Voter Protection or Voter Itimidation What say You?

[Stinger]

Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer


The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id

[vailpass]

You need a photo ID to cash a check, rent a DVD or a car and to obtain a library card. In each case this is to verify that you are who you say you are. Why would you not need to present photo ID before you vote in order to verify you are who you say you are?

Here in Phoenix there are massive illegal immigration issues. The illegals would love nothing more than to be able to flood the ballot box with their illegal votes in order to carry pro-illegal ballot initiatives. Photo ID makes perfect sense.

State issued photo IDs are readily available for every American citizen. It does not present an undue hardship to require a voter to present ID at the polling place when balanced against maintaining the integrity of our voting process.

[Mr. Kotter]

Absolutely the right call. :thumb:

Way to go, Supreme Court. :clap:

[StcChief]

absolutely. if they are intimidated about getting a valid Id, they aren't likely legal.

[BucEyedPea]

I have no problem with it. I don't understand how it's actual "intimidation.'

[tiptap]

Having made this decision, there is absolutely NO need for the Justice department to continue to pour resources into voter fraud investigations. The states now have recourse to screen voters as true voting citizens. It frees up the department to vigorously enforce access and discrimination from the polling stations.

[jettio]

It was obviously an underhanded politically motivated law that did not address a real problem.

However, the decision's timing gives enough time for the Democratic party to take all necesary steps to minimize the intentional dis-enfranchisment that motivated the laws.

The infrastructure building at the grass roots that will now be performed by the Democratic party will likely get more people to the polls than would have been disenfranchised in the first place.

[Mr. Kotter]

I have no problem with it. I don't understand how it's actual "intimidation.'


It't not intimidation, in any way, shape, or form.

It's simply a lame excuse by some who wish to find ways to manipulate elections.

Having made this decision, there is absolutely NO need for the Justice department to continue to pour resources into voter fraud investigations. The states now have recourse to screen voters as true voting citizens. It frees up the department to vigorously enforce access and discrimination from the polling stations.

When all states have implemented such voter ID laws....you will be correct.

[jAZ]

"intimidation" is the wrong term. It's "supression".

[mlyonsd]

"intimidation" is the wrong term. It's "supression".

That's the way I took it by the way it was being argued.

I wonder how they plan on doing absentee voting? Do you have to go pick up an absentee ballot or just request one in the mail? I've never done one.

[jAZ]

Having made this decision, there is absolutely NO need for the Justice department to continue to pour resources into voter fraud investigations. The states now have recourse to screen voters as true voting citizens. It frees up the department to vigorously enforce access and discrimination from the polling stations.

And when Republican presidents continue to use the DOJ to supress voters, we'll all know what the real purpose of all of this was about.

[vailpass]

"intimidation" is the wrong term. It's "supression".

[QUOTE=jettio;4723066]It was obviously an underhanded politically motivated law that did not address a real problem.QUOTE]

ROFLROFLROFL You guys are too funny to be real....

[bkkcoh]

Having made this decision, there is absolutely NO need for the Justice department to continue to pour resources into voter fraud investigations. The states now have recourse to screen voters as true voting citizens. It frees up the department to vigorously enforce access and discrimination from the polling stations.
I hope there is a flood of states that initiate legislation for this. It is needed.
Absolutely the right call. :thumb:

Way to go, Supreme Court. :clap:

Absolutely correct! :toast:
... Why would you not need to present photo ID before you vote in order to verify you are who you say you are?

.. Photo ID makes perfect sense.

State issued photo IDs are readily available for every American citizen. It does not present an undue hardship to require a voter to present ID at the polling place when balanced against maintaining the integrity of our voting process.

Brilliant! :toast:
absolutely. if they are intimidated about getting a valid Id, they aren't likely legal.


And if they aren't legal to begin with, they shouldn't be able to vote!

[bkkcoh]

Information about Ohio ID card.

What is the problem?

