Dem Charges Republicans with trying to Deny Blacks the Right to Vote

LOL

Joe, requiring IDs doesn't make our government get any bigger.
That's insane.

And you already struck out on the 14th and 15th Amendment BS

The Supremes ruling on this wasn't even close, it was a 6-to-3 ruling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

The SCOTUS rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification.

It might have been because at trial, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any witnesses who claimed they were not able to meet the law's requirements.

Probably because the state law makes provisions for people who would have difficulty (in nursing homes for instance) and also allows you to vote on a provisional ballot and then gives you 10 days to make it to a courthouse and provide the ID if you don't have one.

More importanly, in 2010 the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's voter ID law by a 4-1 decision and since the SCOTUS upheld the previous rulings by the Federal District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and so it's been tested and approved by every level of court both State and Federal.

Finally, because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, thus similar laws in the other states will not likely face any challenge at all.

Just a waste of the court's time.

Arthur


http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/jul/01/court-upholds-voter-id-law/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL I suppose I am just not into that magical Republican/Tea Party line of thought that thinks government can do more without really growing government or expenses. You want government to produce millions more in IDs and you want workers to verify an check IDs at polling stations and all that at no additional cost? What is Koch going to fund this change? This is the kind of budget thinking that allowed Republicans to blow away the nations finances with the George Jr. and Deficits Don't Matter Cheney administration.

So you are telling me that government can provide all the additional IDs at no cost to government and without more staffing or are you admitting that the intent of this exercise is to disenfranchise millions of voters?

You are avoiding the core issue here of your and your party's hypocrisy yet again Arthur.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your digression into the supreme court decisions is not relevant. But I would remind you the US Supreme Court also produced the Dred Scott. But then you are a strict constructionalist, so what do you care about supreme court decisions? Another hypocrisy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually the IDs are there to SPEED up the process at the lines. So it saves money. The current process is very slow and laborious.

And IDs are very cheap to make and last for many years so the cost, of the few million extra IDs that might have to be made is virtually nothing and is not likely to require hiring any additional govt employees since every state already has multiple DMV offices that already handle the creation of these IDs for many more millions of people every year.

Yeah, pretty much.

Which of course has nothing at all to do with anything, unless you are saying we should never rely on the today's Supreme Court opinions because of decisions an entirely different court made 140 years ago. And of course it's not just the Supreme Court that concurred. It's the Indiana Supreme Court as well as Federal Courts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh hogwash - more Republican magical thinking at best. Today you walk in. Tell them your name. They look up your name and you sign the voter log. Under you scheme You walk in. Find your ID card. They validate your ID card. They look up your name. You sign the voter log. And if going to the grocery store is any measure, a lot of people are going to get to the front of the line and take 5 minutes or more to find their ID.

Do you have any proof that the ID voting process is going to be faster as you claim? No. You don't. That is just more invented stuff to justify your positions.

Given your response here and our fiscal history with previous Republican leadership, one can easily understand why Republicans are horrible with fiscal policy. They don't understand the concept of cost.

I think you are missing the point. I am not an "strict constructionalist". That is your party's gig. By the way, Dred Scott has not been over turned either.

Must I remind you that the "strict constructionalist" says if it ain't in the Constitution, it should not be the law. And if the founding fathers didn't envision it, it should not be the law. And it ain't in the Constitution that one needs a photo ID card to exercise the right to vote.

Let me remind you for the umpteenth time this is about the hypocrisies of you position - how it violates a number your positions.

Bottom line is you are more about party power than individual rights; smaller government; and fiscal responsibility.

 

Nope, the State ID is tied to the voter roles by the ID number, no need for comparison of signatures, which is the time consuming part of this.

Actually we do understand fiscal policy quite well and it's clear to everyone but you that the cost of this is marginal and offset by the improvement in the process and the high value in insuring a fair vote.

Doesn't need to be. It became moot and the SCOTUS won't listen to cases once they become moot.

Nope that is an improper understanding of the concept.

Since the Constitution in fact says it is up to the State Legislature to determine the MANNER of voting, the most strict reading of the Constitution does in fact allow the states to implement Voter IDs, since it gives control of the manner to them.

Joe, bottom line is the courts agree that if the States want it, that Voter ID is legal.

 

No the time consuming part of this is going to be going to the polls and waiting for individuals to produce their ID and matching validating the ID in addition to looking up and validating voter registrations.

That does not happen with out an investment in time and infrastructure. So the bottom line here is that at a time when government budgets are stretched, you want to add more spending further expanding government deficits and debt.

Yeah we can all see how well you Republicans/Tea Partiers understand fiscal policy. You spend a trillion dollars on Iraq and put it on the national credit card. You spend another trillion dollars on Afghanistan and put it on the national credit card. You open up federal coffers to raids by special interest groups (e.g. Medicare Part D) and you put that on the national credit card - another trillion dollars on the national credit card. And then when the bills come due, you threaten to run the nation into default. Oh yeah, you guys certainly understand fiscal policy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And then you think you can increase government mandates and it won't cost a dime, just like Afghanistan, Iraq and Medicare Part D.

