live in some of these poverty stricken areas of this country.
Even if you agree with the ID laws for any reason, please explain to me why, along with requiring a specific type of ID (for some states a collage ID is not good enough), how is limiting the voting days before the elections help anyone? Because Black folks are more likely to vote on early days, after church for example... is what i think.
The rules in these states were crafted very carefully so as to not disenfranchise whites or the more affluent. The reason I say that is because republicans in these states did not try to limit absentee voting (which is the preferred voting method for whites after in-person voting). This is what is happening and then people on here complain that republican are viewed as racist. Well if you dont want to be called that, stop supporting politicians that engage, through their legislative positions, in creating policies that target minorities and or takes rights away from people that do not buy into your ideology... then we can talk about more important things like Romney's TAX RETURNS!! SHOW US!!!
I don't understand the point of a voter's registration card...isn't it to prove you are registered to vote somewhere? The card is taken care of through the mail. Why does it have to be photo ID? The poor or elderly don't have to drive anywhere to have a picture taken for this card (since it is not always just the cost of the ID but finding or affording transportation).
I know PennDot is giving free voter ID cards....can these be obtained at the polls?
@JS in SD
The assumption that the lack of evidence of voter fraud is merely evidence of lack of effective detection, is illogical.
That's an interesting and widely perpetuated urban legend, without a particle of support in reality. Fabricating and perpetuating untruths to push an own agenda is a poor way to argue. Argue using facts.
That statement suggests you believe that Americans supporting honest, fair and non-discriminatory application of the Voting Rights Act, and who support the equal and non-discriminatory exercise of suffrage by all US citizens, in actuality "want fraud to continue"; fraud which has not been shown to actually exist. That's another logical disconnect.
Another interesting anecdote which given your other statements seems a bit 'convenient' and a lot 'contrived'. So I'm calling "Bull----" on that one. Sorry, that's not in the least persuasive. But nice try, anyway.
:-)
The Republicans gotta keep the poor down. Its part of their mantra.
(The racial minorities in many towns now are white people!!!)
What in the hell does being poor have to do with a picture ID? It is illegal NOT to have one as for as I am aware. Nothing more than Democrats making certain that illegals get to vote...NOTHING MORE!! Pure and simple!!
Discriminitory my butt!!
LosMan, BS......It it people trying to protect the now minority whites from illegals along with the rapidly taking over Hispanics. But that would be okay to you!!!
Wonder why only libs dont want voter ID?? You have to have ID for everything else in life! Where are the complaints about that?
Robert in oregon...your to stupid to know what goes on in your own state so how would you know anything about mine? You go to jail in oregon for catching rain water! What a state of fools. Keep your liberalism. I say Texas secede from the union. The union needs Texas, we dont need the union! We have the water, coast, cattle, oil, refineries, farmes enough to feed many many other states. WE DONT NEED THE UNION!!
There is a shocking development in the new Obamacare Contraception Mandate that went into effect in Oregon on August 1. Your 15-year-old (as young as 12 in some cases) child can be sterilized for free, without your consent. Sterilized, not reversible but a permanent end to your child's ability to reproduce. Do you feel a 15-year-old is mature enough to make that decision? They can't legally drive to a clinic to have it done, or even legally engage in sex but they can make a decision affecting their lifelong ability to procreate.
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 436.205 to 436.335 states: ‘Informed consent’ means consent given by an individual 15 years of age or older for sterilization that is: (a) Based upon a full understanding of the nature and consequences of sterilization pursuant to information requirements set forth in ORS 436.225(1); (b) Given by an individual competent to make such a decision; and (c) Wholly voluntary and free from coercion, express or implied.” Oregon defines “sterilization” as “any medical procedure, treatment or operation for the purpose of rendering an individual permanently incapable of procreating.”
K9Icepick
I would think that, in general, the poor do not have a car or house or bank account or job...
And this isn't just about the poor - it's also about the elderly...while yes, some have and can find transportation, for many single older women (especially) there was no need to keep a license up to date - hubby drove everywhere.
All I'm saying is it's not that black and white. Have you ever tried to get to the DMV when you don't have vacation time or your own car and have to rely on someone else for transportation? If you were already living paycheck to paycheck, could you imagine having to take a half or even full day off with no pay, having to find someone to give you a ride to the DMV that is an hour away who is willing to wait while you wait to have your photo taken (or, if available take public transportation - even more $$$) and give you a ride home, just so you could vote? Would it be worth it?
@JS in SD
I quote "I am in CA and when I was voting in the last election when the person in front of me was told he had already voted. He said that was BS and that he had just gotten off work and come to vote. It seems that someone else had come to the polling place and said they were him and voted in his place."
I think you"re trying to commit comment fraud. I don't believe you.
Boy, the left must think that minorities and poor in this country are absolute wastes of human life if they think the minorities and poor are so inept and stupid that they can't get a photo ID. Seems to me that the minorities and poor can always come up with money and ID when they want to get cigarettes, beer, and cash their welfare checks.
TXHorseman,
Please clerify. Im sorry i dont get your question..
You would think incorrectly. You should research the percentages of the "poor" in this country that have a home, cars, flat screen TVs, cell phones, air conditioning, etc etc. It will open your eyes. It might be a stretch but I think they can get off their lazy asses and get an ID without any hardship.
Sources please. This is all meaningless conjecture until people start citing where they are getting their information from.
In Texas , only 81 of Texas' 254 counties even have DMV offices where people can get IDs. Oddly enough, those areas that are predominately Hispanic just happen to be counties without DMVs. Funny coincidence, isn't it? In at least one area, people have to travel over 176 miles roundtrip to get a an ID. An photo ID is free, but if you have to have a copy of your birth certificate to get one, and they cost $22.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/voter-id/feds-reject-texas-voter-id-law/print/
Since several Republican leaders have now stated that the purpose of the voter ID laws is to discourage minorites from voting, what more need be said?
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/masters-of-voter-suppression-republicans-employ-many-techniques-to-keep-low-income-voters-away-from-the-polls-648218/
If these people are so poor that they cannot afford $10.00 I.D how are they cashing their welfare checks do their banks not require checking ID's or can anyone just go and steal someone's welfare or S.S check and go cash it?
@Zathrose...you are dead on. The poor and the minorities should be offended by how the left feel about them. I personally give them a little more credit than that. But then again we all know what the issue REALLY is!
I am sure that there are a lot of lazy people out there that are poor, but to say that all poor people are lazy is like saying all white people can't jump... its just a stupid thing to say out loud but in today's republican party saying stupid $hit gets you elected with a full pension and free health care for life!
JS in SD
I live in TX. This law would have disenfranchised my mother. We took her DL when her eyesight went south, she lived in a small town where she had a bank account with the same bank for 50+ years, she never needed to show her ID to write a check because everyone knew her. She never flew after her eyesight went bad. She was born in a house outside of Ranger TX in 1922 and had no official birth certificate. Getting one in TX was pretty much impossible. But she didn't need one to live.
Unfortunately she passed away a couple of years ago but were she still alive she would have voted. She always did. And she is not the only older person whom this would have impacted. Texas didn't put in any exemptions for older adults.
My mother wasn't an illegal, she was just an old white woman who deserved her Constituionla right to vote, as is every other citizen in this country.
Strange thing about these laws, why now? Why the sudden fear of voter fraud when there has been no proof of wide-spread fraud? The timing and the fact that it's only the Republican controlled states makes it flat out smell.
If we must have voter IDs then the states must pass laws that provide for sufficient time and resources to ensure than every citizen can get an ID.
truetexan - I'm not liberal, and I think trying to put through a law this flawed just before an election is BS. I thought Republicans were against unnecessary regulations. Aside from that, they could have made this law constitutional if they had bothered to check on the requirements. But they were either too hasty or too lazy. Neither reflects well on the party.
I'm independant, and have voted Republican when their fiscal policy makes sense. But sorry - this one don't make any sense at all, and in fact makes it look like they tried to pull a fast one.
Let vote everybody including illegals and felons , this is the only way Obama can be reelected, cheating. They are working hard to open all options to commit fraud and the DJ is ready to clean the door. Black panther will be assigned by Erick Holder at the pooling places control the election like SS.
Four years since the last presidential election and still can get an ID this is nothing more than excuses.Democrats damned down poor people to keep them in their plantation.
Well, there is a difference between "poor" and poor. Do a little research yourself of people in the US besides your hometown - there is a lot more going on out there then just the ignorant people cheating the system...
@DRK...your so full of it. ONLY BOZO has a hard time finding a REAL birth certificate.
Santanic-
There are plenty of sources which you could have found yourself but since you are being lazy here is a link that consolidates items from various US GOVERNMENT data sources:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america
Sorry, but you have to call a spade a spade. If the poor can't get off their butts and go get a photo ID, then they better be seriously disabled. Other than that, sorry they are just being lazy.
DRK,
Really?? For the remainder of the article they use this statement as "proof" of a great Republican's evil plan!! What they are talking about is keeping Democrats from winning by using the illegal vote. It is a sham and you know it!!
ICEPICK.. could please describe the welfare ID card... make it good now..
florida law was thrown out of court yesterday.. but here REPUBLICANS local and far away have been hired to roust the voters in the poll places, how GD disgusting can things get.. take the statement from the republican in PA "voter ID laws done and now RR will win in the state...
the gov here in FL and his :-) atty GEN have hired the same type of people to watch the polls.. fair!!! denying someone the right to vote.. that's like saying if you are voting for Romney you can vote
If you are in fact a Texan shame on you for not at the very least showing respect for the Office of the President of the United States of America. I get it, you don't like the current President. But as an American you should at least show respect for the office,
As to birth certificates, raead my post above. This impacts the elderly most of all.
The next step is the US Supreme Court, which has already ruled that voter ID laws ARE valid.
Holder is just relying on an antiquated provision of the Civil Rights Act that applies to just a handful of states.
Please, your gonna tell me that a 5.00 Picture ID is to much to ask for when voting for the President of the United States. Okay, how about at least bringing us up to the standard of Mexico and finger-printing each voting citizen? It really is a sad day in America if you believe for one minute the reason Eric Holder does'nt want picture ID's is because it is troublesome for the poor and minorities. I guess fingerprinting too much to ask for too Eric? LOL. I cannot believe that Americans actually thinks that's the reason. It should be manatory for ANY VOTING CITIZEN to produce a picture ID. Does Holder stand down @ the ABC store and tell the owners, YOU CAN"T CARD HIM, he's poor, him either, he's a a minority citizen? Of course not, he could care less about anyless other than a vote. Wake up America!
How can it hurt to have a photo ID? They are REQUIRED for many things that you do in life, no matter whether you are rich or poor. Poor people have ID's to get on welfare or Social Security so why should requiring a photo ID for voting be a problem?
The only way the GOP/Teaparty know how to win is by cheating others their RIGHT TO VOTE! Just look at the FL, PA, OH all run by Republican Gov's. PA has to have one of the most strictest laws, they are not just requiring a photo ID, but they have closed down or shorten hours for over 750,000 people from getting a ID. Heck even a PA senator guaranteed Romney a win with the new voter ID and said it publicly. In WI the voter ID was struck down in courts, but attorney general Van Holden decided to challenge it but to by pass the courts and go directly to the WI Supreme Court(which is mainly all Repub). He wants to do this ASAP so the voter ID can be in place in time for the Nov election, and before the Federal Justice dept gets their say. WI Supreme Court is a joke, they always vote down party lines, not was is right or what is the law. Under WI Constitution is a person right to vote, not to suppress it.
Woops!! I missed this the first time around................
Even college students, according to the helpless Democrats. Anybody on here ever been to college? Did you have a photo ID. I have news for these judges. College students in Texas don't necessarily vote Democrat.
TXhorseman
In Tx a college ID isn't an accepted form of voter ID. Most likely because you don't have to be a citizen to be a college student.
GOP Lies,
I read the referenced article. Maybe you should too before you begin calling people names.
You do realize The Heritage Foundation is a very right-wing think tank and not part of US GOVERNMENT data sources, right?
Oh, you want post readers to feel comfortable with the idea the information can be trusted because of that 'US GOVERNMENT' backup. Right. Got it.
Quite.
Eric-913730 "I really hate that these laws all come forward right before Presidential elections."
The law went into effect over 15 months ago - in May, 2011. It was Holder that waited until the last minute to challenge it - hoping to block it just before the election but before the Supreme Court could reverse him, because voter ID laws have already been ruled valid in Georgia and Indiana by the Supreme Court.
It's not Texas trying to put last minute changes into effect, it's Holder playing games at the last minute.
Actually these laws have been reported by "some" news agencies for some time. There are currently 33 states that have passed these laws. All 33 states have a republican majority in the legislature and all were signed by republican governors. As to any validity the argument that these laws are necessary; out of 196 million votes cast during the Bush Administration 86 cases of voter fraud where identified. that is .00004% of votes cast. Voter ID laws are simply voter suppression.
Welcome to the new world order.
Dsp,
Yeah, I know. It was my attempt at pointing out the pure stupidity of the whole mention of college students. You can't get a college ID without some other form of ID. Not really sure what that is for foreign studemts. My boss is not a legal resident of the United States. He is from Canada and lives in Oklahoma. He is not allowed to vote!
The only voter fraud that has been taking place has been that perpetrated by the GOP against members of its own party. Who won the most delegates in Maine ? Who really won the Iowa caucus ? Who really won in CO and NV ?
I know its too late now, but the only frauds in this election are the Republicans.
I think anyone who does'nt think you need a picture ID to vote sure should not hold a goverment office. Hell you have to have a Birth Certificate to play Little League Baseball, I think by the time you reach 18 it's time you put your big boy pants on and got a picture ID.
so I guess AZ is off the hook now....all the illegals can head to TX to vote! Way to go!!!
I better not catch one poor person cashing a check, buying cigarettes or alcohol, going to the ER, flying in an airplane then
One election day within the past few years, I went to vote after dinner (the polls close at 9PM in here in NY) and when they found my name on the voter registration logs a signature was by my name indicating that I 'had already voted' but I hadn't. I got out my driver's license to prove it wasn't my signature and I was getting agitated that someone had impersonated me. The unfortunate person working the polling table was probably just as distraught and they finally let me vote.
Now I see that someone in CA had the same issue, interesting. Did it affect that election, no, unless it was more widespread. But clearly there was voter fraud.
After that experience I can tell you if you want to, you can vote multiple times. There are many small polling places per community in my area. All you need to do is learn the polling districts, look up a name of someone living in that polling district, get up early and go from polling place to polling place, and when they look up the 'name' you gave them scribble a signature. If you only use one name per polling place, then you can vote multiple times at different polling places. The only 'risk' is if the worker looking up the voter log knows the person, or the person happens to vote when you are there.
Here in NY they mail registered voters post cards each year with the election day info. They could use those post cards as a simple ID for registered voters.
Laura,
Read 1.34 and see if you really beleive that. I have copied what he actually said. Heck, go actually read the article.
Hey, what's all this about soldiers voting absentee? How do we know that their buddies aren't filling out the forms and mailing it in for them? There's potential fraud! I think we should change the rules so that soldiers have to report to someone in person to vote, to counteract that potential fraud. Of course, this would only apply to soldiers from certain swing states. And let's change those rules ... when's the election? Two months away? ... now!
(I know this is unnecessary for most of you, but past experience tells me I should point out that I'm being sarcastic.)
Bottom line, folks: if a state can guarantee that every voter who needs an ID will be provided one without extra time or expense on their part, without exception, in plenty of time to use that ID for the next election, then I see no problem. I don't think the courts will have a problem with that, either.
well the federal goverment has been consistent in NOT enforcing immigration laws guess they disenfranchise the illegals is no small wonder they would NOT enforce voter ID. So this mandatory car insurance I'm required to pay for I can discontinue since I've not filed a single claim? or the PMI insurance since I've not ever defaulted on a mortgage? Well just be watching all the black people when they apply for jobs are they are for bi-lingual speakers I'm sure the conquistadors hispanic school councils will vote to pay for their remedial math,remedial reading..oh now remedial spanish good luck amigo... jajajaja
Wow, so all you conservatives care to explain why, if the legislatures true purpose was only to ensure the integrity of the voting process, they voted down all the amendments to waive the fees for the ID? It isn't up to you to decide if $20 is pocket change and by god if these people wanted to vote they'd spend the money to get the ID. If it was truly about voting integrity then all the republican legislatures across the country pushing this crap would have directed the Sec of State for each state to issue and mail out a voter ID to each registered voter on their rolls, and not worry about the cost. But tellingly this is not the path they chose to pursue.
Robert in Oregon "The assumption that the lack of evidence of voter fraud is merely evidence of lack of effective detection, is illogical."
Your statement is illogical. If you cannot check to see if someone has voted illegally, then using that as evidence of no voter fraud is what is truly 'illogical'.