Link (http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/driver_license/id_card.htm)

[Guru]

ID should have been required years ago. I can't believe it has taken this long to get done. I don't care which side of the line you are on. This is the ONLY way to significantly reduce voter fraud. Suppression, intimidation? Please.

[noa]

The fee for paying a driver's license or some other form of ID isn't prohibitive. I know the court said a state can't pass laws that would keep poor people out of court (filing fees for divorce, e.g.), or from exercising other important rights, but we live in a country with welfare now. If you can't prioritize things to save $10 to get a driver's license, then there's something wrong. It will be a burden on some people, but it seems like a fair one considering the risk that the state is concerned about. If the costs were higher, though, then I would be much more skeptical.

[Guru]

And when Republican presidents continue to use the DOJ to supress voters, we'll all know what the real purpose of all of this was about.
To allow all legal residents of the country to vote?

[Guru]

The fee for paying a driver's license or some other form of ID isn't prohibitive. I know the court a state can't pass laws that would keep poor people out of court (filing fees for divorce, e.g.), or from exercising other important rights, but we live in a country with welfare now. If you can't prioritize things to save $10 to get a driver's license, then there's something wrong. It will be a burden on some people, but it seems like a fair one considering the risk that the state is concerned about. If the costs were higher, though, then I would be much more skeptical.

Now this is a reasonable statement.

Personally, I think a legal state photo id should be free to all legal residents of any state. A drivers license should be paid for though. If you can afford a car, you can afford the license.

[vailpass]

The fee for paying a driver's license or some other form of ID isn't prohibitive. I know the court a state can't pass laws that would keep poor people out of court (filing fees for divorce, e.g.), or from exercising other important rights, but we live in a country with welfare now. If you can't prioritize things to save $10 to get a driver's license, then there's something wrong. It will be a burden on some people, but it seems like a fair one considering the risk that the state is concerned about. If the costs were higher, though, then I would be much more skeptical.


"Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity."
www.cnn.com

[Mr. Kotter]

And when Republican presidents continue to use the DOJ to supress voters, we'll all know what the real purpose of all of this was about.


And when Democratic partisans continue to use frivilous lawsuits to protect voter fraud, we'll all know what the real purpose of all of this is about.

To allow all legal residents of the country to vote?

Of course not, silly; it's to allow illegal residents and non-citizens to vote "legally."

[irishjayhawk]

A bigger ruling to prevent fraud would have been to require a paper trail.

[Guru]

And when Democratic partisans continue to use frivilous lawsuits to protect voter fraud, we'll all know what the real purpose of all of this is about.



Of course not, silly; it's to allow illegal residents and non-citizens to vote "legally."
ROFL:clap:

[jAZ]

To allow all legal residents of the country to vote?

Find one case where an illegal immigrant voted in Indiana (or anywhere for that matter) that the DOJ or any state GOV has ever prosecuted or even investigated seriously.

[jAZ]

And when Democratic partisans continue to use frivilous lawsuits to protect voter fraud, we'll all know what the real purpose of all of this is about.
The logic of tiptap's post doesn't permit you to jump to this conclusion. You know that.

[jAZ]

"Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity."
www.cnn.com

Good to hear, though that doesn't entirely elminate the issue.

[Guru]

Find one case where an illegal immigrant voted in Indiana (or anywhere for that matter) that the DOJ or any state GOV has ever prosecuted or even investigated seriously.

Prove otherwise.

[Hydrae]

As a states rights supporter, this is the right decision!

[BIG_DADDY]

It's about time.

[jAZ]

Prove otherwise.

Prove a negative? The change in law assumes a problem.

All I'm asking is for one single example of that problem.

No one has ever provided such an example here, because it's not really the problem being solved by these laws. It's the excuse that sounds good to some people.

[Guru]

Prove a negative? The change in law assumes a problem.

All I'm asking is for one single example of that problem.

