Skip to comments.Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
Posted on 01/09/2008 8:22:32 PM PST by My_Name_is_a_Number
click here to read article
To vote in Mexico you show a photo ID, your photo is on the voter roll at the polling place, and your finger is marked. Why can’t we do something similar here? Voter integrity is very high on my list of things that need to be done.
well, she’s old and stuck in her ways, but I figure with ALL the grandkids being Republican, it sort of cancels her out. :D
The MSM acts like the only kind of “disenfranchisement” is when a voter who is eligible (but couldn’t be bothered to take the most basic steps to prove that) doesn’t get to vote. What about all the people who get disenfranchised when their votes are neutralized by the votes of people who were NOT eligible to vote?
Now, if we can get rid of Motor Voter, the absolute worst voter fraud fiasco hoisted on this country by the Democrats.
In California, NOBODY verifies the citizenship of those who register to vote using the Motor Voter program. Fake birth certificate and fake S.S. number, NO PROBLEMO AMIGO...
I would venture a guess that at least 10% of the voters in California, my home State by the way, are not eligible to vote legally.
So she spent years taking this to the supreme court, when all she had to do was exert 1/100th of the effort to get a state ID. How was she "prevented" from getting the ID in the first place? She's freakin' 71 and "can't establish" her identity? How does she prove who she is to collect her social security check, or dare I ask?
I was reading a DUmmie thread on this the other day. One opinion was (get ready for a major yuck) that unless states provide the cards for free, obtain a persons records needed for verification (birth cert., that sort of thing)....for free. And even provide money for postage needed by person...for free....it would be unconstitutional as it would still disenfrancise the “poor”. LOL! Let’s be real folks. Nothing would ever satisfy the left/dems/libs on this one. People who can provide I.D. to social agencies, check cashing services, etc. are suddenly unable to provide I.D. to vote.
I could never understand why showing a photo ID to vote would be in any way unconsitutional. Is it unconstitutional to require a photo ID to board an airplane? Is it unconstitutional to require a photo ID to cash a check, open a savings account, secure a post office box, open a charge account? This is crazy...it is simply the liberal courts playing havoc with their authority. Besides, if you do not have a photo ID, what kind of voter would you make?
FRED THOMPSON - NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE (Ill protect the American people and American values, whatever it takes to stop the Islamic-Fascists including water-boarding!) - 2ND AMENDMENT ADVOCATE (Individual rights to protect their homes and property!)
INCREASE THE MILITARYS STRENGTH AND SIZE (Diplomacy through Strength and verification!)
SECURE AND SEAL THE BORDERS (Dont give sanctuary anywhere to illegals; dont employ illegals; dont rent to illegals; dont extend credit to illegals; dont give illegals rights they have no right to; report all crimes committed by illegals to ICE and immediately deport those illegals who have already committed crimes against America!) LAW AND ORDER (Enforcement of our current laws regarding illegal immigration!) DENY FEDERAL DOLLARS TO SANCTUARY CITIES (Enough is enough!)
CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES FOR SUPREMES (Great progress has been made on the Supreme Court in Bushs term. FRED was asked by President Bush to spirit Justice Roberts through the confirmation process. The next President will probably have the opportunity to seat two additional Justices. This is huge folks. FRED will nominate Justices who will interpret the Constitution, not create rights that simply do not exist and legislate from the bench!) PRO-LIFE ADVOCATE (will strive to nominate superior Justices with the eventual goal of overturning Roe vs Wade)
THOMPSON PLAN TO REDUCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING (Check out his detailed plan to reduce Federal spending!)
SOCIAL SECURITY REFORMER (Social Security is an entitlement program that will soon overtake the budget. The program cant sustain itself and will bankrupt future generations; FRED has detailed proposals to save Social Security and provide the added benefit of private savings accounts for younger workers!)
DEFEAT ANY DEMOCRAT OR RINO (Close your eyes and imagine the first debate between FRED THOMPSON and ANY liberal DemocRAT they put up?)
TAX SIMPLIFICATION (Reform and perhaps eliminate the IRS with a variety of choice for the tax payer!)
EDUCATION (Return education to the States. It is that simple. The NEA is the greatest enemy of our educational system!)
WONT PUT UP WITH TRUTH MANIPULATION FROM THE DB-MSM (including stupid questions by liberal moderators, and purchased political pundits)
FRED THOMPSON IS THE WE THE PEOPLE CANDIDATE (We the People asked him to set aside his personal life and step up one more time for his Country and he stepped up!)
THIRD IN IOWA, SECOND IN WYOMING (MSM still calling it a tie with McCains name in the lead FoxNews wont even mention his name if they can find a way to avoid it!)
TOTAL DELIGATES: 6 “FRED” ain’t DEAD, enough said!
It’s pretty hard to find most the people who need to be prosecuted for individual vote fraud. When somebody who has no ID and no eligibility for ID comes in and votes under a name which may or may not bear any resemblance to his/her real name, giving an address which may or may not bear any resemblance to any address at which they have ever actually resided, and is not required to be photographed and fingerprinted at the voting location, and then goes on his/her merry way, how the heck are they supposed to be found and prosecuted?
On the other hand, if someone who IS eligible has actually been prevented from voting, it’s very easy for that person to come forward and file a complaint. In most cases, they could also call police on the spot, and have police come over and witness the fact that they are not being permitted to vote, thus creating solid court-admissible evidence of the denial. But they don’t. Because there are no such would-be voters.
After they recover from their nervous breakdowns, here are some potential schemes the lefties might employ:
1. OUTLAW I.D.: The Second Amendment is not an individual right to keep and bear arms or identification. It is a collective right only for the state.