It would have been real simple to provide the cards free, these people are registered. The cards without photo, mailed to the residence's address combined with voter rolls and precinct sign-in, (or optionally with photo ID) is, and always was sufficient safeguard against voter fraud. Now, absentee ballots were left out of the equation, as were paperless Diebold voting machines, even though they were proven hackable. Openly pushed by ALEC to Republican only legislatures with no provision to provide them free and no mention of the other two methods for voting fraud possibilities, combined with statements by Republican officials, including those who oversee voting in their states, is as blatant a steaming crock as we have seen since the good ole days for you good ole dixie boys.
TXhorse. Get on yur doggie and ride off into the sunset, and u can have ur union with whatever suits yah.
truetexan
Hmm, well, let's examine that. I have lived in Oregon since my birth, 59 years ago. I have both professional and post-graduate degrees from university (not definitive, yet expositive evidence of some intelligence), and I believe I'm pretty well informed about public and civic affairs in my state of Oregon. So I would argue that I actually do know a bit about what goes on in my state. However, I recognize that your rhetorical rant didn't actually seek my response. So please, continue.
A fair question. I have 17 (seventeen) members -- three generations -- of my extended family who are Texas natives or have moved to Texas from Oklahoma, and who are still in residence there (in Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston and Corpus Christie). For the past 55 years I have spent 3 to 5 weeks of every year in Texas, I communicate with my family members at least weekly by telephone and/or email ....and I can also read (are you surprised that people who believe in equal voting rights can read?) I also hold a strong affection for the state, because of my family ties and because of the natural beauty of many parts of Texas which I have visited, and the general kindness and friendliness of the Texas people. But please continue.
You can imagine how this revelation comes as a disquieting surprise to me, given that my water district encourages on-site rain water capture and conservation, and mandates on-site surface/rain water storage and mitigation for all new construction and commercial and institutional hard-surface site renovations. I have three downspout-capture rain barrels at my own home, which provide 100% of the supplemental water I use for my drip irrigation system for my landscaped beds and for my two raised-bed vegetable and cooking herb gardens. I had no idea that I was running the risk of jail time. Care to expand on your hypothesis, please?
Well, I'm actually a registered "Independent" and a political moderate. But don't let my facts get in the way of your rant. Please continue. (PS. Food for thought: When a person views the world from the extreme right, everyone else appears to be a leftist.)
The idea that a state has the right to "secede", leave the union -- via a vote within that state or any other way -- is an attack on the United States Constitution and a treasonous philosophy. Yes, that's right, "treasonous." The US Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutional question of secession. The American Civil War was fought over the unconstitutional secession from the union by a confederation of states first; not over the question of slavery. In 1861, secession was called "treason", which is exactly what it was, by definition. Patriotic Americans do not advocate secession, or engage in other forms of sedition against our Republic.
Show me one governmental entity anywhere in the country where not having a photo ID is illegal! I dare you.
(And typing something in bold fonts doesn't make it morr true, by the way.)
Voters who can't speak English really shouldn't be allowed to vote. They show CONTEMPT for Americans!
There is no voter fraud going on. Since the beginning of the millennium twelve years ago, there have been 340 documented cases of voter fraud in the entire United States for all elections. That averages out to about 28 a year or one vote for every two states. Hardly an epidemic.
Voter ID laws on the other hand will disenfranchise millions of voters. Pennsylvania alone will have over 750,000 voters effected by this. So if you don't think for a second that this is politically motivated, ask yourself is it more important to prevent one person in every two states from voting illegally or is it more important that millions of American citizens get a chance to vote legally?
The whole crux of this idea rests on keeping minorities, the elderly and younger voters away from the poles as they have a much higher propensity of voting Democratic.
I'm calling Bull$hip on the Republican party for this one. It smells of Karl Rove.
Well I'm gald to hear from our liberal friends that I no longer need a valid picture ID to buy a firearm, or to go into the social welfare office and demand a TANF stipend, or to file a small claims action, or to demand Medicaid or Medicare, or...well you get the point. Liberals don't mean that, not at all.
How much fraud is there? Not much is reported, but do you think, possibly, there is much more than is reported? Like, oh I don't, what do liberals ALWAYS claim there is more of than reported....say, rape? Or sexual harrassment? Or violence on Super Bowl Sunday?
I don't think it's a burden to ask someone to provide proof they are who they claim to be when exercising an action that can have a direct impact upon my life. I don't want to deny anyone who has a lawful right of voting from doing so. But take the case of South Carolina for example. About a month ago Governor Haley was asked about their ID requirement. See, leftists said the same things as leftists say here...Hey, it's too much money (not in SC where it's free if you are poor), or, Hey, I can't afford to drive or take a bus or ride a horse to get it (not in SC where they will give you a ride, free of charge, to get your ID). Well, as of a month ago only 24 people in the entire state asked for, whether they needed help or not, for a ride to get their ID.
I think the FAR bigger point in these cases is that our leftist friends view most Americans as feeble and helpless, unable to even wipe their own rear ends without bureaucratic assistance. We cannot remain a great country when so many Americans think the majority of us are either liars, cheats, or incompetents.
To those that say there is no voter fraud I ask you this....
If the IRS and SS had offices that you went to, to get your check and did not requre any ID. All you had to do was sign your name and they hand you a check. If there was no way for people to report that someone else picked up their check, and there was no spot checking or any kind of verification at all, then you would say that there is no fraud because there is no evidence of fraud?
What if at immigration on the Mexican border, they had a line for citizens and one for non-citizens. And the one for citizens did not have anyone manning it. No check of your passport at all. It just was an open gate going straight out of the building. No checks at all. No random checks, nothing.
You would say that non-citizens are not using the citizen lane because there is no proof that they are. So there would not be any fraud. Right?
If you do not have any way to detect fraud, if you do not allow anything that might detect fraud then how can you say that there is no fraud because there is no evidence of it?
How are those of us who vote early by mail supposed to show ID?
If there are fraud voters, they should just switch to mail-in ballots.
I'm just voting on local candidates/issues - AZ will go to Mittens regardless of how I vote for President...it should be by popular vote.
@dsb
Dsb, this first part of your post (above) gave me a chuckle. Using the expression "when her eyesight went south" in a Texas political demographics discussion, warrants a bit more specificity.
In the context of age-related physiology, "eyesight went south" likely describes being presbyopic.
In the context of Texas political demographics, "eyesight went south" as likely describes being myopic.
Just my tuppence .....
;-)
A JP Patches Pal in AZ? Thought for sure you were going to be in Washington. Here we have ALL mail in ballots. There are no places to actually go to vote, unless you want to get together with your friends and fill out your ballots together.
I really do not like it and think it could result in massive fraud. But the government loves it cause it saves them money.
I called the county office in charge of voter registration last week to change my address. They changed it no problem. I could have changed other people's while I was at it if I wanted to. I asked them how they knew that it was me that filled out my ballot. They said they compare the signatures to the registration card from when I registered to vote. He said they do it for each and every ballot. Not sure I believe that. Being that there are almost 7 million people in Washington. That means that somewhere between 3-4 million people vote. So they are comparing 3-4 million signatures? How could they possibly do that and still report the results on election night?
Jim in Auburn; after working out in the NW rain for 25 years, I had to get some sunshine for the old bones, but I may become a snowbird...I miss the grand-daughter too much.
Robert,
You really made me laugh. Thanks for that!!!
dsp,
My grandmother, now deceased, but lived to the ripe old age of 94, was also born in her home as were many of that generation. She had a valid driver's license both in California and then Texas, so I don't see where your Grandmother would have been at any dissadvantage. However, having said that:
The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) issues non-driver identification cards to State residents who don't have a valid ID card, driver license or instruction permits from the State or any other jurisdiction. The ID card can be used to prove your identity, age and residence in a variety of situations. The identification card is valid for six years if you are under 60. For residents who are 60 and above a single renewal is valid for life. There is no age restriction to apply for an ID card.
APPLYING FOR A TEXAS ID CARD
After a five-year hunt for voter fraud, the Bush administration's Justice Department came up with little widespread fraud, finding mostly cases of people mistakenly filling out voter registration forms or voting when they didn't know they were ineligible.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud/#ixzz254HnCgWT
The only voter fraud has been committed by O'Keefe, a repub/tparty shill, for which he should be jailed and we're still waiting. Oh yes, and the repub/tparty primaries, where Ron Paul won. I hope this teaches his supporters the filth in the repub/tparty.
Jim in Auburn; that could work both ways - depending on how shaky my hand is that day, they could throw out my mail-in ballot by saying my signature didn't match. It's pretty funny watching me try and eat after doing repetitive motions with my right hand - that fork is going all over the place...as if Gertrude had whacked it or something.
Again you conservatives make me gag man i swear you people are in deniel of the truth and seeing what is really going on here. When you say you need an ID for everything these days that's a lie i can't remember the last time i showed my ID when i used my credit card on top of that my mother who does not drive anymore opened a bank account without a photo ID she used her Soc Sec card and her medicare card. When you register to vote you have already proven your citizenship your sig is on file and they match it. I don't mind people showing a photo ID as long as they make it free and not difficult to get. They repubs know what they are doing and the Penn legislator said it best when he admitted that why they passed this alec voter suppression law. The repubs know their message isn't popular so the only way they can when is to cheat by keeping down the vote!
Pat Socal,
Do you have an ID with your name on it? If so, feel free to shut up!! I didn't attack you or anyone else!!
To those who claim that voter fraud is not a problem and doesn't affect the outcome of anything, consider this;
In 2008, ACORN, the taxpayer funded organization that was convicted in several states of voter registration fraud, registered over 40,000 pro-Obama voters in Minnesota, and Al Franken won the Senate seat by only about 300 votes, which gave the Democrats the 'filibuster proof' 60 votes they needed to pass Obamacare. If only about 300 of those votes were fraudulent, then it resulted in a new permanent 'entitlement' program that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates will cost taxpayers over $1.76 TRILLION over the next 10 years.
By the way - It's illegal for any citizens to check to see if any of those people voted illegally because of 'privacy concerns', so there is no way of finding out how many people actually voted illegally.
@ROY WILSON-336103
Roy, I understand and accept that is your interpretation of what I wrote, but you make a logical disconnect. What I wrote is: "The assumption that the lack of evidence of voter fraud is merely evidence of lack of effective detection, is illogical."
You start with the assumption that large scale voter fraud IS occurring. In other words, you BEGIN with a CONCLUSION. You cannot provide any evidence of large-scale voter fraud, or even identify frequent credible anecdotal accounts of large-scale voter fraud.
But rather than be dissuaded from your assumption, or even persuaded to modify your conclusion due to lack of supportive evidence, you instead draw another conclusion; that your lack of evidence of such large-scale voter fraud is not expositive of anything, but rather it merely provides reinforcement of your beginning hypothesis that the current voting laws are inadequate and need to be changed in order to provide you with the evidence of what you already have concluded is occurring.
The field of Psychology refers to that as "motivated reasoning"; an inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance.
Roy, you are using a corollary argument to that which is made by Conservative Right Evangelicals in arguing their certitude in the existence of God. They say, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Frankly I find that acceptable, as a theological supposition; and even compelling as a point of debate. That argument does not harm me, or threaten my rights.
But your corollary goes further, and argues that the absence of evidence IS evidence: You conclude that your lack of evidence of large-scale voter fraud is evidence of lack of effective detection of the large-scale voter fraud that IS occurring. That is motivated reasoning, and that is illogical.
And using that illogical and unsupportable argument as justification for an attempt to change voting laws for the real purpose of disenfranchising me, or disenfranchising any other American citizen from exercising our voting suffrage.... is contemptible.
Roy Wilson tell me another right wing lie those ACORN volunteers where getting paid for each card they turned in and those cards where not turned in for registration they where thrown out and those people were not paid for those fake names. Now if you know the law you can't register fraudulently because the info gets crossed checked in the system to determine if you are old enough and is an legal citizen. Again another lie and total right wing paranoid conspiracy. Like i said above the repubs cannot win on their own record or extreme Nazi agenda their only hope is to denie legal American citizens to vote period.
Every American should have photo ID!!!!! How are you ever going to make anything of yourself if you don't? If you're poor then we should provide it for you free. That would be money better spent than buying birth control pills for women. So let's make that trade, free ID, no free birth control.
Isn't it funny that they always say that racial minorities and the poor are the most likely to not have photo ID and that they are most likely to vote democrat. I guess they might wise up some day and realize that the democrats really aren't helping them. Ask yourself, why would my political party fight for me to not have to get ID? Especially when ID will help you get ahead in life here in the United States of America.
Everybody - Friday we are going to have a "Blue Moon". Neil Armstrong's memorial is Friday. Maybe we can all agree that we have someone we can all celebrate on 8/31/2012. God bless him.
Easydoesit-
You do realize that the data being used is directly from the US CENSUS DATA. What right wing or left wing group put the US CENSUS DATA together? Just because you don't like who is publishing the data doesn't make it invalid. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass and stop listening to your far left wing sources and people might be comfortable with you. Got it? Right.
You can't require an id to vote if it requires some type of payment to get it. Why should Repubs be allowed to violate the Act?
lsgyrl-479
You are correct. That would constitute a "poll tax," which would be unlawful. The Court has ruled on this.
I believe that the Texas law was put forth at this time in the election cycle in order to have it knocked down by the courts thereby creating an enormous outcry of public anger against the Democratic party and President O'Bama. One need only read these comments to understand what I'm speaking of.
Quite clever actually.
Like this.
@Zathrose
Zathrose, please tell us that you unintentionally used a poor choice of words. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, despite some of the other intolerant things you have posted.
OK Robert in Oregon,
How do you suppose that we determine if there is voter fraud going on? How about we spot check people's ID, maybe on 10% of the people to see if there is a problem. No? Would you be OK with that? How about we require people have proof of citizenship to register to vote? No?
If I said that I was giving out $1000 to everyone that graduated from my university. All they had to do was sign a piece of paper, and check a box that says they went to that university. And I would not try to verify their ID in any way, or compare their name in any way to the people that went to the university. How many people do you think would come and claim their $1000 for going to my university? And how many would be telling the truth that they went to my university? All of them of course because I would have no evidence that anyone was lying. I would have no evidence that anyone was committing fraud by claiming they went to my university.
I wonder how I could ensure that they are who they say they are? I wonder how I could ensure they were a student? I wonder how I could determine if there were people claiming to be from my university? Maybe I could require a university student ID? NO that would be bad. Better to just say that there is no fraud because I do not bother to do the one thing that might actually detect it.
How does a person go through life with no ID? How big of a bum or illegal do you have to be to not have an ID? What is wrong with proving who you are to vote?
This is nothing more than the Obama administration trying to steal the election by having hordes of illegals vote for the Dems. Why can't we call it what it is and stop the illegal tactics?
If they did not require proof of citizenship or ID for a US passport there would not be any fraud. Every person getting a passport would get one using their real name, and no non-citizens would be getting US passports.
At least that is what the democrats say.
Of course you need id to vote! My uncle was a minor clog in the democratic party and he bragged how he he got around the voter laws. He would pick up a car load of men and take them around to all the voting polls and have them vote again and again in Paterson NJ. They had the fix in. There was a team that checked the voting roles for dead people and these men would just tell the people they were xyz and vote for democrats. Everyone forgets the fix in Illinois for Kennedy and the fix in Texas by Johnson for Kennedy. You need verification to get a driver's licence and to go to school. The judges were paid off!
You have to show ID to drink!
You have to show id to get on an airplane. When are they going to stop that?
Well I saw a post that sked or said people who cannot speak english should not be able to vote. Europeans who had that same problem were always given assistance in voting after they became citizens and there are still some here right now who need this. But now I guess if you are a brown person from South America that no longer is valid.
Let me say thsi. I am not against showing proper id to vote and have never been. However if they want to make a law like that then they should do it for the next election next year and make it free for everyone to obtain whatever it is they want to see. I believe here in my state a state phot id costs 28 bucks. So if I have to get one thats a poll tax......Poll taxes are illegal....Texas has to have anything that changes their voting laws approved by federal judges because they got caught discriminating....The bills which are all practically the same indicating there is some wierd plot here were written by a lobbyist that is backed by the Koch bros....This is a federal election and the voting rights for all Americans should be the same period. Nice try right wingers and I hope you pissed of tthe minorities so bad they all show up and vote and run you clowns out of office
Robert, actually my mother had macular degeneration. That's why we took her keys. She had no business driving. But she was sharp as a tack and would have been royally pissed if she couldn't vote. Most likely I would have had to drive the 543 milesfrom my house to her's, bring her back to Austin so she could give some reps an earful. Blow that I think about it, it would have been funny. She was barely 5 feet tall and a real spitfire
TXhorseman
Been there, done that. They wanted a birth certificate, which we didn't have. They said we could apply for one but it might take as long as 6 months, IF they could find the records. And it had to be done in Austin. I live in Austin but many older folks don't have relatives to work through the red tape
We didn't pursue the ID. She had no need for it back then. Now, we would have tried with no certainty of even receiving one before the election.
Oh, btw, she actually got her first DL at the age of 14 (just like most of us older Texans) and drove for close to 70 years. But when we took her keys she had no reason to up it and couldn't pass the eye exam anyway.