No one has ever provided such an example here, because it's not really the problem being solved by these laws. It's the excuse that sounds good to some people.
You haven't proved your case either so whats the difference. IDs can only be a good thing. I hate the idea that somebody could walk up to a voter table and say they were me. Sure it has never happened but the possibility exists.

this has nothing to do with being a republican or democrat. This is just common sense.

[jAZ]

You haven't proved your case either so whats the difference. IDs can only be a good thing. I hate the idea that somebody could walk up to a voter table and say they were me. Sure it has never happened but the possibility exists.

this has nothing to do with being a republican or democrat. This is just common sense.

The devil is in the details. And the details are being designed for political purposes whether you accept that or not.

[noa]

"Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity."
www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com)

Oh jeez, I didn't even read that part. Seems like that would cover any concerns.
Who are you intimidating and/or suppressing then? People without faces?

[Guru]

The devil is in the details. And the details are being designed for political purposes whether you accept that or not.

I love how you make everything a conspiracy. This is a good thing.

[BIG_DADDY]

Prove a negative? The change in law assumes a problem.

All I'm asking is for one single example of that problem.

No one has ever provided such an example here, because it's not really the problem being solved by these laws. It's the excuse that sounds good to some people.

Illegals voting out here is a problem. You need ID to get all kinds of things even to buy your good buddy some more smokes. It's the very least you should need to vote.

[BIG_DADDY]

The devil is in the details. And the details are being designed for political purposes whether you accept that or not.

The details are they want to keep people who are living off of the nipple from illegally voting for candidates who want to keep steeling my money and paying off these lazy ****ers for their votes.

[Guru]

Illegals voting out here is a problem. You need ID to get all kinds of things even to buy your good buddy some more smokes. It's the very least you should need to vote.

Don't forget who you are responding too. You have to PROVE yourself.:shake:

[jAZ]

I love how you make everything a conspiracy. This is a good thing.
People don't spend this much money, time and energy into "fixing" something where they can't find even one single example of the crimes that are claimed.

This is only an issue being acted upon because the Republican party realizes that making voting even slightly more difficult will make turn out among certain voting groups go down. And those groups vote mostly Dems.

Everyone of these laws is being pushed and funded by Republicans. It's not bi-partisan in state legislatures because (unlike mostly conservative issues like border security), because it's a purely political issue that is being spun and sold as a voting crime "fraud". There is no fraud.

[Adept Havelock]

Don't forget who you are responding too. You have to PROVE yourself.:shake:

Have to? No. However, when making a claim it's (IMO) common courtesy to:

1) Have some evidence backing it up.

or

2) Admit it's an unsubstantiated opinion.

:shrug:

If it's such a grave problem, I wouldn't think it would be difficult to show that. jAZ raises a valid point, IMO.

For the record, I don't have a problem with showing ID to vote.

[BIG_DADDY]

Don't forget who you are responding too. You have to PROVE yourself.:shake:

He knows it's true, that's why he isn't for it. Hell, he even said himself it is politically motivated. I can't blame him considering he supports Osama.

[jAZ]

...keep people ... illegally voting
The challenge goes to you. Name one illegal immigrant who's ever been prosecuted.

[jAZ]

Illegals voting out here is a problem.
Any example ever.

[BIG_DADDY]

This is only an issue being acted upon because the Republican party realizes that making voting even slightly more difficult will make turn out among certain voting groups go down. And those groups vote mostly Dems.




Please elaborate on these groups.

[BIG_DADDY]

The challenge goes to you. Name one illegal immigrant who's ever been prosecuted.

They don't prosecute them. They don't ever prosecute them for anything unless they kill someone out here. Cops will ask me for ID at the drop of a hat. They will not however ask illegals for theirs. Who started that shit? Dems, dats who. Then there is all the dead people voting. We should eliminate that, no? Voting is a big deal. I don't think it's too much to ask them to bring their ID.

