Voter ID laws: Everyone has an ID, right? Nope

[Danzig]

yeah, no fraud occurs...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48360858...ws-jackson_ms/


well, if they do decide to have yet another run-off, perhaps the third time will be the charm.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, no fraud occurs...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48360858...ws-jackson_ms/


well, if they do decide to have yet another run-off, perhaps the third time will be the charm.

I don't see in the article where the fraud is on the part of the voters. It says, if I read it right, that more people signed the rolls than apparently actually voted. Which seems to point the blame at the election officials for hiding votes that were legally cast.

Pennsylvania's new law is so cockamamie even the governor couldn't explain it. Voters with valid photo IDs are going to be deprived of their civil right because of non-matching addresses.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Coming from the King of using "Tactics" when discussing A Womens right to choose. However on this topic we concur. No ID no vote, really simple.

Glad we can find agreement.

I won't even ask you to complete the sentence: "A woman's right to choose" (what, exactly?)

Don't worry - I don't want another abortion thread either.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I don't see in the article where the fraud is on the part of the voters. It says, if I read it right, that more people signed the rolls than apparently actually voted. Which seems to point the blame at the election officials for hiding votes that were legally cast.

Pennsylvania's new law is so cockamamie even the governor couldn't explain it. Voters with valid photo IDs are going to be deprived of their civil right because of non-matching addresses.

it doesn't say what the first fraud was, what caused them to have a second recount.
my point wasn't so much about this making a case for id, but the fact that we have election fraud-and there's no excuse for that.
the states typically require that you change the address on your id when you move. far as i know, it's your physical address that's required. it makes sense to make sure your address matches....that would keep someone from being able to vote in their former precinct as well as a new one. we changed voting areas 15 years ago when we bought this house.

in the article i read the other day, and posted here, there are issues both with registration, and with issues at the booth.
there is no excuse, in this day and age, to be having voting irregularities in this country.
there's certainly no reason for us to be having missouri/kansas type voting either.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

I think part of the issue is the active participation. The individual didn't get ID for his or herself.

Would it be discrimination of a person of any racial background does not pack his or her parachute correctly, or does not put a parachute on at all, and then jumps out of a plane?

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

The courts have said that the requirement for the photo ID in the first place, is indeed discriminatory. That's why these laws are being throw out and overturned. Sorry: judicial system says you are wrong.

BTW, Joey, what do you think about this statement? "It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get health insurance for himself then experiences the consequences of that decision".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

A "principle" only in someone's imagination. Not in reality.

The "conservative" red states are the states with the largest number of people "living off the government teat" via Medicaid, SCHIPS, food stamps.

The oil and gas industry are the largest recipients of government handouts. Sarah Palin, as governor, required private oil companies to send a check to every citizen of Alaska yearly. That's living off the hard work of others to the extreme!

"Conservatives" don't believe in personal responsibility as they try to dictate how other Americans must live: push a minority view of "Christian" religious law on the rest of us, support laws to require forced childbirth, pass laws against women's freedom, against gays, against Muslims, etc.

Current self-described "conservatives" are far more right than any conservatives in American history.

Theocracies and plutocracies are intolerant and dangerous cults. They are dictatorial and authoritarian. They rely on fear to stay in power. They rely on absolute adherence to authoritarian commandments in their followers - not thinking. Thinking for oneself isn't allowed.

Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh are terrific examples of this, especially how Grover and his anti-tax pledges strike fear into the heart of any signer who dares to cross him - they are immediately threatened with cut off of money, and a primary challenge.

Don't mistake that with "conservatism". William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave at the false flag of "conservatism" of the past 10-15 years.

BTW, the "conservatives" in United Kingdom are more "left" than the Democrats in the United States. That's why they celebrated their National Health Care in the Olympics opening ceremony

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I think part of the issue is the active participation. The individual didn't get ID for his or herself.

Would it be discrimination of a person of any racial background does not pack his or her parachute correctly, or does not put a parachute on at all, and then jumps out of a plane?

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

it's really got nothing to do with discrimination at all. however, unless dems can make it a case of discrimination, then the voting laws would be upheld, and id's could be required. since no other act requiring i.d. has been found to be discriminatory, i don't understand why it would be in this case.
and it's not gone in front of a jury as far as i know in any state. according to the voting rights act, the doj has to sign off-i think it's an overreach on their part to say it is discriminatory. i'd like to see it go thru the courts, so i can get the legal reason as to why, in voting alone, requirement of id is a form of discrimination...but not for getting a job, getting utilities turned on, and myriad other acts in our daily lives.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's really got nothing to do with discrimination at all. however, unless dems can make it a case of discrimination, then the voting laws would be upheld, and id's could be required. since no other act requiring i.d. has been found to be discriminatory, i don't understand why it would be in this case.