Breadex,
This law was passed in May of 2011. 18 months or so prior to this years election.
Liberals and ACORN dont want things to change
A marvelous story by Anita Moncrief; her transformation from liberal to conservative and awesome insight into ACORN.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/embed/3CmkbShVqNA?feature=player_embedded
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/embed/gy6odnqyLeU?feature=player_embedded
The dipsh** demlibs don't want id's ,as it'll allow their sorry sack constituents to keep voting more than once, plus keep their dead voting; it's that ____ing simple. They are so sadly desperate because the country isn't going to elect Bozobama after his numerous failures, that they are willing to do anything.
Since passports, ID cards, and drivers licenses can all be easily forged and duplicated, maybe voting should be set up by social security number, which everyone already has, and can be quickly verified on line by polls volunteers when the voter checks in.
Yes, social security cards can be forged also, but they're a little tougher than ID cards. If someone is dead, the ss card verifier would show it.
If it is discriminatory to require an I.D. to vote then isn't it discriminatory to require an I.D. for anything? Isn't the liberals pathetic excuse that it "costs too much"?
How can a bank require an I.D. to open an account? How are young minorities supposed to buy alcohol or tobacco with this "unfair burden" of obtaining an I.D. on them? How on earth can they cash a paycheck if they have to go through the discrimination of getting an I.D.?
If obtaining an I.D. is somehow discriminatory because of "cost" then it is discriminatory no matter what it's use is.... but then again liberals aren't going to acknowledge that because they all know this is nothing more than despicable politics to trade America's future for political power.
Let's take this one step at a time...
1. The voter fraud rate is .0002%. This was supplied by the non-partisan, Brennan Center for Justice.
2. We already need ID's to vote, and obviously the ID's we have are working, (see number 1).
3. Voting is a civil right. That's why any comparisons to needing picture ID to drive, drink, yada, yada, yada, are off point. None of those things are civil rights.
4. We do not make laws under the assumption of guilt. That means, in order to expand government power and limit rights you need evidence of a compelling state interest. Otherwise, JS's logic could be used to descimate our entire Bill of Rights.
So, here are some questions...
A. With a voter fraud rate of .0002%, what is the compelling state interest in changing the ID process we have in place?
B. Why did this problem seem to crop up, only in the last two years? What's occurred since the 2010 election, that all of a sudden created this neccessity?
C. What would some of you be saying if they were trying to increase ID standards to buy guns?
It's a constitutional right to vote but isn't to open a bank account, buy liquor/cigarettes or any of the other things you cite. If your logic was in any way valid why was anyone allowed to vote in the 1700's or 1800's before they even had photographs?
In many states like Virginia it's difficult to get a photo ID without another photo ID. I had an elderly woman friend who couldn't get one even though she had a birth certificate and social security card but didn't have military ID, welfare card, marriage certificate, or green card. For a social security card to be accepted as a second document it has to be registered in the DMV system and she'd never had a license or ID before so they wouldn't accept it. She still hasn't been able to get one.
earthgirl
Earthgirl, Nice try. How dare you try to spring a fast one on us and try to cite as your support for your commie, pinko, socialist, Marxist Liberal Lies, that well-known lame-stream Liberal Propaganda Machine for the DNC, ... Fox News!!!
Oh, wait. Crap! Never-mind ....
;-)
(Grin. It never gets old, does it?)
actually sarah its been an issue for about 30 years just didnt get the coverage its gotten now because when it first popped up repubs were in power but couldnt get enough votes to change the law .... larry I live in Va when I moved back all I had to show was ss card birth certificate and a bill verifying my address to get a license. not hard at all(this was after the laws were changed here) my premise is this why do people cite the constitution and bill of rights then turn around and argue against it when it doesnt suit them? Why wouldnt the argument that things change and the founding fathers didnt anticipate this, apply here like all the other times that logic is applied? one other thing would voter IDs have been a good Idea if obama suggested them? food for thought
Larry:
If your elderly friend were to move to Santa Ana, CA, she would be able to fraudulently acquire any type of card/ID she wanted. No questions asked.
oh! no! now THOSE people will be able to vote! (said in sarcasm). Thats what republicans are saying behind closed doors. Any trick they can come up with to thwart the majority. to push their millionaire agenda. I can hear them in the background as I type cheering on tv at the con vention. (my wife watches that crap.). to me they sound like the people who cheered Hitler right before Crystal nicht. (night of broken glass). as it was called. the Nazis broke the stores and houses of jews starting with their windows.
Voter fraud is only alleged by Republicans. Voter fraud, if it were happening, would be a concern of everyone, not just Republicans. The fact that this is a partisan debate shows that there is no voter fraud problem. It's been observed, quite simply, that it is only states with Republican Governors and/or Republican-controlled legislatures that are fabricating a voter fraud problem.
It's like the Music Man saying "Ya got trouble right here in River City!" Except here, no one wants to play in their band!!
@Jim in Auburn
Hello Jim,
In answer to your question ... I don't suppose to try to do so. And I don't propose that there is a need. These laws are a "solution" in response to an assumed problem. I do not believe there is a problem.
That also happens to be the opinion of the US Justice Departments of Presidents Barack Obama and President George W. Bush, and five (5) separate District Courts of Appeal in decisions rendered so far, with more yet to come. Those District Courts of Appeal include justices who were appointed by Presidents Obama, George W Bush, Clinton and George HW Bush.
The "urgent problem" -- "the clear and present danger to our democracy" -- so far appears to exist only in the minds of Republican Controlled State's Legislative Assemblies. Odd, huh? Do you believe in coincidences? Truth is such a pesky foe.
The argument of those Republican controlled State's Legislative Assemblies that are crafting these new laws appears to be:
"Significant voter fraud MUST BE occurring. We cannot provide any evidence of the fraud, but we KNOW it is occurring. So we MUST change the law."
My argument is:
"No evidence that significant voter fraud is occurring can be provided. If evidence of the fraud IS provided we can modify the law to address the fraud."
There is an inelegant but succinct adage which goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And an even more adroit and apropos corollary adage which goes: "If it ain't broke,.....don't break it."
I would argue:
Don't disenfranchise tens of thousands of our fellow American Citizens, by making their exercise of their voting suffrage unnecessarily difficult, for the stated purpose of stopping a problem which has not been shown to even exist (or worse, for the true purpose of suppressing the votes of Americans you believe are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates and Democratic social and political ideology.)
I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and thankfully neither did the vast majority of Federal Judges. This is not the Republican Party's finest hour.
I would propose that the Republican Party try a different tack; honesty and integrity.
Try broadening its base to embrace a broader demographic of the American people, and persuade them to vote for the Republican Party candidates due to the appeal of their party's ideology ... rather than suppressing the votes of Americans who have concluded that the contemporary Republican Party no longer represents the interests of average, and disadvantaged Americans.
But that's just me. Just my tuppence ....
Republicans wish to add to restrictions on voting that wasn't even possible when the constitution was written. They do so citing changes in society today require it. Sorry, republicans won't accept that the constitutions right to bear arms was implemented at a time when muskets were the only available fire arms and demand their right to own assault rifles and 100 round magazines. You can't have it both ways. You either accept the constitution as written or you legally amend it. Until that happens you abide by it.
Larry:
The Second Amendment states: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Shall not be infringed. Period.
dsb
Dsb, your mother sounds wonderful, and a lot like mine. Mine has been gone for many years now, and one of the last times she left her house before her death was to vote (I transported her to her precinct polling place and stood outside of the both holding her arm so she could stand at the voting punch-card machine).
We have had "Vote By Mail" in Oregon state for several years now, so voting for the elderly and infirm is much easier than it once was. And yet many elderly whom I speak with lament no longer going to their precinct polling places and casting their votes in public; exercising their cherished civic duty in the presence of their fellow citizens. I admit, having voted both ways myself, I miss the precinct polling places, too.
Thanks for the opportunity provided with your previous "vision went south" post to post my own observation (about intollerance) which amused me. It's good that I didn't know the specifics. Macular degeneration doesn't rhyme with "myopic", so I took the easy path and referenced "presbyopic", the middle-age vision malady with which I am all too familiar!
;-)
PS. I have read many of your posts, and you do your mother proud. As my favorite, late Texas Uncle would have said: "Your Mom didn't raise no dummies."
You can't really blame the republicans for trying to stop a good chunk of even their own masses from voting this year as they already realize they are alienating themselves from real republicans each and everytime they open their tealibanian mouths with their threats of rewriting the constitution so they can force thier religious beliefs on the nation and make new amendments to the constitution to suppress women and minorites and take away any form of assistances the needy count on to survive. Starve a man and he will work for minimum wage. Starve his family and he will work for less than the republicans currently pay their illegal immigrant workers.
Since the Fifteenth Amendment only applies to citizens, how is it confirmed that every voter is a citizen?
The Political Football - sometimes you just have to admit you got out-played and move on to the next issue. It's not about what is best (for us citizens), until we all agree that some groups always come out the winner - and we stand up to them - then the Football game will just keep playing overtime....first one to tell the truth loses.
@ROY WILSON-336103
Hello Roy. "...antiquated provision" in this context presupposes that the original purpose and intent of the provision -- to stop illegal efforts by states to deny voting rights to individuals and groups of individuals -- no longer is relevant; and the provision therefore is out of date, obsolete.
Whereas these new Republican controlled Legislative Assembly crafted laws have the exact same underlying intent (voter suppression) for which the provisions of the Voting Rights Act were written, passed by the US Congress and signed into law. Ergo the provisions of the Voting rights are in fact relevant, not "antiquated."
And the reason these provisions are applied "to just a handful of states" is that those states have a dark and ignoble history of discriminatory practices of voter suppression. Hence, those states have in effect been placed on "probation" under the federal law. These latest attempts to continue efforts to side-step and pervert the provisions of the Voting Rights Act only further demonstrate the wisdom of the probationary provisions of the Act placed on those states, and illustrate the reason why those states continue to be under the oversight of the US Justice Department and the Courts.
Just my tuppence ....
The same republican controlled justices that already declared that corporations are people.
@FedupwithFed
Um, ... did you nod off? ACORN has been defunct since 2010.
I can't speak for "Liberals", only for myself. I DO want things to change, and I believe if you were to ask "liberals" you might be surprised. My believe is that "liberals", "conservatives", "moderates", "libertarians", "Democrats", "Republicans", "Independents" all want things to change.
I suspect what really troubles you, your real issue, is that others do not seek the exact same changes that you want.
But that's the whole idea of a Democratic Representative Republic, isn't it.
"ROY WILSON" said:
To those who claim that voter fraud is not a problem and doesn't affect the outcome of anything, consider this;
In 2008, ACORN, the taxpayer funded organization that was convicted in several states of voter registration fraud...
---------------------------------------------------------------
In refutation to your argument for supporting Voter ID laws by citing ACORN's influence, I give these excerpts from Wikipedia:
ACORN received significant negative publicity in the wake of the 2009 production and publication of videos, which were later found to be partially falsified and selectively edited,[9] by two conservative activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. The activists used hidden-camera recordings to portray low-level ACORN employees as engaging in criminal activity, apparently advising them on how to hide prostitution activities and avoid taxes.[10] A nationwide controversy ensued, immediately resulting in a loss of funding from government and private donors,[11][12][13] including legislative amendments to spending bills in the United States House and Senate prohibiting government funding of the group.
Following the publication of the videos and withdrawal of funding, four different independent investigations by various state and city Attorneys General and the GAO released in 2009 and 2010 cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in criminal activities and that the organization had managed its federal funding appropriately, and calling the videos deceptively and selectively edited to present the workers in the worst possible light. Despite this, by March 2010, 15 of ACORN's 30 state chapters had already closed[11] and the group announced it was closing its remaining state chapters and disbanding.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now
Right-wing propaganda is a pretty powerful "social engineering" tool of the neo con artists that even succeeded in fooling Congress to ban ACORN, yes?
There is a collection taken up every year for the Catholic Churches in Latin America. Their annual report for that collection has the amount of Catholics in Mexico listed as over 122 million. Since the actually population of Mexico for that year was only 105 million, I would consider that a MIRACLE. More Catholics than people!
I'm sorry. but having an Identification card (doesn't have to be a driver's Lisence) is the requirement of the day. So, someone walking down the street to get beer, go to school, write a check, job intervue, and so forth......will not need an ID? Wake up! People need to get educated. This is getting ridiculous.
Right. Now there may be more Democrats that will be able to vote. Oh, no.
Seriously, the only problems there have been with voter fraud was not at the polls.
my2cents - Kudos for a rational comment, one which neither speaks of rampant, but undocumented, voter fraud, not that the concept of proof of identity to vote is tantamount to racism or a fascist conspiracy.
Positive ID to vote should not be such an burdensome requirement, and it makes rational sense. But to enact such a law just 2 months before the national elections... that is suspicious timing.
Debi,
Which brings us back to Doe...
The voter fraud rate is .0002%. Non citizens AREN'T voting. Until you have proof that they are, you have no reason to pass these laws. We don't limit rights on the off chance that there MIGHT be a problem, or there COULD be a problem.
We could or might one day have a "slander" problem in this country, should we limit 1st Amenddment rights?
That 'proving who you are' is the sticking point for many. Many of the elderly were born back before birth records were kept or were not born in a hospital. If your birth record was on paper and in a natural disaster prone area, chances are the records could be lost or damaged--look at New Orleans, look at the flooding, do you think the people who are being rescued have their birth certificates? If their houses are totaled by Issac they may not have all their paperwork together in time for the elections in November.
And you also have people like me, abandoned as an infant with no documentation, so I have no idea how old I really am, and I have no original birth certificate to get a DL with--I am absolutely relieved that I got my DL back when I turned 18 and an original birth certificate wasn't required--I have an adoption certificate that shows my adoptive parents as my parents, and at the time that was enough for the DMV.
It is not anymore, but as long as I don't allow it to expire, renewals can be done over the mail and I don't have to show up or try to explain why I don't have a BC. I don't have to show ID to buy a bus pass, don't need to show ID to get on my bicycle to bike to work, do not smoke or drink so never had to prove age for age-restricted purposes. If I were to allow my DL to expire and then tried to go in to get an ID or another DL, I would be unable to do so because I don't have an original BC.
I have a coworker who was born in Puerto Rico. They used the BC as a means of identity everywhere, with the result that many of those BCs were stolen and used in identity theft cases, to the point where the Puerto Rican government finally just scrapped the old birth certificates, revamped the format etc., and reissued them, but many Puerto Ricans living on the US mainland didn't know about the change and had no idea their BC's were now invalid. My coworker had her passport revoked because her original birth certificate has been invalidated by the government of PR, and now she can't travel on business until she gets that reissued BC. She knows she's not going to have that process completed before the elections this year, and she's also hesitant about traveling to any of the Southern States where ID is checked because she's afraid she'll be mistaken for an 'illegal' based on her appearance and accent and detained. She has a DL, an SS card, husband in the military, passed eVerify here at work, but at the moment she doesn't have a valid BC or passport.
Homeland Security, during the recent Supreme Court hearings on the 'papers, please' immigration check laws, said they don't have a national database of who is and is not a citizen. The only way to prove you are a citizen is through the passport registration system...and according to the State Department, only 117 million people in this country have passports, out of a population of 312 million people.
Passports are not cheap, and people like me, like my coworker, can't get one.
And there is a huge sector such as myself Amanda that have absolutely no reason to solicit a passport as we never intend to leave the country to begin with.
This is the most vicious attack on minorities and the poor I have seen yet. Mitt Romney and the Repubs are trying anything, ANYTHING, including LYING to the American people, to get President Obama out of the White House, so they can take over. If that happens, we are in deep Sh*t. They don't care about anyone but money. And if you think this Voter ID stuff is bad, just wait. They want to take away my right to choose and your right to choose, whether or not you have a child. They want to take away the money that the elderly have worked hard all of their lives to be able to retire and have medicaid. There is nothing honorable about these people. They are reminiscient of Nazi Germany and Hitler. They are bigots and racists and they think they know better than God, have more money than God and if people can't see that this voter ID stuff was brought in so close to the election so as to keep minorities and others from voting, then you are blind and ignorant. Voter fraud is not a problem. The only issue I have seen since I have been voting is the illegal crap that went on in Florida when George W "got elected". God help us all.
OK, so most of this has focused on lazy irresponsible poor people - what about the amish? They are certainly not lazy...
Pennsylvania's new law requiring PHOTO ID's for voters has an exemption non-photo ID's to be issued to the Amish, if they submit a NOTARIZED affidavit in support of the exemption.
The only problem I see is that in order to have a document NOTARIZED, you need to have... A PHOTO ID....
Sarah:
There are always two sides to every pancake.
It's understandable there are cases where obtaining a valid ID is impossible for some.
On the other side, the Fifteenth Amendment clearly states voting rights pertain to citizens. California is now on the verge of allowing drivers licenses (ID's) to approximately 400,000 non citizens who qualify for a temporary stay.
Both parties are guilty of manipulating the elections. My main concern is following the Fifteenth Amendment as it was written.