[Guru]

Any example ever.

You are so good at finding your spin on everything else. Find your own spin in his issue, in his state.

This is a simple issue. ID=vote. If people are against this, it is for a political reason just as you say.

[KC Dan]

I don't think it's too much to ask them to bring their ID.
It's not and that's really the whole point. It should be no problem showing your picture ID just like you do when you buy cigs or alcohol. But, God forbid you ask for a picture ID to vote! Voter Intimidation, I tell you! What an ignorant argument.

[Guru]

It's not and that's really the whole point. It should be no problem showing your picture ID just like you do when you buy cigs or alcohol. But, God forbid you ask for a picture ID to vote! Voter Intimidation, I tell you! What an ignorant argument.

Wow, a voice of reason. Well, minus the "ignorant" mention.

[Guru]

They don't prosecute them. They don't ever prosecute them for anything unless they kill someone out here. Cops will ask me for ID at the drop of a hat. They will not however ask illegals for theirs. Who started that shit? Dems, dats who. Then there is all the dead people voting. We should eliminate that, no? Voting is a big deal. I don't think it's too much to ask them to bring their ID.

THAT one baffles me. There is only ONE way for that to happen. fraud.

[KC Dan]

Wow, a voice of reason. Well, minus the "ignorant" mention.
Okay, "stupid", "dumb", "feeble", "dumbassery". Sorry, but the argument that having people show their picture ID is "voter intimidation" is an argument that holds no water for me. Why show your picture ID when you get pulled over for a traffic infringement? That could be viewed as licensed driver intimidation. Or, having to show your DL to buy a six-pack could be drinker intimidation. Just a plain, stupid-stupid-stupid argument. I am all for fair elections and unless each and every voter can prove he is eligible to vote and IS who he or she says they are, then it can be seen as "unfair" not the other way around.

[jAZ]

Please elaborate on these groups.

Those who are less likely to have IDs or current and updated records. Examples are poor people who move every 6 months or don't have permant housing. Older people who don't drive and don't need ID.

[jAZ]

They don't prosecute them... out here.
Anywhere, ever.

[jAZ]

This is a simple issue. ID=vote.
200+ years of operational success needs to change now for no observable reason other than supressing turnout of the political opponent.

[jAZ]

THAT one baffles me. There is only ONE way for that to happen. fraud.
Really? Only one, huh? That's weird.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/31/raising_the_dead_voter_hoax.php

Registration rolls are mined for entries of the recently and not-so-recently deceased. A list of ostensible voters and a list of ostensible corpses are run through a computer program that spits out potential matches. Many thousands of entries are flagged. And voila: The horde of allegedly undead voters makes the front page.

These undead voters, however, don’t do well in daylight. Problems with matching from list to list often account for much of the alleged fraud. For example, statistics tell us that two individuals share the same name, even the same birthdate, with surprising frequency, so that two people—one dead, one very much alive—may be confused for each other.

There are additional problems with the underlying lists themselves. The Social Security Administration’s “Death Master File”—the most common source for seeking fraud—is notoriously inaccurate when used in this manner, listing as deceased hundreds of thousands of citizens who are in the best of health. And pollworkers make mistakes, checking a box one entry down or one entry up from the correct line, so that the wrong individual appears to have voted.

[BIG_DADDY]

200+ years of operational success needs to change now for no observable reason other than supressing turnout of the political opponent.

That's total BS and you know it. There is voter fraud and this gets us one step closer to removing it. To say otherwise is to support it as long as it serves your purpose. That's a dangerous line to cross IMO.

[jAZ]

That's total BS and you know it. There is voter fraud and this gets us one step closer to removing it. To say otherwise is to support it as long as it serves your purpose. That's a dangerous line to cross IMO.
Any example of criminal voter impersonation, please.

[tiptap]

And when Democratic partisans continue to use frivilous lawsuits to protect voter fraud, we'll all know what the real purpose of all of this is about.



