I think Florida was considering voters having to initial every chad, to avoid having endless recounts and "voter intentent" interpretations.
Posted on 09/25/2007 8:02:31 AM PDT by SmithL
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether voter identification laws unfairly deter the poor and minorities from voting, stepping into a contentious partisan issue in advance of the 2008 elections.
The justices will hear arguments early next year in a challenge to an Indiana law that requires voters to present photo ID before casting their ballots. The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.
The state Democratic party and civil rights groups complained that the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana. The party argued that those voters tend to be Democrats.
Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Georgia's voter identification law, saying the statute does not impose a significant burden on the right to vote.
Election law experts had urged the court to take the Indiana case to instruct courts on how to weigh claims of voter fraud versus those of disenfranchisement. "The court better resolve this question before ballots start getting counted next fall," said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan.
The court is expected to issue a decision by late June, in time for the November general election.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This argument is a leftist fantasy, nothing more.
There have been some surprisingly sane court decisions on Voter ID issues and IIRC, one addressed the above complaint, essentially accepting the "ounce of prevention" idea and that the state had a compelling reason to keep fraud out of the electoral process. It is a good thing that we have Justices that would verbally eviscerate an attorney arguing the "no fraud exists" position.
Indiana will give people a FREE ID. My son got his renewed this year and had his money ready. They asked if he was registered to vote. He told them that he is. ( yes, he is). No charge. I was surprised, to say the least but it goes to show that all that disenfranchisement stuff is garbage.
The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.
Those voters tend to be Democrats, also.............
Florida has had a photo ID law for decades.
Does anyone have a map of states that require ID?
My uncle about had a fit. He said that this guy wasn't a citizen and couldn't vote, and besides he didn't register in time to vote even if he was otherwise eligible. He demanded that the worker look at the guy's ID. He was told to stop making problems, and that if this guy's vote was no good, it'd be sorted out in the appeals process. My uncle said, "So what if when I get done here and decide to vote in another precinct - would that be OK?" Naturally, the idiot worker said, "No, that'd be illegal." No shiite, Sherlock, wasn't that the point?
The problem with getting votes removed on appeal is that if an election isn't close enough (partly due, at least, to illegal votes), then THERE IS NO APPPEAL! In that case, then lots of people who had no right to participate in our electoral process end up influencing and changing election results.
If we don't have nationwide, enforced, voter ID requirements, then our election system - and with it our form of government - is doomed. Congress should pass nationwide requirements...though of course the Dems oppose it, because guess which party benefits from 95% or more of the voter fraud? Scumbags, they care not one whit about the sanctity of our system, only about winning a supposedly fair election in order to gain power. Do you think Hillary cares about a fair election? The same person who has knowingly taken illegal campaign donations? If the Hsu fits...
The Stupid Party had better get on the stick about this - make noise about it every day - or else they are sunk. Along with the rest of us.
There is no discrimination in requiring voter IDs.
If poor and minorities have no problem getting drivers licenses, then they have no problem getting any kind of ID. The facts of American life, with even poor families being 2 car+ families, says that there is no problem with getting drivers licenses.
It’s an absurd claim on its face.
Just another attempt by RATS to allow illegals to vote!
|
Table 1: State Requirements for Voter Identification |
|
States That Request Photo ID |
|
States that Require ID (photo not required) |
Re: photo ID....any idea what will happen if NY issues drivers licenses to illegal aliens. unless those id’s are noted *illegal alien*, couldn’t it be used to vote, illegally? given the massive number of illegal aliens in NY, wouldn’t their votes affect the outcome?
I absolutely agree. Further, I’d be more than happy to contribute to a fund that would pay for the photo IDs of those who can’t afford to pay. It would be well worth it to make sure only those who should vote do vote. Actually, maybe Hillary can donate the money she received from Hsu to set up a fund for people to have photo IDs made.
The RAT Party is the party of voter fraud!
Don’t know about a map, but off the top of my head, here are some of the places I would bet anything that they DON’T require ID.
Chicago
New Orleans
St Louis
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Detroit
Is there a trend here?
The way to solve this problem is to offer the “poor and minorities” a free beer after they vote. The one stipulation would be that you have to show an I.D. to prove you’re old enough to drink. Problem solved.
Curiously enough, I not only have to show photo I.D., but also provide a signature which is kept in a state database in order to buy COLD MEDICINE! They also won't let you purchase more than a prescribed quantity in one month.
I guess Diamond Jim's poor old mom never gets the sniffles.
If there is no fee, there can be no argument that the requirement for a picture ID is a poll tax.
I’m waiting for someone to argue that the requirement of a fee for a concealed carry permit is an unconstitutional burden in violation of the Second Amendment since the exercise of a constitutional right cannot be subject to the payment of a fee.
ahhh - betcha they got ID for beer
I think Florida was considering voters having to initial every chad, to avoid having endless recounts and "voter intentent" interpretations.
No identification, no voting.
I don’t understand what the problem is with that simple concept.
intentent=intent
The poorest LEGAL CITIZEN of the USA has some sort of ID. They need it to get welfare, pension checks cashed, lots of things.
I have no problem having a legal voter present ID. I have done so when I have been a voter in 3 different houses in California, regardless of how long I had lived in the area and how much they knew me.
We are being undermined in every manner in the USA. Time to put a stop to at least one of the drains on our citizenship.
In Tennessee some precints will ask to see a photo ID but you are correct, it’s not required.
Just identification. Most do require that identification be your voter registration card. We also, in my county, have to “request” a ballot by filling out a form with our name and address and we sign it. They check the name and address with the identification.