I am a PhD student who resides in the state of Texas.
In 2008, I walked in and voted, no problem.
For 2012, my birthday is shortly prior to the election and my driver's license will be a temporary no-photo license during the election.
That means I can bring in:
The deed to my house.
My photo student id.
My birth certificate
The certificate given to me certifying I was an American citizen for travel to Mexico.
My utility, and cable bills
My social security card
my 2 day expired texas driver's license
my payment of tuition
school issued documents showing I am a citizen
Pay stubs
and tax records
All indicating that I am a citizen, have resided at the same residence for over 4 years, have been an employee of the State of Texas at two different agencies, have been an employee of the University, and am Currently an employee of the City.
With the new voter ID law, if the polling representatives see fit, I might be able to get a provisional ballot.
Those people defending this change realize that it would take less documentation to ACTUALLY BECOME PRESIDENT than it would take to vote for the president?
Luckily for me, I have a current passport, so I will use that, otherwise I guess I would go to court over the issue.
I doubt that impoverished citizens generally carry around passports for foreign travel, so I guess they are out of luck if the were unlucky enough to be born shortly prior to the election.
So Debi,
You're o.k. with disenfranchising millions of American citizens just to make sure no "illegals" vote? That seems to go against the meaning of the 15th Amendment. And freedom. And America.
hambone:
I am a Constitutional purist. Please read the Fifteenth Amendment, especially the reference to "citizens".
If there is a method to guarantee only citizens were able to vote, then spell it out. I'm open.
The constitution also gives the State police power to enforce laws.
Does that mean that everyone in the nation should be imprisoned to that we are sure that all criminals are incarcerated?
Well, Debi,
As a self-proclaimed Constitutional purist, you seem to not understand that these voter ID laws are restricting access (intentionally or not) for citizens to vote. Do you understand that that goes directly against the 15th Amendment, thereby undermining the Constitution.
For a "purist", you seem to have a lack of understanding about the document.
primate guy:
Answer: Not everyone in the nation are criminals. Criminality requires proof, just as citizenship should require, when necessary, proof.
The question you queried was not a very good analogy, and as a PhD student, it's probably to your advantage to remain in school.
hambone:
Under your assumption, everybody who lives in this country is "assumed" to be a citizen. It's my duty and responsibility as a citizen, to be in a position, at any time, to prove my citizenship, not just 3 months away from an election.
The Fifteenth Amendment was written for the benefit of citizens, not just anyone residing in the U.S. There will be those who fall in the cracks. No laws are perfect. But there are many ways politicians have to skin a cat (fixing an election) and I at least want to be assured those that do vote, are adhering to the Constitution and are citizens.
So, in other words, yes, you are o.k. with taking the right to vote away from those fellow US citizens who "fall in the cracks". Therefore, you are not a Constitutional purist.
By the way, where can I find the number of non-citizens who vote? How much of a problem are we talking about here?
Sarah, before September 11, 2001, the number of U.S. commercial airlines intentionally hijacked and flown into a building was zero. But the vulnerability was there, and it was known.
I'd also point out that significant voter fraud, or the very strong rumor of it, is not entirely unknown in this country. In the 1960 elections it has been widely accepted that Mayor Dailey, his political machine, and the local mafia all had a hand in rigging the election results in Cook County, IL., which in turn pushed the state's electoral votes into the Kennedy's side of the ledger, which in turn, was enought to give Kennedy the election. It has never been proven, but I've read at least one biography of men close enough to the event to know who tell of it.
To demand a photo id as a condition of voting in this modern, rootless age, is hardly an arduous demand. You need one to get a drink if you look under 30. You need one to cash a check in most stores. Voting is one of the single most important elements of our democracy. It is ridiculous that we do not demand positive id as a condition of voting.
That said, 8 to 10 weeks before the November election is no time to institute such a policy, and yes, the timing is suspicious.
hambone:
No one is saying citizens cannot vote (except in states where people with certain criminal records or in particular stages of punishment for crimes, have been forced to give up their Constitutional right and are not allowed to vote, even though nowhere in the Constitution does it say if you commit a crime, you give up your Constitutional rights. Now THAT is a problem people should be up in arms about. Talk about citizens being disenfranchised.) All that should be required to vote is proof you are a citizen of the United States. Period.
To answer your question would be impossible because nobody's citizenship, thus right to vote, has ever been verified or questioned at the polls.
Actually, Constitutional purists do not usually engaging in denying people their rights.
Additionally, you are the only constitutional scholar to interpret the 15th Amendment that way.
Thank you for your assessment of my educational attainment. I sincerely doubt I will be debating you in any of the peer reviewed history journals in which I publish, so I am not really nervous about it.
Possibly one should find a single person on earth who agrees with one's interpretation before attempting to claim authority on the 15th Amendment.
In addition, to claim that citizenship has never been questioned at the polls reveals a complete ignorance of political history in the united states, especially in the south, as well as in the mid-19th century in urban areas.
And Sarah, again, another bad analogy to the issue. If we didn't have the protection of the First Amendment, you would see a never ending slew of judgments in the court system as everyone feels they have been "slandered" at one time or another, but were stopped from succeeding in a lawsuit because of the protections of the First Amendment.
No one is denying anyone their right to vote (see my exception in post #1.136). All I am saying is, with the large mixture of citizens and non citizens that reside in this country, only those with American citizenship should be allowed the right to vote. Unless citizenship is verified, how do we know the Constitution is being followed?
The Supreme Court of our land determined corporations are people. Do you think their determination is accurate? I don't, at least not until a corporation can have a colonoscopy performed. The Second Amendment grants that citizens shall have the right to bear arms, UNINFRINGED. How is it our courts interpreted UNINFRINGED to mean they can make exceptions (caliber, ownership, etc.), without the benefit of a new amendment? Those charged with "interpreting" our Constitution don't always interpret it correctly, but politically.
And we actually still have records of those results? Please, site your source. Since time has passed and the population has risen, maybe it's time to do an assessment to be sure the Constitution is actually being followed. Who really knows? As a citizen, I have an expectation that someone is minding the Constitutional store.
The comment I made regarding your education had nothing to do with your IQ, just your naivety.
Sadly, we are losing it.
No one is denying anyone their right to vote (see my exception in post #1.136).
I believe in the Constitution religiously.....except when I choose to make an exception.
Nice.
Maybe I will post a broad platitude from a founding father that has no direct bearing on the specific policy in question.
Mission Accomplished.
Or maybe you are sophisticated enough to know of some of Benjamin Franklin's sayings about non-white immigrants, and the threat posed to America by immigrants refusing to assimilate, but I doubt it, since he has written extensively on the subject, as he does below:
For instance, those "swarthy Germans", who we all know, successfully ruined this Great Nation, and made us all into Huns, like he predicted.
"Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit,’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."
I fail to see how requiring of ALL citizens that they provide proof of identity and of U.S. Citizenship as a condition of voting discriminates against any group of the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
Obtaining a photo id, and /or proof of U.S. citizenship is hardly an inordinate burden for the vast majority competent adults.
I support such measures. I hope the recent court ruling is overturned by higher courts, as it should be.
..hhhhmmm.
Non-white, German speaking immigrants in the 18th century? Were they from South Africa? Some Asian colony of the Germany?
Tough questions.
If there is a cost to something, then it imposing a requirement for that something is a burden for the poor.
This is kindergarten stuff. Poor people don't have extra money. Essentials of life, like food and medicine, are often traded off one against another. The only defensible approach is to ensure that there is no cost to establishing eligibility. A government unwilling to do so is clearly playing politics, trying to marginalize the poor so that their greed is more likely to prevail in the political circus.
primate guy:
Either you didn't read the exception I posted, and btw, not my exception, or you misread it. IF you read it, you will clearly see I am AGAINST the exception and support everyone, including criminals, their right to vote. Just because someone committed a crime, it shouldn't be a reason to take away their Constitutional right to vote or bear arms, for that matter.
Like I stated, stay in school.
WaltUU: I agree with you. There should be no cost in order to vote. What ever document is necessary to prove one's citizenship should be free so everyone may exercise their right to vote.
WaltUU - There is always a cost associated with voting: travel to the polls, time taken off from work.
These are necessary costs. So toO is having some proof that you are whom you claim to be.
As you said, this is Kindergartgen stuff we're dealing with here. The only question is who is not coloring between the lines?
There are always costs for everything; the law prohibits piling more costs on top of that for ID.
They are costs of running a government; government is to cover those costs. That's the law.
And since everyone has to incur these costs, there is no benefit in covering those costs via a fee versus through the general fund.
The question isn't really about coloring between the lines: The only question is who needs a refresher on the Golden Rule?
What law prohibits this, walt.
I would certainly support subsidizing the administrative costs of obtaining a photo id for the purposes of voting. But I'm unaware of any law which requires this action.
The truth of the matter is the reason this is being pushed by the Republicans so close to the election is it is well known many poor voters are Democrats. If they are unable to follow the last minute enforcement of an ID law, they are unable to vote for Democrats.
Shamefully, our politicians have forgotten the laws of this country and only use them when it is to their advantage and to be re-elected. The "People" be damned.
The Twenty Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Well, Walt, you did come back with something. The open question in my mind is whether requiring the acquisition of a photo id, and charging a fee for such a public document represents a poll tax, or any other tax.
I would say no, in that a photo id has a multiplicity of uses, so widespread as to make it a near necessity for many Americans. So that one could reasonably argue that such a fee does not represent a tax levied on the right to vote.
Your interpretation seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I admit I am not well versed in Constitutional case law, especially as it relates to this amendment.
Are you?
I am.
U.S. Supreme Court
Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court effectively stated that even refusal to pay the fees associated with determining eligibility to vote on principle doesn't disqualify someone from eligibility to vote.
Agreed WaltUU. There should be no "fee" associated with our right to vote. The Constitiution calls for the citizens's right to vote, and the government should bear the cost (administrative) to provide what ever document is required to prove citizenship.
What I can't get past is how the court's were able to allow some states to disenfranchise, thereby removing a citizen's Constitutional right, of certain criminals by not allowing them to vote.
I can't find anywhere in the Constitution that if you commit a certain crime, or are in some stage of punishment, you cannot vote.
That is quite a claim. But I cannot dispute [or uphold] it. I will say that the case you cite does not directly address the question of whether the costs of obtaining one of the acceptable photo ids required by the Texas law (SB-14) constitutes a tax.
It is also worth noting that this more recent judicial decision does not at any point reference the 24th Amendment. It instead rules that the implicit costs of obtaining such an id are discriminatory in effect, if not in intent:
So ultimately your interpretation of the 24th Amendment, be it valid or invalid, may be irrelevant in this context. The U.S. District Court has ruled that any requirement that voters obtain an official photo-id, verifying their identity and status is a discriminatory violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments.
I find such interpretations doubtful, but ultimately neither my opinion nor yours will determine anything. Sometime within the next few months, though probably not before the Nov. Elections, this matter will come before the supreme court. Thereafter, the entire nation will have to abide by their decision.
Requirement of a photo id as a condition for voting? I still believe it is a good idea in this modern, anonymous world.
I agree with you dman. The Fifteenth Amendment does specify "citizens" and if I choose to exercise my right to that amendment, I should have to abide by its requirements. Just taking my word that I am a citizen doesn't seem to be sufficient proof.
When I'm "checking in" to vote, after they ask for my name and address, I always wonder how they could possibly know it is truly who I say I am.
Not really. Anyone familiar with the writings of Benjamin Franklin knows that he considered Germans a "swarthy" race, that did not possess the intelligence to be a good citizen. Or at least that is what he said himself.
Not a great Constitutional Scholar, not really a very good scholar of the writings of the founding fathers.
Go read the Federalist Papers and come back when this is a discussion, instead of a basic history lesson.
A fee is charged to get a drivers license in TX. A poll tax is unconstitutional. If it is necessary to purchase a photo ID, then it is a de facto poll tax.
Saying you know something that you know, and presenting the evidence of it, is "quite a claim"? You are easily impressed.
If the law outlined the detailed specifics of every possible circumstance that could ever happen, then there would be a new law for everything everyone ever does, each and every day. It is a common avoidance tactic to claim that a law doesn't apply to a circumstance, but especially when, as is the case in this case, the law so perfectly addresses the issue at hand. You're welcome to deny all you wish, but it is nothing other than vacuous denial at this point.
Why would discrimination matter? Oh yeah - the 24th Amendment... from the same judicial judgment I quoted earlier: "Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines which determine who may vote may not be drawn so as to cause invidious discrimination." However, I'm sure that other laws and provisions also support the same case. If something is righteous, it isn't surprising that it is underscored several times in the law.
WaltUU:
Can you explain how the Constitutional right to vote was able to be stripped from some criminals (depending on which state you reside)?
Committing a crime does not strip away your citizenship, nor your Constitutional rights.
And one more:
The Second Amendment gives the right to bear arms UNINFRINGED.
How were the courts allowed to infringe this right by determining who are and who are not allowed to bear arms, including the limitation of arms?
Thanks.
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution distinguishes felony disfranchisement from other forms of voting restrictions. Note that the way the Amendment is worded, it does not require that criminals be deprived of the right to vote, but rather its tenets merely allow that right to be governed by statute. This was addressed in the landmark Supreme Court case Richardson v. Ramirez in 1974.
The Second Amendment actually says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It says nothing about absolute non-infringement of the right to bear arms, but rather non-infringement is protected in the context of a well-regulated militia.
So based on the 14th, Section 2:
if a state chose to remove a voter's rights for say a misdeameanor trespassing conviction, they could?
I know the court's do not agree with me, but isn't regulating guns infringing on my right to form a well regulated militia and in the process of forming that militia, the right to bear arms?
Thanks again.
Unless it could be shown that that move would disproportionately be punitive against protected classes, yeah, I guess they could. Heck, the legislature could increase the state income tax to 75% if they want. Neither the state nor the federal constitution precludes that. Why do you find such facts surprising?
We'd have to dig back into some pretty old dictionaries, but I bet if we looked up "militia" at the time that portion of the Constitution was written, it would necessarily only be referring to state-regulated forces. Usage of the word "militia" to refer to private forces is actually a bastardization that became common parlance much later. I bet back then the terms used for private forces were things like "privateers" and "mercenary forces" and such. Regardless, the term "well-regulated" would effectively preclude private forces such as you suggest.
Then how has the court been able to interpret citizen's have gun ownership rights, while not being a part of a militia? It seems if they are part of a package deal, you can't have one without the other, but the court has allowed them to be treated separately. I may own a gun, even though I do not belong to any militia.
After 57 years, I'm realizing the Constitution is not necessarily the "protector of the people" from tyranny and injustice I was taught to believe and was written by those in power at the time, for those in power.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the law: The law does not list that which is permitted. It lists that which is prohibited. There is no law saying that I can paint my bedroom yellow; rather, there is simply no law saying that I cannot. Beyond that, the nature of the Constitution is such that what it does not prohibit is not necessarily protected, but may be permitted or prohibited by state law. Indeed (going back to the point that the law says only what is prohibited), states can pass any laws they wish, unless some higher law (like the US Constitution) says the states cannot pass such a law.
So, with regard to gun ownership: The US Constitution prevents the federal government from prohibiting state militias; and after that, states can either prohibit gun ownership as they see fit, or not.
That's not uncommon. Perhaps the most common example of this are those situations where people whine and cry about "violations of Freedom of Speech", when a newspaper refuses to print a certain editorial or run a certain add, when companies delete criticisms posted to their Facebook pages, or when Sally deletes rude messages posted here. None of these things are violations of the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits ONLY the government from restricting free speech. As far as the First Amendment is concerned, business owners, home owners and other property owners are can suppress whatever speech they want, within their domain.
Got it. That's the reason each state has its own individual gun laws.
When groups such as the NRA reference the 2nd Amendment when fighting gun control restrictions, why, if the 2nd Amendment hands control of gun ownership over to the states? Other than the federal government not being able to restrict states from forming a militia, how did that translate into gun rights?
I'm not impressed, just polite. Citing a single case and making an personal assumption as to how it would apply to current case law does qualify you as a scholar of Constitutional Case law. To make such a claim one should be able to cite a law degree, and either some advanced course of study in the field, or number of years working in this field.
Now to your point. The case you cite might apply...
If, in the courts view, requiring document with multiple possible uses a requirement for voting qualifies as the equivalent of a poll tax.
Yes, I am well aware the case law history typically refines the actual application of any written law, and this case history expands with time. This does not change the fact you cite a decision, not a law, which only addresses the subject of a tax, or fee directly charged for the privilege of voting. Whether the cost of obtaining legally required documentation constitutes a tax is open to question. It is certainly not settled by your example.
As a self-declared expert in constitutional case law, you no doubt remember the recent decision regarding the Health Care Mandate and its attendant penalties. In despite of conservative opinions the Supreme Court held that the stipulated penalties for remaining uninsured constituted a tax, thus placing the mandate outside the scope of the Commerce Clause.
So what constitutes a tax is a matter which is still subject to judicial review.