You might read the court opinions that have already come down overturning these laws as discriminatory, rather than ignoring that exists.

i'd like to see it go thru the courts, so i can get the legal reason as to why, in voting alone, requirement of id is a form of discrimination...but not for getting a job, getting utilities turned on, and myriad other acts in our daily lives.

LOL - complete and obvious ignorance of the subject matter, such as the court case results already posted in this thread, doesn't help your cause.

As they say, ignorance is bliss. Nobody is saying the requirement of an ID is discriminatory. The courts are saying narrowing the requirement to only certain types of ID, less than the various types of ID that are acceptable now, is discriminatory.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The courts have said that the requirement for the photo ID in the first place, is indeed discriminatory. That's why these laws are being throw out and overturned. Sorry: judicial system says you are wrong.

BTW, Joey, what do you think about this statement? "It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get health insurance for himself then experiences the consequences of that decision".

Fortunately I can think for myself.

Should ALL ID requirements be thrown out then? No identification to drive, fly in a plane, get a credit card, should we get rid of passports? The thing about judicial findings is that they set precedent, so we'll see where this goes. It is unlikely, that over the long term, that the polling place will be the only place where ID is not required.

What does it matter what I think? You'll cite a judicial finding when it goes your way, or try to hang me with my own opinion - whatever suits your goal, just like the liberals and Democrats in power, and the press. Just like when gay marriage is banned after a referendum, the court throws out the law. But when that vote goes in the direction the liberals like, "Hey, the people have spoken! Hooray for democracy!" Their playbook is so obvious that it is laughable.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Fortunately I can think for myself.

But you refuse to extend that legal right to your fellow citizens. Especially pregnant women.

Should ALL ID requirements be thrown out then? No identification to drive, fly in a plane, get a credit card, should we get rid of passports? The thing about judicial findings is that they set precedent, so we'll see where this goes. It is unlikely, that over the long term, that the polling place will be the only place where ID is not required.

Hello? It appears you - and Danzig - don't understand the subject.

There already exists, in 100% of our states, laws set by the states where various forms of ID is required to register and vote.

That already exists. Okay? Nobody is trying to throw that requirement for Voter ID out. Okay?

These laws regarding Voter ID we are discussing are specifically making it more restrictive, making only certain types of ID acceptable. These new laws are throwing out what some states now currently find acceptable for voter ID.

That - increased, narrowed requirements to vote with only certain and specific types of Voter ID - is what is being found as discriminatory.

[Danzig]

i thought i'd do some digging, to see if any voter id laws had reached scotus. i know individual states have been working, or not working, on such laws, so i wanted to see if any had a ruling at the fed court level. i figured i better do some checking, for myself, as nothing was ringing a bell on the subject, but that may just mean i didn't see it.
so, this is one of the very first things i found:

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/..._voter_id_law/

scotus voted 6-3 in favor of indiana's voting law, which required id. an excerpt from the above linked article:


'Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito would have upheld the law on the broader ground that it imposed the same requirements equally on all voters. Both opinions give great weight to the state interest in ensuring that only eligible voters cast ballots. Justice Souter, joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, dissented.

This is a major defeat for the Democrats' efforts to prevent states from requiring valid identification to vote. The lawsuit was brought by the Indiana Democratic Party.'

.......i think that the part about imposing the same requirement on all voters is absolutely the key! regardless of who needs an id, the steps are the same for all-not just for some. therefore, id requirements are absolutely not a form of discrimination.

[Danzig]

my question now is, why does the DOJ continue to attack individual states voter id laws, when the supreme court ruled that way back on '08?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i thought i'd do some digging, to see if any voter id laws had reached scotus.

Why don't you read some recent newspapers, and see the lower federal courts throw outs of current ALEC-GOP voter ID laws? Like the ones previously posted in this thread?

Nobody is trying to throw out any requirement for voter ID.

The ALEC-GOP laws in discussion are deliberately trying to narrow what type of Voter ID is permitted, and that narrowing has already been found, by federal courts, as discriminatory.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my question now is, why does the DOJ continue to attack individual states voter id laws, when the supreme court ruled that way back on '08?

Hint: you've completely misunderstood the subject, that is not what the DOJ is currently "attacking".

[Riot]

Why is the GOP/ALEC instituting newly restrictive voter ID laws? As other Republicans have already admitted publicly, it's because they will do anything to cheat and win an election. Disgusting.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_...d_black_votes/

Florida's disgraced former GOP chairman Jim Greer says in legal deposition that the party had meetings about "keeping blacks from voting" and "suppressing black votes"

[Riot]

Doonsbury comic strip this past week:

[Riot]