Of course not, silly; it's to allow illegal residents and non-citizens to vote "legally."


Now this is where I find fault. The actual amount of voter fraud is trivial. Despite the push by the Bush Justice Department to pound this issue, no significant convictions beyond a handful of votes have occurred.

I am ok with voter ID's. In the coming world we will all have to prove our citizenship. National ID cards. This just happens to be the Republican entry.

[jAZ]

In the coming world we will all have to prove our citizenship. National ID cards. This just happens to be the Republican entry.
Don't tell that to BD.

[BIG_DADDY]

Any example of criminal voter impersonation, please.

They talk about it every election, where have you been?

It's not too much to ask for an ID to vote.

[jAZ]

They talk about it every election, where have you been?
Any example of illegal voter impersonation.

[BIG_DADDY]

Any example of illegal voter impersonation.

That's is about as ridiculous as asking for an example off illegal immigrant shop lifting. You're not helping your credibility dude.

[Adept Havelock]

That's is about as ridiculous as asking for an example off illegal immigrant shop lifting. You're not helping your credibility dude.

Exactly why is it ridiculous? I'm quite serious.

Considering the massive resources the Justice Dept. through at the issue in the last few years, and the level of alarm over it, one would think there would be at least a few dozen convictions. :shrug:

I don't have a problem with showing ID to vote, but I think the claims of massive and widespread voter fraud are absurd. I'm inclined to agree with tiptap, it's primarily a way to make National ID and Big Brother a little more palatable for a certain group of GOP members that still believe in privacy concerns.

[banyon]

They don't prosecute them. They don't ever prosecute them for anything unless they kill someone out here. Cops will ask me for ID at the drop of a hat. They will not however ask illegals for theirs. Who started that shit? Dems, dats who. Then there is all the dead people voting. We should eliminate that, no? Voting is a big deal. I don't think it's too much to ask them to bring their ID.

I agree and don't object to the law. But now that I live in illegal land, there are plenty of them who have DL's and ID's too. I mean how hard is it to fake the Birth Certificate and a utility bill? Not very. We busted a guy a month ago who was making 1000s of them.

So I don't know how many illegals you actually deter here. If they're bold enough and have enough initiative to vote in the first place, they probably obtained themselves a DL or ID too.

[Guru]

Reasonable people will have no problem with this change. I also believe the majority will have no problem showing their ID.

[jAZ]

I don't know how many illegals you actually deter here. If they're bold enough and have enough initiative to vote in the first place, they probably obtained themselves a DL or ID too.

Illegals aren't here to vote. They sure as hell aren't going to risk personal deportation for something that doesn't directly result in the paycheck they came here to get in the first place.

[jAZ]

Reasonable people will have no problem with this change. I also believe the majority will have no problem showing their ID.
Reasonable people don't refuse to admit that the Republican political machine is the only thing driving this movement, and they aren't dumping millions of dollars and years of political energy in every state in the union for nothing.

[Mr. Kotter]

...I don't have a problem with showing ID to vote, but I think the claims of massive and widespread voter fraud are absurd...

After-the-fact determination of voter fraud, is one of the most difficult to "prove" crimes one can imagine....it's not surprising that the criminal burden of proof, guilt beyond reasonable (read, any doubt,) makes convictions in such cases rare.

However to imagine with a high degree of certainty that BOTH (I do mean, BOTH) parties take advantage of loopholes to help themselves to votes in particular areas of the country....is not only reasonable, it's common sense IMHO.

I don't trust any of the bastards.

[Mr. Kotter]

Reasonable people don't refuse to admit that the Republican political machine is the only thing driving this movement, and they aren't dumping millions of dollars and years of political energy in every state in the union for nothing.

Yet you support frivilous lawsuits grounded in protecting advantageous loopholes....that allow unqualified/undocumented/and illegal votes that benefit "your" party, are a worthy investment in a true democracy?