The cost of obtaining a document of generalized usefulness, such as a drivers license, or other form of official photo id cannot be termed a tax attributable to voting. While it may be some people will find no other use for a photo id, this does not change the fact that it can be used for a multiplicity of purposes.
And, once again, if the requirement of a photo id could be deemed of no other use than to serve documentation at the polling place, and if the acquisition of such could be termed an arduous burden upon low income voters, then it might be termed both the equivalent of a poll tax, and discriminatory.
As I question both precepts, I fail to see where the 24th Amendment applies.
If the question of charging for such ids ever does come before the Supreme Court, I may find that it will uphold you view, that it is a tax. But the example you have cited proves nothing of the kind.
I am no fan of the Second Amendment. I view it as relic of the past. But nowhere does it give the states the right to prohibit gun ownership as they see fit.
The wording is clear and emphatic:
It does not say the right of the several states to form and arm regulated militias shall not be infringed; it speaks of the right of the people.
One can attempt to talk around the 2nd Amendment, and claim it does not accord the untrammeled right to bear arms to all citizens, but the words are too plain to be avoided.
It is also worth noting that first and second militia acts, passed withing six months of this amendment's ratification, specifically required of all able-bodied men that they acquire certain military equipment, including a musket and powder horn. This was a federal law, and provided for no latitude on the part the individual states to forbid or allow the arming of their citizens.
As I said, I see no reason why the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed, other than to attempt such represents political suicide. But it says what it says, not what our modern sensibilities would have it say.
Love the back and forth dman and WaltUU and I have another question re the recent United Citizens court decision.
I believe corporations are a protective shell, not a person or people. Do you think the decision was based more on politics than correct interpretation of law?
Politics
That wasn't a random, isolated case - it was a Supreme Court decision. That's how precedent is set.
The words "... bars a system which excludes those unable to pay a fee to vote or who fail to pay ..." isn't that difficult to understand, unless you have a vested interest in not understanding.
Now who's making assumptions. Given that the people who are adversely affected don't have any other uses for such identification (given that they don't have such), your assumptions that requiring such documents because they have generalized usefulness are without merit. Only documents that people are required by law to have for other purposes would be able to bypass the part about "... bars a system which excludes those unable to pay a fee to vote or who fail to pay ..." Logically. Rationally. Within the context of a discussion where forthrightness survives political rhetoric.
Sorry, but such rude sarcasm doesn't qualify as polite.
Someone who's priority is to try to find a rationalization for imposing discriminatory poll taxes to skew the electorate toward the right-wing would have to make such a pronouncement.
Of course. The decision left little doubt that George W. Bush was successful with one thing: Stacking the court with right-wing partisan lackeys willing to defecate on justice for all to foster their political perspective and enrich their greedy, reactionary constituents.
To call your somewhat overblown assumption of legal expertize, "quite a claim", is not an example of rude sarcasm. It is the calm voicing of an opinion. Sarcasm would be referring to you a "great legal scholar". Rude, would be terming your claim an example of fat-headed arrogance. But anybody who can read the words of the Second Amendment...
and come to this conclusion [your words] :
...is quite capable of misinterpreting the written word.
First of all, I never use the word "random". Second the decision only references explicit fees and poll taxes. It is certainly your interpretation that the phrase "fee to vote" would include the reasonable cost of obtaining generalized documents required for voter certification.
It is you who are assuming that the failure to obtain a photo id indicates the lack of any other uses for such a document. A photo id may, for some, allow them access to other activities most of us take for granted, such as the ability to pay with a check in a store.
Some may never use their photo id, except to vote. But this does not change the fact that the document has other uses. It is not inherently a document used only for voting.
Debbie, unlike Walt, I honestly do not know. While I do think the decision makes for good public policy, it may be based upon sound constitutional law.
Certainly, in some contexts, corporations are accorded some of the same rights as individual citizens. They can sue and be sued in civil courts. They can incur debts and hold assets.
Does that give them the same rights of self-expression under the First Amendment as are accorded to "natural persons"?
My commonsense answer would be no, and I do not believe that according corporations such rights is in the general interest of the public.
But there is a long case history establishing the principal that corporations "are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." (Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania). As such the court could hold that denying these associations of individuals the right to speak collectively violates their rights under the First Amendment.
Sometimes the provisions of the Constitution fail to fulfill the clear interests of society, which is why it is subject to periodic amendment.
I never made any assumption of broad-brushed legal expertise, blown or otherwise. You made that up just so you could have something that you could argue against. What I said is, yes, I do know what I'm talking about. Your failure to understand that was either a deliberate attempt on your part to deceive, or just poor comprehension skills, and I didn't take you to task for that until now because there were so many other failures in your rhetoric for me to address, but since you've chosen to make a point of it so many times now you won't get away with it any further without being repudiated for your scurrilous and vacuous attempt to deceive.
That I can agree with. But yet again you've committed what was either a deliberate attempt on your part to deceive, or just poor comprehension skills, because the rude sarcasm I was referring to was the reference to me being a self-declared expert in constitutional case law, which, again, is something you made up because you had no legitimate objection to what I wrote. How many times will you engage in such tactics? I'll call you out on every deflection you commit.
What was passed by Congress was, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The fact that even Texas has laws concerning possession of firearms on the books shows your insinuations that the Second Amendment protects against such laws are utterly false.
Fair enough.
There is no operational difference between something explicit and something that has no other implication than what would be explicit. There were myriad attempts to skirt anti-discrimination laws by hiding discrimination behind obfuscation and lies, like you're trying to do. They've generally not prevailed.
It isn't an assumption at all. They don't have one. They live. QED.
Not to that person, by your own admission. Why won't you listen even to yourself?
dman:
It seems as though once the court ruled an association had the same right to speak as an individual, it opened the torrential floodgates. The day an "association" can have a colonoscopy is the day I'll believe it should have the same speaking rights as a living, breathing person. I still believe a corporation is a shell for people and no more.
WaltUU:
What is your take on Citizens United?
http://an-uncommon-scold.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/09/11109153-supreme-court-agrees-to-reconsider-citizens-united-ginsburg-breyer-think-montana-ruling-will-be-a-chance-to-reverse-decision?commentId=64445194#c64445194
Thanks WaltUU. They'll rethink it, but after it's been allowed to have its effect on the elections.
Well Walt, here's my initial question:
Here is your response:
Logic and English may not be your strong suit, but to answer the question "are you well versed in Constitutional case law?" with a simple, unqualified "I am.", is to claim that you are "well versed in Constitutional case law". To back that up by citing the summation of a single case is equivalent to claiming to be a geologist because you have identified a chunk of granite.
The words, "I am" constitute one of the simplest and most explicit sentences possible in the English language. In the context in which you wrote them, their meaning, if not your intent, was simple and inescapable. Words do have inherent meaning, shaped by the context in which they are spoken or written. I cannot help it if you are inexact in their use.
As I said before, anybody who can claim the Second Amendment, or any clause of the Constitution [your words here],
...is capable of some quite remarkable misinterpretations of the written word, both his own, and that of others.
The words of the Amendment do not say "a well regulated state militia", only a militia, and it quite clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".
Yes, every state in the union has some laws on the books limiting the type of weapons the people may keep and the manner in which they may bear them, but in no state is the possession of a gun expressly forbidden. As somebody well versed in constitutional case law no doubt remembers, there have been a couple of notable and recent cases brought before the Supreme Court addressing this very subject.
These decisions, of which somebody "well versed in constitutional law" should be well aware, render your original statement, "The US Constitution prevents the federal government from prohibiting state militias; and after that, states can either prohibit gun ownership as they see fit, or not.", not only patently false, but bewildering as to its logical underpinnings.
I did not say that such IDs were a necessity for living, I said that those possessing them could conceivably find other practical uses for them.
Laws are not tailored to the needs or actions of a single person. Even if one person uses a car to intentionally run over someone, in the eyes of the law cars remains generalized mechanisms for transportation, not deadly weapons, and are regulated as such. Similarly, an official photo id remains a generalized document regardless of whether some individuals only uses it to vote.
This is not a hard concept to grasp. I do not understand why you are having so much trouble with it.
BTW: I find it very difficult to "listen" to the words "written" by either myself or others. But that is a subject for another day.
Debbie - There's some truth to what you say, and I share your instincts regarding this decision and its impact.
But I also have to ask, would you also bar other, non-incorporated associations, such as charities, political action committees or even neighborhood watch associations from speaking out collectively, or taking collective political action?
If not, how do you differentiate between these non-profit organizations and for profit companies, and under what clause or Amendment to the Constitution would you ban one association from having a public voice and not the other.
Despite references to "Stacking the court with right-wing partisan lackeys willing to defecate on justice for all to foster their political perspective and enrich their greedy, reactionary constituents", sometimes there are no simple answers to these complex legal questions.
Correct, I am "well versed in Constitutional case law" "especially as it relates to this amendment". "I never made any assumption of broad-brushed legal expertise, blown or otherwise." If you cannot tell the difference between the truth I told and the lie you told, then "Logic and English may not be your strong suit".
Now you're just playing games. Self-regulation is a myth: "I'll make sure that I use my guns responsibly, trust me." What a bunch of nonsense.
[Source: Regina McClendon.]
I'm not the only person well-versed in these laws. (Gosh I wish I could roll my eyes online.)
And I said that people forced to get them, who haven't got them now, don't need them for any other purpose, so there is no escaping that requiring them for voting has the exact same impact as imposing a poll tax on those specific people.
Indeed, they're aimed at classes of people, such as those that Texas' proposed law would categorically discriminate against, for the purpose of marginalizing their vote so they don't vote against the people who the people in power in Texas want to win.
I'm having no trouble grasping what you're writing, exposing it for what it is, and effectively repudiating it. So I view these two sentences you posted as another vacuous effort to try to declare that you're right because, given that you're not, you cannot actually defend your comments on the merits.
[sigh] One can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
Yes, Walt, and IF the above text made reference to ALL types of firearms, OR if you had said that " states can limit and regulate gun ownership, or not.", you MIGHT have just made a logical point.
But you said "states can either prohibit gun ownership as they see fit, or not.", the case you cite is not relevant to the question being contended. I do not know how to make it more clear to you. We prohibit the use and sale of certain drugs, such as heroin and crystal meth. We regulate the use and sale of alcohol.
You see the difference, or are you being intentionally obtuse.
There are many items in daily life which a obtained with one goal in mind, but are used in other contexts. By your argument, the failure of society to provide free transportation to and from the polls places an unfair burden upon the poor, as they must either buy a car, which they may not otherwise need, or hire transportation through a bus or tax service.
Some personal effort and cost is unavoidable in deciding to vote. The responsibility for defraying that cost does not automatically belong to the state.
Again, this is another assumption on your part. I'm neither a Republican nor particularly a conservative, but I support such voter id laws as answering a clear and present danger that a local, state of national election could be hijacked through widespread or strategic voter fraud.
I have now, not once, but on multiple occasions explained the logical fallacies of your reasoning, both with regard to the 2nd Amendment and the Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) court case. In response, you ignore and twist my words, and cite unrelated cases, such as the "United States v. Miller", which nowhere references the prohibition of gun ownership, only of sawed off shotguns.
If I say "It is you who are assuming that the failure to obtain a photo id indicates the lack of any other uses for such a document." you imply that I have claimed they are a necessity: "It isn't an assumption at all. They don't have one. They live. QED."
In short, I suspect that you are one of those who are driven more by ideology, than by an honest search for the truth.
Stop with the bull. You added the word "all". I never said "all". Indeed, "all" has never been tested, because no political party in power ever put in place a law to ban "all" firearms. You're just grasping at straws to try to find something to argue against, perverting what others write, seeing absolutes when generalities are what is actually written, just so you have some chance of having something you can argue against. Well since you're arguing against something no one ever said, you're essentially arguing against yourself.
Good word: We're talking about gun control in reality and you decide to go off on a tangent about some mythical person seeking to ban "all" guns - that's incredibly obtuse.
I already told you - these people don't have them now so clearly aren't using them in other context. Furthermore, poll taxes are unconstitutional. By contrast, requiring someone who wants a driver's license (for a fee) to be registered to vote (for free) is perfectly legal, because there are no laws against such a requirement on getting a drivers license. See the difference? Laws versus no laws. It should be clear, if you're willing to let yourself understand.
The government taking money in order for someone to be allowed to vote is not unavoidable.
So why do you oppose a completely free system, where government doesn't charge a dime, for any aspect of the qualification of voters? Generally the answer is selfish greediness or deliberate racists intention, but I'll allow you to try to rationalize your own reply.
Get over yourself. You've presented your opinions and tried to pass them off as logic. Big difference.
New York Penal law: article 265 - Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons; and article 400 - Licensing and Other Provisions Relating to Firearms include the banning of possession of a handgun, exemptions to the handgun ban, including to those who have a license to carry, possess, hunt with and target shoot, repair, and dispose of firearms.
So in New York for instance, you can't own a handgun, but you could own a rifle or shotgun?
I hear there have been many interpretations to the 2nd Amendment trying to figure out the intent of the words, or what the writers may or may not have been thinking. It seems it would be so much simpler (and allow less politicism) if the words "shall not be infringed" were just taken at face value.
Actually, I think the way to obtain the most fair method for candidates to finance an election is through publicly allocated, equal funds. We've allowed money to be defined as a part of speech; thus the phrase "money talks", which allows Microsoft Corporation to have a much larger voice than say the average Joe Smith. By publicly funding elections, everyone would have an equal voice. As we've seen with Citizens United, the corporations (associations) have nearly silenced and kept the true individual nearly speechless.
No Debi, dman has trivialized the argument, so he'll take issue with your example because there are exceptions. It evidently is not about communicating, but rather about obfuscating to make it seem like there's some point.
Debbie, I'll have to admit I'm surprised by the apparent ban in New York State, which if one reads the law, actually bans possession of any firearm:
But the same statute also lists the certain exceptions:
New York State is also a "May Issue" state with regard to permits to carry a concealed weapon, meaning that private citizens may be issued such a permit by local authorities if they have complied with all federal and state laws relating to such permits. This would imply to me that possession of a firearm, be it a pistol, rifle or shotgun is not banned in New York State.
I agree, but taken at face value, but if one reads the entire sentence, the reference to a militia would strongly imply that such a right would include all weapons suitable for use in a militia, in other words, military grade weapon, such as assault rifles, and machine guns. Most people, except for the most ardent gun rights advocates, would consider wide spread ownership of such weapons a dire threat to public safety.
The best remedy would be to amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment, which was ratified at a time when all able bodied men were required, as opposed to allowed, to possess a musket and to be available to serve whenever the militia might be called out. Today, there is no such need in our society, and the profusion of hand guns may make some citizens feel safer as individuals, but in fact heightens the dangers faced by society as a whole.
Politicians fear taking on such a task. The courts have instead dealt with it by interpreting the wording of the Second Amendment as narrowly as possible. But as the two cases I cited to our learned constitution expert illustrate, they have upheld the central precept that all law-abiding citizens have the right to possess a firearms.
I agree. But would you then prevent other people and organizations, such Political Action Committees (PAC) from speaking out in favor or the candidates they support, and if so, how would you manage this under the provisions of the First Amendment?
Do I, as a private citizen, not have the right to speak out publicly in support of Candidate X, and if so, can I not do so by taking out television and radio advertisements to air my views?
If I have this right, than do I not have the right to do so in association of other like-minded people, or as the owner or board member of a corporation?
So you see what a slippery slope we are on, and how difficult it is do simply draw absolute lines around the bounds of political activity?
I certainly agree with those who say there is too much corporate money in politics today, and that this represents a dire threat to the health of our democracy. Unfortunately, I have no easy solution.
Oh Walt, I know you'd like to restrict discussion to only those passages of court text or legal statutes which appear to support your position. Sorry that doesn't work with me.
Again [sigh] your words: "states can either prohibit gun ownership as they see fit, or not."
You do not say "prohibit some gun ownership". You do not say "limit and regulate gun ownership", you say "prohibit".
To say "prohibit gun ownership", without any qualification, is equivalent to saying it is prevented in its entirety. If you see a sign saying "Smoking is prohibited here.", do you make the assumption that some smoking is still allowed here?
No, I was talking about your claim that the Constitution allows the individual states to "prohibit gun ownership as they see fit, or not.". Again, I'll direct you to the definitions of the word "prohibit", above. If you had said "control" or "regulate" gun ownership, we would not be having this argument. Your recent claims make me wonder whether you were just sloppy in your use of language, or are now attempting to step away from a logically unsupportable statement, without admitting fault.
walt, I did not say they are using them, in the present tense, I said , they might find other uses for them in the future.
I do not oppose it. I simply do not view it as required under the Constitution. The case you cited speaks only of the poll tax and other fees directly attributable to voting.
A fee charged either prior to, or upon entry to the polls, is a charge directly related to the act of voting, and useful in no other context. A photo ID, required to vote, is long term possession, useful in multiple contexts outside the act of voting. The fact that you, I, or any other person makes no other use of such an ID is a personal choice and does not change the intrinsic nature of the document.