No, this is you creating a either creating a straw man or unable to understand the difference between what may be legal and a contradiction in your positions.

The issue here as it has been for the last several dozen posts and for which you have steadfastly avoided answering is the hypocrisy of you and your fellow Republicans on this issue.

You are all against state mandates, big government, government spending, an strict constructionalist except when it limits your political power.

 

Yawn

The bottom line is the courts agree that if the States want it, requiring Voter ID is legal.

Once again, back to ignore.

 

LOL, Arthur yet another in a long series of lies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have been saying you were going to ignore me for a very long time, because you cannot stand the heat of open honest discourse. Sticking your head in the sand may make you feel better. But it will not make your fallacies any less false.

Here is the bottom line, in the dozens of posts on this topic you have yet to address the issue of your hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of your party on this issue.

You guys claim to be for small government; limited government involvement in individual lives; against government mandates; limited government spending; fiscal responsibility and strict interpretation of the Constitution. But in reality, that all goes down the toilet when the party finds them politically inconvenient (e.g. Voter ID).

 

86-Year-Old Ohio Veteran Can’t Vote After Government-Issued ID Is Rejected At Poll

93-Year-Old Tennessee Woman Who Cleaned State Capitol For 30 Years Denied Voter ID

 

Nope.

Any voter who is denied gets a PROVISIONAL ballot and then simply has to get the proper ID.

The problem here is not with the Voter ID law but the dumb Veteran's Affairs office for issuing an ID without an address on it.

In the second case, she wasn't denied anything.
She HEARD that she would be denied and so went to the TV station.

But in point of fact, had she taken that ID to the polls it would have been valid.

The other assertions, like the one reguiring about a POLL TAX, are just as absurd.

THIS SHIT IS JUST BEING MADE UP.

 

I don't understand all the passion. It seems clear to me that requiring a voter I.D. could prevent certain non-voters from voting, though this is not a significant problem in terms of the provable numbers involved. OTOH, it also has the effect of requiring perfectly legal voters to obtain an ID, which not everyone has. As many people are not especially conscientious about such things, some number of people, likely small, will not be able to vote. The latter is likely to disproportionately affect minorities to some degree.

Neither enacting nor repealing such laws will have any noticeable effect on the fairness of the process overall.

I have little doubt that the GOP loves these laws for the slight edge they are projected to give Republicans. I had no doubt the Dems loved the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 for the slight edge it was projected to give Democrats.

It seems like people are only outraged when the law is used to affect voting mechanics if the change is adverse to their side.

 

Actually, the Veterans Office stopped putting addresses on their cards because it's accepted in every state, therefore you don't have to prove you are a resident of any particular state.

How many people who don't get media attention are going to follow up on the absentee ballot? Not as many as those who could vote that same day, and that's that outcome the GOP, specifically all the con governors, decided to pursue.

 

and thats just before they go try and vate on voting days they make sure their aren't enough machines for the black areas

 

Any bonehead candidate like Romney, who spends seven million dollars to lose a million dollar race, is too incompetent to be a President, nor have the credentials to be allowed to vote for one.

 

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php

We need Photo IDs in this country to drive, and 88% of those old enough to drive already have one.
We need a Passport if we leave the country, even to Canada and Mexico, so again a huge percent of people have one.
We need a Photo ID to take a plane flight in the US.
We need a Photo ID to buy liquor and often cigarettes.
We need a Photo ID to open a Bank Account or access our Medical records.
So considering all the normal everyday need for an ID, to then say it's a big burden to also require one to vote is frankly silly particularly since the SCOTUS has already ruled: "There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes."

And without a valid ID you can't determine eligibility.

 

And what happens when you become to feeble to drive? They take your freaking license away! I also doubt that an elderly person has to carry ID to buy liquor or cigs! Are you really going to question whether some geezer is over 21?

 

You get the same ID from the DMV, it just states that you can't drive.
States have been doing this for years for the identification needs of the ~10% or so of adults who don't drive.

And it's true, I can't buy Alcohol without a picture ID and yet my kids are older than 21.

This is typical of many states. Everyone get's ID'd, no exceptions.

Nor can you board an airplane.
Nor can you leave the county.
Nor can you access your medical records.
Nor can you open up a Bank Account.

If it is required for these other rather mundane activities it simply can't be seen as a unreasonable requirement for proof of eligibility to vote.

 

Nor is accepting a Veterans Card unreasonable.

 

Sure, and it will be legal to use once they put an actual Address on it.

Even so he was offered a provisional ballot, and rejected that option.

You just can't satisfy everyone.

 

Which is the goal, to prevent as many people as possible from voting. There is no problem that is being remedied by this deliberate approach to make voting more difficult, especially for the poor and elderly, traditional supporters of the Democrats.