Nice.

[jAZ]

Yet you support frivilous lawsuits grounded in protecting advantageous loopholes....that allow unqualified/undocumented/and illegal votes that benefit "your" party, are a worthy investment in a true democracy?

Nice.

Those "loopholes" is how are election system has operated for 200+ years. And those "closing" those "loopholes" will supress "qualified", "documented" and "legal" citizens from voting.

But nevermind that.

[Guru]

Those "loopholes" is how are election system has operated for 200+ years. And those "closing" those "loopholes" will supress "qualified", "documented" and "legal" citizens from voting.

But nevermind that.
So basically, because the loophole wasn't fixed 100+ years ago, it should just stay as is. Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world.

[Guru]

Reasonable people don't refuse to admit that the Republican political machine is the only thing driving this movement, and they aren't dumping millions of dollars and years of political energy in every state in the union for nothing.

And the Democratic machine is completely clean. yeah right. They both suck.

[Saggysack]

Don't have a problem showing ID to vote. I think it could be handled in a more expedited manner though. Like having to show photo ID to register to vote in the first place. Never in my life have I ever had to show photo ID to register. It has always been fill out the little card and in a few weeks the voter registration card comes in the mail. Last thing we need at the polls is Wilma, Gertrude and their 3 hard of hearing cousins sitting behind the fold-up table while they adjust their bifocals for 5mins trying to figure out if the person in the picture is actually you.

[Guru]

Don't have a problem showing ID to vote. I think it could be handled in a more expedited manner though. Like having to show photo ID to register to vote in the first place. Never in my life have I ever had to show photo ID to register. It has always been fill out the little card and in a few weeks the voter registration card comes in the mail. Last thing we need at the polls is Wilma, Gertrude and their 3 hard of hearing cousins sitting behind the fold-up table while they adjust their bifocals for 5mins trying to figure out if the person in the picture is actually you.

ROFL

good point though.

[Chief Henry]

This is a no brainer. Its too bad that its not a national requirement. But then, how
would the dead people in Chicago vote ?

[Radar Chief]

Reasonable people don't refuse to admit that the Republican political machine is the only thing driving this movement, and they aren't dumping millions of dollars and years of political energy in every state in the union for nothing.

“Reasonable people” don’t try to act like this is a one sided deal.
Like Dems aren’t “spending money” or “political energy” to keep “loopholes” favorable to them open. :rolleyes:

[Radar Chief]

Those "loopholes" is how are election system has operated for 200+ years. And those "closing" those "loopholes" will supress "qualified", "documented" and "legal" citizens from voting.

How so?

Edit: just to be clear about what I’m asking.

[banyon]

Illegals aren't here to vote. They sure as hell aren't going to risk personal deportation for something that doesn't directly result in the paycheck they came here to get in the first place.

Even though they make up about 45-50% of the population here, I don't think I saw one Hispanic person at the Dodge city Dem caucus, and they sure as hell weren't at the Republican one.

[bkkcoh]

ID should have been required years ago. I can't believe it has taken this long to get done. I don't care which side of the line you are on. This is the ONLY way to significantly reduce voter fraud. Suppression, intimidation? Please.
People seem to have been so against because they are scared of the slippery slope that often is walked on.
Prove a negative? The change in law assumes a problem.

All I'm asking is for one single example of that problem.

No one has ever provided such an example here, because it's not really the problem being solved by these laws. It's the excuse that sounds good to some people.
I would say there probably has been a problem that has led to a change in the law. It is sad when there are more people that voted in a county then there were registered voters. That is a big issue for me.
A bigger ruling to prevent fraud would have been to require a paper trail.
:toast:
And when Democratic partisans continue to use frivilous lawsuits to protect voter fraud, we'll all know what the real purpose of all of this is about.