There may be a body of case law which touches more directly on this subject, which holds that any cost incurred by voting intrinsically discriminates against the poor, and must be defrayed by the public. But the case you cite does reference such an extension of the 24th Amendment, at least not in its summary, and you have not offered any such court case or legal writing to support such a concept.
Correction, the above passage should read,
Thanks for proving my point.
You do realize, of course, that all most gun-control advocates want is respect for society's right to determine who carries firearms, something with "May Issue" facilitates.
That's disingenuous. It denies the reality that enough gun-owners don't want that to happen, and therefore the suggestion that it should happen is outright disrespect of so many Americans. Perverting respect into "fear", as you have, is ridiculous. But again, you need folks to believe the ridiculous to prove your point.
You have hit on something: When the population doesn't want to do what's right, it is up to the courts to be the conscience, and have us act the way we would act on our own if the extremism of mob mentality didn't carry the day.
By passing a Constitutional Amendment that says simply that organizations do not enjoy the protection of free speech - only people do - and that money isn't speech.
The comment you replied to had nothing to do with that; rather it was pointing out that you would be intent on trying to present an argument about some minor detail as if it were a rebuttal to the broad point she made. Which, of course, turned out to be precisely the case.
And as she showed you, states can prohibit gun ownership. New York has such prohibitions. Do they apply in all cases? No. But they do apply in the vast majority of cases. Again, the point being that your corrupted rhetorical process is to fixate about a small detail as if that negates the broader point made.
Nor did I say "prohibit all gun ownership". You committed the corruption by assuming the word all. States absolutely can prohibit gun ownership. Admit it. But you can't, because for you it is just about corrupting what you're reading, if it is something that you don't like, so you have something - anything - to argue against. When you find yourself whining about individual words, arguing about the tense of words you used, etc., just to distract attention from a broader point being made, you know you've hit bottom. Time for you to admit you have a problem, make amends, and move on. If you want to talk about grammar and spelling too, please do it elsewhere.
I've really enjoyed our question and answer dialogue, and before we become three ships passing in the night, I've sent a "friend" request to the both of you, if you choose to respond.
Walt, you are amazing. You ignore points raised an inconvenient facts, pick out snippets of what your opponent has written and respond in a manner which ignores their original context. Addressing such "arguments" is an exercise equivalent to herding bugs. But I have a few minutes before I go to bed so here goes.
Only to mind fearful of the truth would raising all pertinent portions of New York Penal law: article 265 be deemed "obfuscating to make it seem like there's some point.".
The law clearly provides law-abiding citizens with the means to own firearms, and even to carry them as concealed weapon.
Thanks for hint. If I had been attacking ether gun control, or gun rights groups your point might have some relevance. But I am only speaking of your ridiculous assertion that the state governments can prohibit, as opposed to regulate gun ownership.
I'd love to have seen your SAT scores.
My assessment of the motives of our political leaders might be wrong, but this is my candid and sincere opinion. So disingenuous is the wrong world to use. Big surprise. [ <- sarcasm used here]
I've already explained to you why "prohibit gun ownership" is equivalent to saying "prohibit all gun ownership". The qualification "all" is both unnecessary and redundant.
In New York State it is required that that a person obtain a license permit to own a gun. It is also required that one possess a license to drive a car. I suspect [and sincerely hope] you would not claim the driving of automobiles is prohibited in New York State, only regulated.
Why do apply a different meaning to "prohibit" when it is applied to guns?
Well, no, they actually cannot, not if the word prohibit is synonymous with ban, debar, disallow, forbid, interdict, outlaw, proscribe, and veto, which it is. They can regulate gun ownership, just as they do ownership and use of cars, land and many other possessions.
I'm not overly concerned about use of proper grammar or correct spelling. But the meanings of words are important, it is what distinguishes them from random noises emitted by insensate animals. The ability to think and argue logically is also important in any discussion.
This apparently is quite a burden to you. I cannot help you, and I would term your last attempt at a personal attack "disingenuous", as in "falsely or hypocritically ingenuous".
Have a nice day.
We have to have a photo ID in Georgia...what is the difference.....Obama wants the illegal vote, thats what the difference is...
@Me from Atlanta
"We have to have a photo ID in Georgia...what is the difference.....Obama wants the illegal vote"
Really? "Illegals" cannot vote in US elections. Would you like to clarify your hypothesis?
What illegal vote?
Proponents of a similar law proposed for Texas in March 2009 also argued that photo identification was necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud. Opponents respond that there is no evidence of such voter fraud in Texas, so no remedy is required, especially if such a remedy would decrease voting by senior citizens, the disabled, and lower-income residents. Opponents cited a study asserting that 1 million of the state's 13.5 million registered voters do not have a photo ID.[4]
State Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) said, "Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the U.S., but also alive and well in Texas. The danger of voter fraud threatens the integrity of the entire electoral process." Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) said the proposed law "is not about voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. This is about voter suppression." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott(R) spent $1.4 million investigating voter fraud but did not report any cases where a person tried to impersonate an eligible voter at a polling place—arguably the only kind of fraud that photo ID laws would prevent.[4]
You're out of your mind! Don't ever move out of Georgia, please.
Well done Georgia turning blue!!!!
We've had some very tightly contested elections in Minnesota in recent years, and the ballots were scrutinized very closely. Fraud was virtually non-existent. I wouldn't mind if there truly was a problem, but a) there is very little actual fraud going on, and b) they are trying to sneak it in just before an election. I just don't understand why the Republicans are so anxious for this. They usually don't fight so hard for unnecessary regulations. Makes them look crooked and wasteful, if that isn't their intent.
Good post, Georgia turning blue... what do you want to bet that 'Me from Atlanta' didn't even bother to read it?
An illegal alien would not walk into any place that has the potential of being occupied by a police officer or athorities watching over folks that enter such a place. Regardless of what was going on in that place, let alone a place where one would cast a vote. If you believe immigrants would risk their freedom and put aside the sacrifice they had to endure just to physically make it in the country, I have a bridge I can sell you. Only those who know nothing of the struggle of those folks would believe such a fabricated lie. ILLEGALS DON'T GO ANYWHERE WHERE THERE IS THREAT OF DEPORTATION!
LosMan123
You missunderstand the definition of illegal - on these boards, illegal means Non-white. It is automatically assumed that if you are hispanic, you are an illegal immigrant, not possibly a legal immigrant (technically called an American Citizen).
Cricket, i should have known... anytime anything has to do with us Latinos, these misinformed MOFO's always assume the articles are talking about illegals. Thanks for the clarification!!
LosMan,
Where exactly would that be??? There are no policemen or border patrol agents at voting places. I live in Texas and your statement is pure BS!!!! You can lie to some of these people, but I live in West Texas where I have seen the flag of Mexico flown at the local Ford dealership. My brother is a 20 year veteran cop. They, and you, know fully well that the chances they will ever be deported is very, very slim. There are some 12 million in the United States. They marched in the streets in Arizona and California. Yeah, they are all terrified!!!
you republicans need to get your heads out of Romney/ryan's ASS and get the facts.. ask fox noize to play the video of the penna state senator .. hailing the id laws as the way for Romney to win.. I mean what the H$ll is this..and the people in Phila and pittbrg who are connected withy the gov.. are forbidden BY THAT LAW, thanks to the govenor, to assist any voter especially DEMs as both those cities are dems
OHIO has performed some real nice and respectable laws like stop those blacks from voting...
LOSMAN
ok Romney's father was an illegal from MEXICO.. SEN RUBIO's parents were illegals from CUBA.. why is there never a reference to that.. Romney is mexican american and got his citizenship because he was born in the USA. same goes for RUBIO.
...out of 196 million votes cast during the Bush Administration 86 cases of voter fraud where identified; that is .00004% of votes cast. Voter ID laws are simply voter suppression.
"Welcome to the new world order"
I guess "anchor babies" only applies when they are Democrats.
The flag at the local ford dealership?? You have a problem with this why?? Is a Mexican-American not allowed to have his flag? Do you know for a fact that the dealership was owned by illegals? Cricket was so dead on with you bro.. Listen TX, where you live right now use to be Mexico about 100yrs ago, please dont be so upset that these folks feel a little entitled to walk around freely in your area that was owned by their ancestors.. anyway, your problem with illegals voting needs to be supported by facts, statistics, court cases, convictions or articles of alleged charges to an illegal trying to vote. And you cannot provide any of those other that a guy with a dealership with a Mexican flag. But I can site a court case of alleged voting fraud. The old attorney general i believe of Florida (please correct me if i have the man mixed up) testified as part of a plea deal that the state of FL was actively trying to remove minorities off of the voting rolls. Even said that he took part in meetings with top republican officials to pass the laws that limit voting. Even went as far to say that minority outreach was not in the plans for republicans...
Maxgiver,
What are you talking about sir? Romney was born in the states and his father, should he had won the nomination, would have not had been eligible to take office. Even newspapers at the time called him out on it. As for Rubio, due to the Castro regime, all those that touch US land are considered refugees and cannot be deported. So the struggle for a Cuban is not the same as any other Caribbean or South American Latino... So what is your point sir?
Ol Doc,
You must have a valid ID to legally drive, fly, get a hotel room, get a checking account, enter a local public school, but we shouldn't have to show one to vote for the President of the most powerful nation in the world??? I don't care what statistics you show!
Cricket and LosMan,
My sister in law is Hispanic. My niece then is 1/2 hispanic. Nice try though!! It is pretty easy to know the difference and LosMan knows it if he is truly Hispanic.
BTW Los, a Mexican-American??? What is that? Aren't you either Mexican or American?? If then you are American, your flag is red, white and blue!!
I neither said that nor implied it. You said that illegals would not vote as they are afraid of being deported. I used this and other statements that you ignored to imply that you weren't being quite truthful about that. Go back and read it again.
That is your opinion TX.. is there not such a thing as an African American? I guess it is a geographical thing.. here in the north east everyone is a Italian-American proudly waiving the Italian flag, Irish American proudly waiving the Irish flag, and so on... We dont all live in Texas or want to do/live like Texans do..
And yes I am Latino... Born in Dominican Republic. Mother and Father and 4 kids came here legally when it was easier to do than it is today and we became citizens within 3yrs of being in the states.. So excuse me if i consider myself a Dominican-American.. and my SS card makes me as American as anyone else on this site!... just cant become POTUS... I also read your whole statement.. The article is about voter Id.. nothing you said that i did not respond to has anything to do with that sir...
Yes.....Let us all celibrate when Mexican solders MURDERED American immigrants in 1836 that were INVITED BY MEXICO to settle in Texas a decade before!!
Let us celibrate how Mexico did nothing to help the world in WORLD WAR ONE and WORLD WAR TWO and gave the world another middle finger when asked to help the United Nations fight in the Korean War.
LosMan123
Yah it was Mexico it was because the conquistadors took it from the REAL MEXICANS NATIVES it was the sons of the spanish royalty still in power in Mexico City..One thing people don't get in the United States they don't understand why would legal mexicans support illegals that could compete for their jobs..well a small loyal sector do support the United States,,,BUT the majority of Legal Mexicans support illegals because
they know the larger the hispanic "el communidad" the more power they will have, the more customers for them that speak spanish language the more markets they will enlarge for themselves the more they will be catered to by the hispandering corporations like NBC / Telemundo the more jobs will require bi-lingual speakers and they don't mean German,French,Italian or in the event anyone actually learned a language in their africian studies any and all of the banku languages,,, it's Greed on the part of the legal hispanic citizens they know and the illegals know from Mexico that they can never pass a Oath of Citizenship the Oath the vows require you to disown and other country and loyalities they can't and lie through their teeth..they are nationalists of a foreign country,,,we proved we weren't a English colony...
since you want to make the USA a colony of Mexico expect the unexpected...amigo
Yes, I am an American. By the way....this is not LATIN AMERICA! How can you be proud of being LATINO. It's not a race. It's a geopolitical invention of LA RAZA, a bunch of cowards that are terrified of taking on the United States unless they have superior numbers. I should remind all LATINOS that they are only 8% of the world, and the world has a long memory of how LATINOS do nothing to help humanity.
LosMan,
BS. Just because I live hear now does not mean I have never been outside the state! I have lived in several states and traveled to many, many others. I have never, ever seen that!! Maybe I might have missed one flag. Somewhere, maybe!
Riddle me this: Why do we need ballots written in Spanish if illegals are not voting? We don't copy them in ANY other language! Like for instance French!
My family came from Canada and spoke French. They had to become citizens and learn the language. And I am an American, NOT a Canadian American. Dang it, now where did I put that stupid flag?
I hit a nerve i guess...
TX, this country does not have an official language that is why...
Monoseeno, i dont need your approval in how i view myself. As to the rest of your post, At least TX was polite in our discussion. Your hate of those not like you comes through in your text.. "nothing to help humanity"?? cant we all just get a long lol... We dont want to take over the world or go up against the US lol. Your hate makes me smile...
I'malwayswrite, your conspiracy theory just has way too many holes to go over. But you are missing one thing, this is the only country in the world that takes pride in only speaking one language as a whole. So when you see people speaking a language other than English, they are not a threat to you.. they are just communicating in a way they choose to, and have the right to... nothing more or less than that and as each generation passes, Spanish is the 2nd language for us..
Wish i had time to defend myself more.. but I dont, gotta pick up my son. But nice conversation all!
LosMan,
Always enjoy a debate!! We can agree to disagree sometimes!!
So why only Spanish.........just askin! Because there are not 12 million Vietnamese?
losman - "An illegal alien would not walk into any place that has the potential of being occupied by a police officer or athorities watching over folks that enter such a place."
Hilarious. Perhaps you've missed MSNBC's recent coverage of the "I'm a foreign criminal, and I need more handouts" bus tour going across America announcing how despicable they are with no fear of Justice because they know that Obama is too desperate to enforce the law.
Illegals know Obama is a spineless crook selling out his nation but as long as they benefit they will gladly kneel to him.
TXhorseman: You're opposed to the constitution? The constitution guarantees citizens have the right to vote and not one single thing you list has that same requirement. They didn't have photos in the 1700's and 1800's and yet everyone had the right to vote. Clearly the founding fathers never intended on putting hurdles on a citizens right to vote. I think they were a pretty sharp bunch.
That statement is not completely accurate, as illegals have no problem walking into a government office filled with authorities to sign up for welfare.
It wouldn't behoove one or the other political party to actually take advantage of the poor by canvassing those neighborhoods and offering them a few bucks for their name and address in order for the party's strawman to vote. Who working the polls would know the difference if the real "John Doe" was voting or not?
What's the point of even having states vote for anything if the will of the residents of that state isn't respected?
So if your state voted to have separate rest rooms for blacks and whites we should "respect the will of the residents"?
Yeah, well ... the will of the Southern States after the Civil War and before the 1960s civil rights movement was that Blacks could not enjoy the political and economic rights that Whites had. Separate but Equal, I believe, was the law. And I'm over 70 and Southern, so I know whereof I speak. Voters were quite happy with the laws and made them. That didn't mean they were constitutional. The will of the people is sometimes plain old unconstitutional. And your words prove you've little knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. IN ITS ENTIRETY, not just a few cherry-picked sections Rushbo told you was all there was.
The law could have been considered constitutional if the legislature bothered to research a little and make the ID free. Research shows that if you build a cost into it and make it too hard to get, the elderly, disabled, and poor will not get it. If that is really what the Republicans intend to do, they did a good job with this law. And that is what courts are there to prevent - abuse of power.
If you want the law made constitutional, elect some politicians that know how to research the topic before trying to make it law. Not that complicated, really.
Deemo - since when is the legal standard for upholding any law "the will of the residents of the state"??? The legal standard is constitutionality. Good grief....
brisaber, the article said the legislature had already voted down a measure to make them free making it obvious that this was about making it hard for the poor, elderly...... to vote.
The will of the majority is not protected under the Constitution. The rights of citizens are.
You're right, HATR_HURTER. I seemed to have forgotten that part. All the worse that they knew the requirements and rejected it anyways. One thing I like about Republicans is that they typically toe the line on financial responsibility. I don't always agree with them, but this is just ludicrous. Spending all that money to defend a law that isn't necessary, when they should have known it wouldn't pass muster.
Here is PA they made it free; however, it doesn't make it easy. Some people can't easiliy access the documents needed. For some of our older citizens born in other states it is almost impossible to get the documents. You had to go to the DMV (twice), and some rural DMVs are only open a day or two as week. It really was an undo burden. This past week or so, they've come up with an easier photo ID card (paperwork doesn't include a birth certificate). The problem is still taking a day off of work to get it and getting the word out with so little time. Our governmental systems are overwhelmed.
hit girl - "The legal standard is constitutionality."
Duh. And show us where the constitution says that foreigners are allowed to vote in elections for the leaders of the United States? And how do you know they aren't if you don't even know who they are?
My you are a sharp one. (sarcasm)
Deemo,
We tried that. And then we wrote the 14th Amendment.