Then we have to sign again by our name in the book were our ballot request ID # is logged.
Our signature becomes legally binding that we say we are who we are and can vote at that precint.
How curiou! I remember when voting in Oregon they always asked to see my drivers license and I had to sign a ledger before being allowed to vote.
I’ve been voting by absentee vote for 27-years now.
The Trial Court noted, however, the Dems were not able to produce one shred of evidence to support this assertion.
It’s not the evidence, it’s the seriousness of the charge that’s important!.............
Perhaps I am the oddball of the entire group...but up until the 1960s...you didn’t have to present any kind of ID to vote. My dad talked about this....having lived in Alabama and Ohio in the 1950s and noting only this subject of a drivers license being required by the local polling staff (their own rules before the state required it). I’m leaning the opposite way on this topic. Lets toss the entire gate open, and just plain let anyone and everyone vote. Those who want to register in different states and vote several times....go for it.
Face it...folks are already doing this and we can’t seem to stop them. Everyone gets upset when you discuss a national ID card. Folks get upset if you discuss assigning folks to a particular voting station. Folks get upset if you suggest counting absentee ballots from GI’s as a mandatory requirement. Folks get upset if you suggest cutting back on absentee ballots except for GI’s. So lets just drop the fight, and get folks in to vote as much as they can...you can never have too much democracy.
Once we Republicans accept this idea and embrace it...then we will all start registering in nearby counties and vote five or six times in one day. We will carpool and go from city to city, county to county and even state to state. Some guys might even try to set a record and vote in fifteen states in one day. Maybe after a while....the democrats might actually suggest some control because we Republicans embraced this a might bit too much.
Okay, as I was born in Hudson County, NJ, home of every corrupt election trick ever invented, I'm uniquely qualified to explain this:
A) Requiring identification interferes with the Democrat voting process, restricting people (note I did not say 'registered voters') from voting as many times as they choose, thus infringing on the Pro-Choice provisions enshrined in the Constitution.
B) In addition, requiring identification has a disparate impact on women, children, illegal aliens, elderly people, people with mental disabilities, felons, and minorities, which is clearly unconstitutional.
C) Furthermore, restricting the vote to legal registered citizen voters has a negative economic impact on the above noted communities, which rely on the 'get out the vote' street money as an integral part of their income streams, and thus is an unconstitutional taking of property without due process.
D) Finally, requiring any type of ID severely impacts the ability of formerly living voters to express their electoral will; since the Constitution does not restrict voting to living persons, sub silencio it mandates that people not lose their precious right to vote despite the fact that death has rendered them differently abled.
I hope this has clarified the confusion evidenced by so many posters to this thread.
Thank you, thankyouverymuch...I'll be here all week...and remember to try the veal.
:-)
You have an excuse....my brother in law choose to live there....(chuckle)
“Okay, as I was born in Hudson County, NJ, home of every corrupt election trick ever invented, I’m uniquely qualified to explain this:
A) Requiring identification interferes with the Democrat voting process, restricting people (note I did not say ‘registered voters’) from voting as many times as they choose, thus infringing on the Pro-Choice provisions enshrined in the Constitution.
B) In addition, requiring identification has a disparate impact on women, children, illegal aliens, elderly people, people with mental disabilities, felons, and minorities, which is clearly unconstitutional.
C) Furthermore, restricting the vote to legal registered citizen voters has a negative economic impact on the above noted communities, which rely on the ‘get out the vote’ street money as an integral part of their income streams, and thus is an unconstitutional taking of property without due process.
D) Finally, requiring any type of ID severely impacts the ability of formerly living voters to express their electoral will; since the Constitution does not restrict voting to living persons, sub silencio it mandates that people not lose their precious right to vote despite the fact that death has rendered them differently abled.
I hope this has clarified the confusion evidenced by so many posters to this thread.”
R O T F L M A O !!
“It’s not the evidence, it’s the seriousness of the charge that’s important!.............”
Funny how poor people can buy 50 inch televisions and nice cars, but they can’t get a legit drivers lic : )
IIRC, New Mexico at the behest of Bill Richardson, has done away with voter ID...right Dave, Rogle?
NM Ping
If you want on or off the NM Ping list, please FReepmail me.
You are a Genius!
Yours is the best solution I've seen so far. Cigarettes might work, too.
Clear as coffee. And meaningless [See (B)].Do I need to present identification when I register to vote?
What identification do I need to provide?
- Yes.
- As used in the Election Code, "required voter identification' forms of identification as chosen by the voter: (A) a physical form of identification, which may be: (1) an original or copy of a current and valid photo identification with or without an address, which address is not required to match the voter's certificate of registration or a voter identification card: or (2) an original or copy of a utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, student identification card or other government document, including identification issued by an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo, that shows the name and address of the person, the address of which is not required to match the voter's certificate of registration; or (B) a verbal or written statement by the voter of the voter's name, year of birth and unique identifier; provided, however, that the statement of the voter's name need not contain the voter's middle initial or suffix.
- If a voter fails to provide the required voter identification, the voter shall be allowed to vote on a provisional ballot.
- Each application for an absentee ballot shall be subscribed by the applicant and shall require the applicant's printed name, year of birth and unique identifier to be supplied by the applicant, which shall constitute the required form of identification.
- A first time registrant who submits the registration by mail may only use options under (A)(1) and (A)(2).
What you said.
Ahhhh...yes...the young who vote liberal.
And I bet they got drivers licences and school ids and cash cards and .....etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.