Of course not, silly; it's to allow illegal residents and non-citizens to vote "legally."
Too bad judges don't have the guts to throw out the silly lawsuits that are brought up because of "I heard that my sister's 3rd cousin was prevented from voting" kind of crap. It would be nice if they would throw other cases out of the courts also.

"Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity."
www.cnn.com
I would agree with this totally.
Now this is a reasonable statement.

Personally, I think a legal state photo id should be free to all legal residents of any state. A drivers license should be paid for though. If you can afford a car, you can afford the license.
Agreed :toast:
It's not and that's really the whole point. It should be no problem showing your picture ID just like you do when you buy cigs or alcohol. But, God forbid you ask for a picture ID to vote! Voter Intimidation, I tell you! What an ignorant argument.
Amen to that!!!!!!!!!!! :banghead:

[Joie]

If I have to show a keycard to get into the building where I work, show ID to get a drink, and show ID when I use a credit card.....then yes, it's absolutely a good idea to have to show ID when voting.






Disclaimer: I almost never read DC threads and probably won't read this one, but had to comment on the topic :)

[BIG_DADDY]

Anyone wonder who the other 3 are?

[BIG_DADDY]

This is certainly going to effect the Democrats cigs for votes campaign in Bumcentral.

[Sully]

Anyone wonder who the other 3 are?

I'm one of them.
But seeing that these can be obtained without cost softens my stance a bit.
The only other thing I'd like to see is how having an address or not affects the eligibility to get these IDs. If I'm satisfied with that, i still see it as an inconvenience, especially toward one side over the other, but I can live with it.

My main issue is whether these IDs have a cost associated with them, or not.

[mlyonsd]

If you can't supply an ID supplied free you shouldn't vote. Period.

[jAZ]

And the Democratic machine is completely clean.
I'm not sure what your specific claim is here, but I do know I've not said the above before.

[Guru]

I'm not sure what your specific claim is here, but I do know I've not said the above before.

Just stating the obvious, that both sides have their agendas. You were pointing out the republican side and their involvement of this decision. Neither side is clean when it comes to these issues.

Never said you stated it yourself.

[go bowe]

I hope there is a flood of states that initiate legislation for this. It is needed.

* * * we need more than a flood of states, we need all 50 states to pass laws requiring photo id at the polling place...

and get it done before november...

[go bowe]

Have to? No. However, when making a claim it's (IMO) common courtesy to:

1) Have some evidence backing it up.

or

2) Admit it's an unsubstantiated opinion.

:shrug:

If it's such a grave problem, I wouldn't think it would be difficult to show that. jAZ raises a valid point, IMO.

For the record, I don't have a problem with showing ID to vote.haroomf...

i'll have you know that my opinions are never, ever unsubstantiated...

well, maby not so much...

[bkkcoh]

we need more than a flood of states, we need all 50 states to pass laws requiring photo id at the polling place...

and get it done before november...


Don't hold your breath on that one. It would make logical sense to do, os therefore, they won't all do it. :banghead:

[headsnap]

Then there is all the dead people voting. We should eliminate that, no? Voting is a big deal. I don't think it's too much to ask them to bring their ID.

bullshoot!!!!

show me one case where the Govt has prosecuted a dead person for voter fraud!


:)
:p

[patteeu]

A bigger ruling to prevent fraud would have been to require a paper trail.

The courts aren't supposed to legislate. We have a whole other branch of government for doing that. At the federal level, that branch is controlled by democrats.

[patteeu]

Prove a negative? The change in law assumes a problem.

All I'm asking is for one single example of that problem.

No one has ever provided such an example here, because it's not really the problem being solved by these laws. It's the excuse that sounds good to some people.

The law doesn't have to assume a problem. Laws are passed to head off potential problems all the time.

[patteeu]

People don't spend this much money, time and energy into "fixing" something where they can't find even one single example of the crimes that are claimed.

California first passed a ban on human reproductive cloning in 1997. How many examples of human reproductive cloning were there before that law was passed?