PJam,
We know they're not citizens because they wouldn't have the current voter ID cards we issue, which have successfully kept the voter fraud rate at .0002%.
The constitution guarantees every citizen the right to vote. The right was declared before photographs even existed. What right do republicans have to add hurdles the founding fathers didn't?
People honored the the right to vote in the times of our fore fathers. They never thought of undermining the process by cheating. That is not the case in today's world. The only reason to not show an Identification is so they can travel from poll to poll and vote many times. This has to be stopped before the voting process is completely destroyed.
Majority rule is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. The lamb loses every time. We're a federal constitutional republic which protects the rights of all citizens not just the majority.
Larry-314720: Show us where the constitution allows us to change the meaning without a constitutional amendment or where your views supercede those who disagree. Your logic is illogical. The constitution can't just be ignored because you think it should be.
but larry! republicans ignore the constitution every day lol
Why do we allow people and entities from outside any state to give money to their partisan favorite in any state? So money from anywhere can manipulate the outcome of any election. Money is the mother's milk of politics. We need to get the milk cows back in the barn if we are really going to leave elections up to the people who live in the area that a politician is supposed to be representing.
This is ridiculous!! You need an ID for everything in this country..This is an excuse for the democrats to say it is a poll tax..Are you democrats flippin idiots? These people should have an ID already..Poor or rich,they should have IDS..Just another excuse to get Holder's opinion in there since these judges were democrats,right? It stinks of bias and stupidity..
Show us the problem that the Voter ID law corrects. Bet you cant.
Democrats are idiots, Patriotic Girl? What the basis for your claim. Is it the same source as the one telling you that there's voter fraud. I will bet my house, against yours, that if given a test to measure analytical and reasoning skills, people who regularly vote for Democratic cadidates will overwhelmingly score much higher than those who vote for GOP candidates.
PS: do you have a nice house?
john, there was already a test that basically proves that. it was a test to find out how informed people were who watched fox versus those who watched other channels news. the fox viewers were the least informed. hell, they wee less informed than people who watched no news at all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-less-informed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html
And you quote the Huffington Post as Fact...Gimme a break
michael, i can quote other sources about the same study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/
http://www.manolith.com/2010/12/17/fox-news-viewers-are-still-the-least-informed/
http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2007/04/fox-viewers-least-informed-according-to.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/surprise-surpise-study-shows-fox-news-viewers-are-the-least-informed
how many do you want? cause there's a bunch more.
At least one of the judges was appointed by Pres. Bush, so no - it was not strictly speaking a Democratic panel of judges. I'm not a Democrat, but I think the Republicans are way off base on this one. Why the *bleep* would they try to regulate something that isn't a problem, and why wouldn't they research the requirements before trying to pass it? I thought the Republicans were all about eliminating unnecessary laws. You're complaining about the wrong people being idiots. People who pushed through this ill-advised law are the idiots, in my thinking.
@John -
First, you are asking patriotgirl to prove the existence of a problem (fraud) which cannot be proven because liberals (like yourself) won't allow the tools that are needed to investigate the fraudulant activity (those tools being the a verification of identity). BTW... this is yet another example of why liberals do everything in their power seperate groups & keep racism alive... they need hatred and jealousy to divide & create victims & buy votes).
Second, I gladly accept your house wager testing intelligence (either as a group or one on one).
Lastly, you wanted a basis for Patriotgirls claim that "liberals are idiots". If we can agree that the word idiot means "a person lacking the intelligence and common sense to care, plan, provide, and be reponsible for one's self", then I can provide the basis you need for that claim. Most people find it self-evident but since since you are a liberal (& therefore an idiot) I will spell it out for you & any other liberals that would like to know if they are idiots.
Why liberals are idiots... by Mark Twain
Hey, you liberal, racist-race baiting-divisive-segregating-labeling-jealousy inspiring-hatred promoting, two-faced-generational poverty creating-greedy-vote buying-welfare pimping, lazy-unproductive-sloth like-irresponsible-self responsibility killing-victim mentality causing, ignorant-university brainwashed-inexperienced-elitist-know nothing, uncompetitive-loser rewarding-do nothing-everybody gets a trophy-excellence killing-lowest common denominator loving-no failure allowing-elimination of consequences causing, Godless-morally deficient-baby killing-criminal pardoning, environmental apocalypse exaggerating-chicken little impersonating-death phobia complexing-exaggerated self importing-fear mongering, imaginary social class creating-personal property confiscating-tax loving-fairness distorting-dream killing-recession causing-oppression purveying-success punishing-economic reality ignoring, revisionist history fairytaleing-constitution destroying-law defiling-American originalist hating-socialist craving-power hungry-communist minded-personal freedom hating-dictator cheering-central government creating, progressives, liberals, & democrats, please:
If you follow these 21 points, then you are not a liberal. On the other hand, if you dont follow these 21 points you are a liberal and expect/need government to care for you and therefore you are an idiot.
Glad I could help.
nice, i just looked up idiot. none of the definitions i read off 4 sites match yours. these definitions are the most common among the sites.
:a person affected with extreme mental retardation
: a foolish or stupid person
oh and this
Help care for the people who are important to you.
is why liberals and obama are being called socialists.
also, get a haircut? what are you 90? do you yell at kids to "get off my lawn" too? you're a joke.
Actually, Non-Patriotic-girl, the right to vote is protectd by the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Unlike driving, which is a privilege, voting is a right. Arbitrary rules which have the EFFECT of suppressing RIGHTS are unconstitutional. You seem to be having a problem deciphering the difference between rights and privileges. For someone calling themselves patriotic, that is a bit strange...
ice-19. Don’t give the government permission to take your freedom or your money.
i believe the patriot act does exactly this and was supported, overwhelmingly, by republicans. i guess you and all your republican friends are actually liberals.
What is the problem? They can use their mug shots and rap sheets.
GTR5
What is the problem? They can use their mug shots and rap sheets.
and you can use your membership id from the kkk. look at that, we can both make ignorant blanket statements about each party's voting groups!
If you are not a citizen, you don't have the RIGHT to vote. An ID would prove your RIGHT to vote.
Unanimous decision by US Court of Appeals. Judge Collyer was appointed by a Republican President (GW Bush). Stupidity is right but you can correct that by checking the facts before posting something bias and stupid.
Ya, I mean, who's ever heard of fake ID? You know what Robert .00004% voter fraud is really not an issue. However minorities and poor voting for the other guy is...right?
Robert - Only if you can afford it. Oh yeah - and can take the time off from your low-wage job to travel across town on a bus.
haterhunter...
Stealing one persons property to give to "someone important to you" is not responsibility - or even charity - its theft. Voluntarily take care of those you care about. Don't use other people's money,time & resources, use your own.
hatr hurtr
I didn't ask your definition of idiot... i was simply defining the terms of wager with the dip$hit calling out patriot girl.
With regard to the haircut remark I recommend visiting the "Occupy Wallstreet - Night at the Opera Event " and take a good look at your party's base. They are hippie wannabees that would love to be taken care of by your handout President for the rest of their lives.
Htrhrter, if you follow your arguments to their logical conclusion you will see the complete ruin of the economy and of this country.
You are a sad pathetic small minded gutless liberal without courage to take responisbilty for your own life.
oh yeah....I almost forgot... Get off my lawn!
Dear un-patriotic girl, finding a democrat behind the bench in texas is a rare thing. It's kina like when they called the judge who ordered terry scivo's feeding tube removed, a liberal and then found out he was a republican and a local party leader at that. Funny how the liberal media never made the correction. lol
lmao lmao lmao nice you cant fix stupid but I give you props for trying .....as I said if obama had suggested voter ids it would have been a great idea. if theres no fraud then whats the problem with ids if everyone is on the up and up then no problem the excuse of poor and elderly is weak at best and the whole race thing PALEASE give it a rest you guys see racism everywhere even when it doesnt exist
Republicans see voter fraud everywhere even when it doesn't exist.
There is proof the dems where using buses to take illegals to numerous polling places to cast votes. Something they will probably do this election. Dems will do anything to get their way!
nice, you're right. you didn't ask the definition of idiot, you made one up. the sad and pathetic one is you for not being able to debate without resorting to namecalling like a 5 year old. you are proving that your party is one full of hate.
After the last election in my state, after doing the count and the recount for a close election for Govenor, they found over 1500 ballots or votes that had been made by criminals that are not eligible to vote. That would have been a big enough difference to change the election results. I have not read what exactly Texas has different than the other states that have voted ID laws, but to me as long as there are many ways to have a picture ID that is valid to vote it is a good idea.
But, were they registered or did they vote under someone else's name? If they were improperly registered to vote, voter IDs wouldn't have done a thing to address the problem. Voter IDs are a solution in search of a problem.
Well subnormal, the people with a felony record who are not eligible to vote in some states still have photo ID, so that would not have changed a thing, so what the hell is your point?
Not to mention that subnormal's claim is a lie. There have been successive national studies done on voter fraud and every one showed voter fraud to be a non-issue in very state. Tell us your state if you dare and we'll verify what you say.
I live in Pa. My wife's uncle that we were looking after needed a photo id. I never had so much trouble and he never got one. They said he needed to show a current drivers license, but he hadn't had one for many years. He had to show a birth certificate but he was born back then when a mid wife brought you into the world, so no record was kept that he was born. How do you prove he is a citizen even though he has lived and worked in the U.S all his life at odd jobs. He died last year with no photo id, he was 88 yrs old.
Let’s do this. Let’s just require the picture ID cards and issue a free state ID to everyone. If you liberals are right & there is no voter fraud, then you all liberals can smack me around & abuse me.
BUT...... (Just like the "what if stories" that you liberals love to use to explain reasons we shouldn’t have voter ID requirements)......
“What if” a poor elderly woman (who you claim to care so much about) who never had a photo id before this requirement, now uses that ID to open a checking account (something she has also never had before, because she never had an ID). She then learns she can use that checking account to mail in a check in exchange for a bus pass. That bus pass allows her to ride on that newly advertised bus route that all the kids are talking about. AND (get this) the bus stops right down the block from her (liberal built slum) apartment.
Well, our proud new photo ID holder is shocked to see how fast her new check can produce the bus pass right at her door. She receives the bus pass in only 3 days (just in time to use it this coming Tuesday to surprise her granddaughter (Maria) on her birth – Maria lives way across town). She plans her day and realizes that bus route goes by the polling place & Tuesday is voting day! Wow, two birds with one stone. Now our little adventurer has a whole day planned out & spends the nights dreaming of all the fun she will have making new “bus friends.” She enters the bus & it’s gorgeous. She wipes a tear of joy away as she takes a seat. The bus arrives at the polling station & she reluctantly exists this “palace on wheels”. She enters the polling station, proudly shows her ID and casts her vote for her favorite candidate.
As she skips back to the bus stop for a transfer to different bus to reach Maria birthday party. She again boards that rolling palace until the next bus transfer. She exists and as she waits for her next bus, she one of those famous bakeries (you know, one of those bakeries that have their own TV show on the food channel) and she rushes over to pick up a "special treat" for her only granddaughter, Maria. Anyway, as she steps up to the clerk, she puts the three "princess cupcakes" on the counter and begins to write on one of her shiny new checks (from her new checking account she even uses the free fancy pen that the evil bank included with her new account)… all of a sudden…lights begin to flash & sirens begin to roar.
What????? What is going on????? Well wouldn’t ya know it, our little check writer is the 5 millionth customer & wins $5,000,000 (that five million dollars, (for liberals that don’t care about money, that’s a lot).
What does our bus travelin’ granny do next? I’m glad you asked. She uses to new found wealth to lift her family and friends out of poverty & pays for her granddaughter's (Maria’s) college education and then medical school. Granma is soooo proud. AND are you ready for this????? Because of that education, that Maria discovers the cure for cancer and rids the world of pain & suffering for billions (and eventually gazillions) of people (some of them poor & elderly).
Now, I am not saying that you are a bad person ….but … your resistance to voter ID laws, just resulted in gazillions of people being KILLED BY YOU (some were even elderly & poor … the same elderly and poor, that you are using as a human shields to defend your resistance to Voter ID laws).
I think you need to rethink your position.
Where is the link to the charges and convictions? Come on subnormal (good handle by the way), provide the evidence or put a sock in it!
"When they show you who they are...believe them!"
Nice-2149067
Wow...thank you for the full-blown Willard Romney fantasy! It bares absolutely no resemblance to reality but is certainly was inspiring...and typical of those who will never need to ride a bus.
@DOC
noooo. I learned that trick from your liberal pantiwaste buddies. They create an unknown future reality to convince people that there decsions are good...
you want examples?
Obama ... "If we wouldn't have passed the stimulus when we did the world would be in financial ruin!" See how you can't prove him wrong because no one knows what happens in the future? Here is my alternative prediction "if we wouldn't have passed the stimulus when we did, they world would be a full employment" .... neat huh?
here's another one
Obama ... "If we didn't save GM & Chrysler when we did all of these jobs would be lost and the car industry would be dead" OR ...my view/prediction/absolute positive truth .... "If we didn't save GM & Chrysler when we did a private company would have purchased the companies and recreated Chrysler & GM with reliable, high quality products that would have created a demand that saved the whole world from economic crisis. Instead of having the same old unreliable Chrysler products that the union now runs."
You libs refuse to live in reality. please wake up.
Still looking for those wmds.
in one town of 7000 thousand, George bush got over 20,000 votes (town was in ohio). was not a problem with voter registration, was a voting machine made by dibold inc. Funny how the liberal media refused to run that story till a year later.
1. Pantiwaste huh. Perhaps someday you'll have a opportunity to tell this retired Army Sergeant First Class in person what a pantiwaste he is.
2. A republican speaking of reality, now that's a laugh.For the last 3 years Republicans have tried to convince us that GW Bush was not really a Republican (uncontrolled spending), and how the Neo-Conservatives are not really Republicans (not really conservatives). And now you want us to accept that somehow it's OK now. Romney can hire Neo-Conservatives to advise him and everything will be OK. You people are amazing. To make matters worse, If Willard is elected we get a battle between the Neo-Cons and the Tea Baggers, just what this country needs; an internal fight between fascists and the American Taliban.
You people have absolutely not concept of reality. Here is a short summary of how the "new" Republicans appear to Democrats and Independents regarding their priorities and mindset:
Why would we want one of you to lead our country?
More illegal votes for Obama.
That's the only way he can win. Not on his record.
aw..Boo Hoo Hoo....to bad so sad:)
And what record is that? In the last 4 years, Wall Street has made the largest gains it has seen (and managed to keep them) since the 1990's. Please...allow me to provide you with a side-by-side comparison of U.S. economic performance in Obama's first 4 years and two of Bush's terms:
Dow Jones Industrial Avg (DJIA) Jan 2001: ~11,800
DJIA Jan 2005: ~10,800
Net Change: -1,000 (-8.5%)
DJIA Jan 2009: ~8,200
DJIA Aug 2012: ~13,100
Net Change: + 4,900 (+59.8%)
If you want to include Bush's entire presidency, it gets even worse:
DJIA Jan 2001: ~11,800
DJIA Jan 2009: ~8,200
Net Change: -3,600 (-30.5%)
Of course, you're going to come back with how the National Debt has increased in Obama's term. While that's true, let's put it in perspective. When Bush took office, Clinton had gotten the debt growth to at least begin to start leveling-off (we had just paid off our WWII debts). However, thanks to not listening to every single economic advisor and going into two wars that we couldn't afford plus commencing "temporary" tax cuts to the upper-class, the national debt began to sky-rocket again during Bush's first term and continued to do so once Obama began his presidency. The National Debt is *still* increasing...but its rate of growth is again beginning to taper-off and plateau now that we're pulling back our overseas military operations and our stock market is starting to come back to life.
Your next regurgitation is going to be the unemployment rate during Obama's term. Might I remind you, this is directly due to fallout from Bush's terms and the collapse of the banking sector and the "credit crunch" of 2008. Even then, the national average of unemployment has gone from over 11% in 2009 to its current level of under 8.5% ...where it's been all of 2012.
Outside the United States, we're only now beginning to enjoy having a restored "good" reputation again with other countries despite the fact that Bush all but literally took a dump on some of our closest allies.
So...please...I beg you...what "record" of Obama's is preventing him from legitimately winning an election? Oh...maybe you mean his record of not being completely white? Because, that's about the only reason I can see you having...from most other important perspectives, this country is finally starting to "bounce back" from the dung-hole Bush dug us into.
Carol-3348571...
"That's the only way he can win. Not on his record."
Then why does the TeaGOP feel the urgent need to slant ("fix") the election process?
Either document evidence supporting that claim or admit you are a lying Republican.
Ok I'll admit it.... You are a lying liberal!
ohhhhh ... wow... feels good to get that off my chest.
it is the Federal governments responsibility to fight voter suppression which is all these voter i.d. laws are. there are very few examples of the type of voter fraud that an i.d. would prevent. claims of such fraud are in and of themselves fraudulent.
rlr-570744
it is the Federal governments responsibility to fight voter suppression which is all these voter i.d. laws are.
Yep, they won't give ID's to Democrats & black people. I have seen it a the drivers license place. Ifyou are black & a Democrat, they tell you to leave & never come back. If they don't leave, the police throw them in jail. It is only white Republicans that can get an ID. I think it is a law or something. You would think Odumbass would fix that before he goes Golfing again. Oh well, maybe if he gets another 4 years he will have a chance to look into this problem.
hey speaking of FRAUD^^^^^
Maybe they could just make ID's free to black & Mexican people. Whats the difference with Identification? Just put a few more dollars on their Lone Star Card, go down & swipe it like they do it at Walmart. What's the big deal ? They look like they are doing a good job using those card at stores.
KEV D Haux...
YES! blacks and Mexicans do an okay job using their Lone Star Cards at Walmart... and guess what? They don't even lodge complaints or stage hissy-fits after waiting for all the Right Wing, trailer-park, Rushbots, that are in FRONT of the line to finish using theirs.
Here's the sad reality that people of 'your kind' do not like to acknowledge:
1.) The majority of Federal Assistance (ie Welfare, food stamps, etc) recipients live in RED, Republican-controlled, majority "White" states; yet, 'your kind' continues to perpetrate the myth that "it's the lazy Blacks and Mexicans" that are robbing the country blind.
2.) Outside of California, most of the 'natural disaster'-ridden states are, guess what?? Yep! You got it!! RED States. They are the first standing in line asking for FEDERAL aid, Red Cross, and any other type of 'free' help they can get their greedy little paws on. You know... that same help that is supposedly reserved for the lazy brown people and "illegals"? Yep, that same kind of help that is 'bankrupting America' and creating a system full of takers and users (according to your party's GODS)?
I guess it takes one to know one. Please stop perpetuating falsehoods and do some research OUTSIDE of Fox News or any other slanted web site before pretending to be informed.
Fed. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by State-
""
Kevin D. Hoke...
The majority of "welfare" recipients in the U.S. are WHITE people there Kevy poo!
You left out poor white People. More od them on welfare than Blacks and Mexicans.
Don't forget the old people, we need free too.
For those of us old enough to remember poll taxes AND old enough to remember when minorities did not have the right to vote (no matter what the law said) AND for those old enough that if we weren't white and obviously middle class we would have a hard time meeting the requirements to vote, a god-given American right, hallelujah. No one yet has submitted any studies that show rampant voter fraud. In fact, the few cases in my home state (less than 10 in the last presidential election year) where the voters admitted for whom they had voted, it was Senator McCain, not Senator Obama they had voted for. When conclusive proof is offered that there is rampant voter fraud, then we might think of ways to be sure that people are who and what they say they are. Meanwhile, guilty until proven innocent has never been the American way.
Well said!
Well then since there is no proof of a problem, lets do away with driver's license as well. What are the statistics on people being caught driving without a valid drivers license?
It is only the most powerful office in the world, why would we implement rules that would make sure we get it right?? That is just silly!
Is there a constitutional right to have a drivers license as there is to vote? I wonder how they presented photo ID's in the 1700's?
People should not have to pay a fee to vote, it is your right as a citizen, if the Rethuglicons are so afraid of non existent voter fraud than IDs should be free, case closed you turds.
peter-2718245
People should not have to pay a fee to vote,
I agree, I want Odumbass to send me a check for some gas so I can go vote. Otherwise, gas would be a Poll tax.
Peter: Let me guess. Maybe 26 or 27, live with mommy and daddy, 25K in student loans, adore the occupy wallstreet crowd, believe every word out of onumbnuts mouth. The democrat party is full of officials that will and do lie to their own voters on a daily basis. Voter fraud is a fact, just because you are to young and to stupid to see it, doesn't mean it is not happening. According to obama, you have to buy health insurance, but the photo ID must be free. Where is the logic in that you dumb ass. Nothing is free in life, try to learn that now, before you get a real job, and have to start paying for things, you asswipe.
not to worry the democratic voting machine will be busing these derelicts to the polls for free. remember if you are a democrat: vote early and vote often.
um what OKRedState.....I have a REAL job and yes voter fraud is a fact as it happens Less than 0.0004 % of the time.....so please try again.....LOL!!!
redstate, both parties lie to their voters. hell, did you see the fact check on paul ryan's speech? if you take out the lies there's nothing left. voter fraud is a minscule problem and requiring id's is ridiculous since there are no refoms to the absentee ballots where the major portion of voter fraud comes from. in person voter fraud accounts for .0002%
Research has found that voters are 39 times more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud at the polls, and 3,500 times more likely to report a UFO encounter.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/02/381172/reince-priebus-voter-fraud/?mobile=nc
wisconsin 2004 voter fraud- 7 cases out of 3 million votes, all were convicted felons who shouldn't have been allowed to vote. fraud %-.0002
washington state 2004- .0009%
ohio 2004- .00004%
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
should i continue or do you feel dumb enough already?
It's not happening and that's according to even the national studies Bush had done during his term in office and every study since. There is no voter fraud period.
Obama has nothing to do with voter ID requirements, that's the state's responsibility. Voter ID should be free because voting is a constitutional right, it's not like a driver's license, or a gun license, or a fishing license. It's a right. Do you even understand that? Probably not.
@OKRedState
Well, you certainly have a talent for reasoned discourse. I'm sure you've managed to change many minds with your calm, rational, and fact-filled presentation.
Thanks so much for enlightening us all.
According to obama, you have to buy health insurance, but the photo ID must be free. Where is the logic in that you dumb ass.
That doesn't violate any law of logic. Why couldn't a photo id be free? Points for call someone else dumb. Ad hominem attacks always show intelligence...
Keep it classy...
Ah...another Red State, White, Socialist, Welfare sucking, conservative...typical of red states.
Pete 2718245-
RIGHT to vote?? Wake up! Voting is a RESPONSIBILITY. Hundreds of Thousands Americans have given their lives to insure idiots like you can say nearly anything you want, but even THINKING a indigent person need be compensated for fulfilling their social responsibility and voting is just what the liberals have trained their flock to do:
1) disengage brain
2) extend hand expecting it to be filled
You should be ashamed of yourself, and anyone else as well who demands payment for fulfilling their responsibility as an American Citizen and voting.
Both the redistricting and the Voter ID laws, passed by the Texas State Legislature, are clearly discrinimnatory. The lawmakers knew that when they crafted them, and did not hide the fact. This was a method to Republican dominance by ensuring that the poor and minorities, who vote predominately Democratic, do not have a voice in the laws or the choice of legisilators, leaving Texas a one party state. Reminds me of North Korea. The truly sad part is that the US Supreme Court will uphold the law because they too want only Republicans to rule.
Les
Yeah, it's well known that's been their goal. In fact, the redistricting was tried specifically to get rid of Lloyd Doggett, who happens to be my rep. I live in Austin and at one time one of the proposed maps put me voting with folks in the valley. 400 miles away.
Les,
Are there more White or Hispanics in public offices in Odessa? Ft. Stockton had this issue many years ago and so the lines were changed to get Hispanic representation. Now Hispanics have taken over all offices in Ft. Stockton. Funny though, there are still whites in the city, but the lines remain the same.
Don't act dumb. This is about the illegal vote! You can dress it up however you want, but that is what it is about. BTW you are the minority in Odessa if you are white!!
If you need to cheat in order to win an election, your ideas must really suck...
This was a unanimous decision by this U.S. District Court of Appeals, including U.S. district judge Rosemary Collyer, appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush; hardly a "Liberal." But don't let facts get in your way when you go on an anti-Liberal rant. Texas' history is one of the most disturbing and infamous regarding gerrymandering, discrimination and tactics intended for voter suppression of minorities, which is exactly why it remains under review by the Federal Government under the Voting Rights Act.
Robert in Oregon,True about Texas' history,even in the late 50's Texas still had a poll Tax. As soon as I got old enough I left the state,I now live closer to you than I do to Texas.The Local draft board in Childress County even tried to draft me into the army in 1960,I had stepped on some toes,however my draft status 4A(prior service,honorable)kept them from drafting me.then the local cops stsrted stopping my car ever time I went to the city of Childress,Igot the message left that rat hole and never looked back
Let's me guess, Big Tent Republicans...right? This election has got to be killing them. They know it's likely to be the last election they can win with angry white old male voters alone, so long as they can suppress minorities and keep women down. But to win future elections they are going to have to appeal to Hispanic and Black voters. That's not going to go down well with TeaBaggers.
This issue wouldn't be an issue if illegals weren't found to be voting! AND they are!! La Raza and other "immigrant" support groups are helping many illegals who otherwise can't and shouldn't vote vote! Of course Obummer doesn't want this law to go thru! He will lose ALOT of votes without them! And no, it is NOT a racist law! Where does it discriminate against any one race? And being an illegal is NOT a race! Voting is for those who are legally here and are citizens! One of the privilages of becoming an American!!
Would you care to document your claim? Come on Jeepgal...provide a reliable link to cases of Illegal Immigrants who have been charged, tried, and convicted. Provide the link to the individual states that have taken action against this illegal horde of voters...or, you can simply quite spouting Republican lies.
@littleoldlady3
Mississippi NAACP leader sent to prison for 10 counts of voter fraud
My site isn't opened yet but I posted that story on there so you blind people can understand what the media keeps hiding. Click on the "Not talked about" forum. The website is my name. just add DOT COM to it.
That's 10 out of 169,000,000 registered voters which is 0.00005%.
10 that one person got caught for.
Umm first that was absentee ballot fraud and had nothing to do with photo id. Second Lessadolla Sowers is not the Mississippi NAACP leader she was an officer in the Tunica County NAACP.
oh so now it's more are GUILTY of it because U say so.....I'm an Independent BTW and ur arguments are cracking me up....LOL!!!
ThrowDownLounge.com
Instead of giving us your right-wing blog, how about a valid, reliable, unbiased news site? Or is that asking too much from a Neo-Con?
You need ID for everything why not voting. Every citizen and legal resident have ID.
Because this is not everything...this is voting.
thanks that makes perfect sense genius.
Because voting is a RIGHT that is Guaranteed by our constitution but hey thanks for playing genius!!!
So what should be accepted as a vaild photo ID? And who gets to decide that? In some states a student photo ID isn't valid, but a gun license is. And a US passport isn't.
It is about government issues ID. The school would have to be a public school.
Carol-3348571...
"Every citizen and legal resident have ID."
NO, THEY DO NOT Carol! More precisely to YOUR point, "Every citizen and legal resident" DOES NOT have an ID that is acceptable by TeaGOP voting standards...FACT!
in texas alone 1 million legal residents and citizens don't have id.
how is this possible, how many times a week do you have to pull your I D ,must not be very many in Texas
mike, if it wasn't for cigarettes or alchohol i wouldn't need my ID more than 1 time a month if that.
"Voter fraud is non-existent" Really. When al franken won the senate seat in Minnesota because ballots started coming out of peoples trunk of their cars, then there is a problem. That one extra democrat vote in the senate passed onumbnuts health care law. Yes there is voter fraud, and it is part of the democrat plan to win elections. Texas should just tell the three jackass judges to F themselves, and demand photo ID's anyway.
OKRedState
When the racist Eric Holder spoke at the NAACP convention in Houston about voter ID laws, they said that anyone that tried to get into the speech had to show an ID. Wow, just to get in. That sounds discriminatory to me.
It's not having to show ID...it's what kind of ID.
Texas should just tell the three jackass judges to F themselves, and demand photo ID's anyway.
And any person that prevents a citizen from voting should expect a 2nd Ammendment response..
I can prove my citizenship without a driver's license and so can others..
@OKRedState
I'm still awed and amazed at your skill at rhetoric.
voter fraud does exist but it's not in person voter fraud that's a problem. it's absentee ballots which even if this law had passed it would not have fixed.
But remember it's only those dastardly liberals who committ votor fraud. The Republicans are pure as the driven snow. They'd never even think of doing anything like that.
Right?
voter fraud does exist but it's not in person voter fraud that's a problem. it's absentee ballots which even if this law had passed it would not have fixed.
Going after the least effective form of voter fraud..seems about par for the course...
Please provide references to the charges and convictions regarding these "cases of voter fraud", or simply admit you are a lying Neo-Con, either way I'm good with it.
How did they present voter ID's in the 1700's when the constitution was written? What right do you have to impose hurdles to voting the founding fathers didn't?
Actually, he won because he had the most votes. It was appealed by defeated incumbent, Norm Coleman, but his appeal was rejected by the courts. aka: he lost.
On one hand the Republicans state they want to curtail spending. On the other they want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars; to enforces rules to correct a problem, that doesnt exist.
On one hand the Democraps have no problem spending my tax money to pay for everything else minorities want or need but I can't say what $10.00 of it goes for. What the hell is up with that?
Kevin D. Hoke...
Your tax money goes to help fill the gap left by the Romney's 14% rate!
Kevin D. Hoke...
...and that's on only the taxable amount that the haven't hidden yet dude!
My Kevin, you certainly sound like an angry white man. You wouldn't be a member of the Republican Party would you? ...or perhaps the Tea Party? ...never mind, it doesn't matter, it's all Neo-Cons.
I've probably paid a lot more in taxes over my lifetime than you and I had no more say than you when republicans spend mine on it's war machine. I'd suggest we be allowed to check on our tax forms as to where the money goes. I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't be liberal causes that came up short it'd be the 1 trillion plus for military funding. Don't bother quoting the constitutional mandate for national defense when you're posting here to force requirements on voters despite no such requirement being written into the constitution.
If one needs photo ID to exercise a constitutional right -- voting -- then that ID should be easily and freely available. The fact that the Texas legislature defeated or tables provisions to help poor people get the IDs shows their true intent.
Barry,
The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) issues non-driver identification cards to State residents who don't have a valid ID card, driver license or instruction permits from the State or any other jurisdiction. The ID card can be used to prove your identity, age and residence in a variety of situations. The identification card is valid for six years if you are under 60. For residents who are 60 and above a single renewal is valid for life. There is no age restriction to apply for an ID card.
APPLYING FOR A TEXAS ID CARD
So, you were saying??
5. The local Drivers License office is full so you are asked to wait outside.
6. You are under a shade tree because the temperature is 106 degrees.
7. The officer in the air conditioned office comes out and instructs you to stand in the sun because the door is being blocked.
8. Three and a half hours later you walk out of the office. You still don't have your photo id! It will be mailed to you in four to six weeks. True story!
Jinx,
I am am aware that it does happen. A bi-product of Tricky Ricky's cuts. At least it has been cooler lately!!
That requires that one be able to get to the nearest office. If Texas is anything NJ in that regard, there are relatively few offices and, most likely, one needs to drive to get to them. Will Texas pay taxi fare to/from the offices for people needing to get IDs?
Requiring someone to pay for ID that they need in order to be able to vote sounds like an illegal poll tax. IDs used for voting should be free.
The law is only being pushed by the GOP because it wants to eliminate possible Democratic voters.
You can eliminate this kind of Grand Obstructionist Party corruprtion.
Vote The Complete Democratic Ticket This November.
Must really suck to be a demoncrat.
kota, not the last 3 1/2 years or so, or the next 4. oooooooooh, that's gotta sting.
Kota-864343...
Nice avatar there Kota...You DO realize that the right wing is AGAINST gay rights don't you?
The Texas voter ID law had some serious flaws that should have been taken care of when they were warned about them. They were created to keep certain people from voting, they want to keep out the Hispanic and Black votes, which is evident by the Redistricting Law that the Supreme Court also decided was unconstitutional. They didn't even have to read through all of the evidence in that decision because it was so blatant. IT is UNAMERICAN where whether some people like it or not, all citizens have the right to vote. Voter intimidation is also illegal so if any of the TRUE THE VOTE PEOPLE approaches you and asks you information, ask for their ID and take a picture of it and them for further possible court action.
Then Republicans wonder why minorities don't flock to them?
What makes you think that Republicans want minorities to flock to them?
And dont forget, that 2nd amendment response that your talking about goes both ways.
Reminding me of something I'm aware of? Thanks..
I just think of oppression and think what would white person do. The rest writes itself...
Ann Romney for one was pining over the Latino vote.
So, veiled threats aside, when are you going to waste me and take your country back?
Do I have time to read a good book?
You bet it does and guess what? Lots of Democrats served in the US Armed Forces.
Ol Doc,
Of course they have. Clinton implemented "don't ask, don't tell in the 90's. Hell, it is 2012.
HA! Not really, but you have to admit it is funny!!
Great Advise!
How convenient that Texas Republicans did not think of redistricting and voter ID back when Dubbya was running for president. Back then, Republicans were enfranchising dead people and sheep on the border so they could vote for Señor George W. Arbusto.
How quickly Republicans forget they had Ranchero star Vicente Fernandez perform at the RNC a few years ago.
Just saying.
David Moron--nuf said.
So what keeps blacks or hispanics from getting a photo ID?
Hey, that's some real funny @!$%# horse...or some real horse @!$%#...or something.