2. LOWER VOTING AGE: Anchor newborns given the right to vote. (May settle the abortion debate).
3. OUTSOURCE ELECTIONS: All U.S. elections held in Russia with Vlad (the impoisoner) as final official certifier.
4. ABOLISH ELECTIONS: Outdated relic of the past has outlived its usefulness in today’s society as per our living, breathing Constitution.
and, if all else fails...
5. BAN THE CONSTITUTION: As unconstitutional.
I have wondered why the opposite of “enfranchise” is not “disfranchise.” Seemed logical to me, although I realize that logic does not always carry the day in language usage. Consulting my Webster’s Collegiate, Fifth Edition, I find that “disenfranchise” is defined in a single word, to wit, “disfranchise.”
That would be a big plus for the Republicans!
We’ve had to produce photo ID in VA for years (pre-9/11). Now I think we should also require inked fingers as they did in the Iraqi election.
I think some Dems genuinely resent the idea that millions of entities legally ineligible to vote (pets, illegals, dead people, felons, pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons, vacant lots) will be prevented from voting.
If you’re ambitious enough to vote then you should be ambitious enough to get a driver’s license or state ID card. This Indiana law will just impede Democratic electoral fraud.
This is an amazing contrast. Driven religious LIBERALS are currently arguing in Washington DC that the “restriction” of BANNING guns from people in Washington DC is a “reasonable” restriction of that right. Yet when asked if the idea that a citizen simply produce a state ID, which ANY citizen can get, they howl that it is “UN-REASONABLE.”
Fruadulent Left...at it again. This is why they are RESENTED by a majority of Americans.
All the Supreme Court needs to do is read The Bill of Rights. The 10th amendment is as follows:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This is not rocket science. This is a states right issue not a federal issue!
We have 4 Leftists, 4 Conservatives and 1 Leftist, Kennedy, who swings both ways. The notion that this is a “Conservative” Court is absurd.
I had a Freeper tell me he knew Leftists in his Florida neighborhood who were snowbirds who in 2000 thought it was perfectly fine for them to vote both in FLA and at their summer homes because they “paid property taxes in both states”. They would vote absentee in NY and vote at the booth in FLA.
We need to tighten up our voting laws because of the fraud routinely perpetrated by the Left. This is a good 1st step
What a completely professional sentence. You certainly can't tell what the "reporter" believes.
Now all we need is a federal law that does the same.
this is from you, yes?
“Real voting reform:
Valid picture ID, confirming citizenship and eligibility to vote at that location.
Dip your finger in ink before voting.
Long prison term for individual voter fraud.
Death penalty for systemic fraud.”
There's only one justice who is probably looking at this case with that in mind, and he wasn't quoted in this article.
Hmm.... let me think about this. I need a photo ID to buy a six-pack or drive a car, but liberals question an ID to vote? This is a no brainer. Even a lefty liberal should understand.
It’s interesting how it’s always the Demorats who jump up and down and holler whenever initiatives are taken to prevent vote fraud. I wonder why that would be...?
Amen Johnnie! The fact that we haven't secured the ballot box is beyond belief, but then again we have Democrats fighting every day to keep the privilege of cheating open to them.
I had that same thought watching the press conference on this today. Let hope millions of other voters have the same thought.
Really discouraging some days. But if not us, who will fight this battle?
Democrats are the first to shout disenfranchisement when we try to secure the ballot box. This country is becoming a joke. I wonder how many people voted fraudently in NH, since they don’t require ID. You could have voted mutiple times and your campaign could have brought in thousands from out of state to vote.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the Clinton machine did. Meanwhile, the "pundits" continue to scratch their rear-ends wondering how the pre-election polls could have been so wrong. All you can do is shake your head at the stupidity....
Exactly. I’m also wondering how many were brought in to vote for McCain to tank Romney, even if McCain had nothing to do with it. They could have voted democrat and then walked over and voted republican....how stupid is this system.
sweetliberty used to host a continual vote fraud thread here on FR. I am wondering if she would be willing to do it again? What about it sweetliberty, you were great!
I've never read an Alito opinion, but I hear he's similar to Roberts and Roberts come off a more of a "common-sense" conservative than a textualist like Scalia or Thomas. I certainly prefer Scalia's approach, but even at it's worst I don't see Roberts' doing much damage (even he it does fail to accomplish as much for federalism as he could).
Among those cited by Democrats is Mary-Jo Criswell, a 71-year-old Indianapolis Democrat, who could not vote last November because she had no driver's license or valid passport.
She previously had used a private bank-issued card with her photo when voting. The former precinct committeewoman had difficulty rebuilding an identity trail, and still does not have a valid photo ID. Criswell said in an affidavit she felt intimidated by the burdensome bureaucracy she claims is needed to vote.
This whole issue is so infuriating because the Dems and media lapdogs like this one are so insulting to any thinking American. This 71-yo woman has in past elections used a private bank-issued card. Of course she needed ID to prove to the bank who she was before they issued to her their own ID. Here's a woman that was actually civic-minded enough to be involved in the political process as a committeewoman claiming that she was "intimidated" by the very bureaucracy she played a part in making. What is so intimidating? Why do you not have a state-issued ID in the first place? Whta was the difficulty in "rebuilding an identity"? yada, yada.
If the Dems are arguing that the process is too "intimidating" then doesn't that refute their every bureaucratic impulses in the first place? For Democrats to argue that the very act (voting) that puts in place politicians that put in place the very regulations/policies that are supposed roadblocks to voting is the very definition of hypocrisy.
What is always inconvenient to the Dems is any "disenfranchisement" of voters due to a lack of ID is miniscule compared to the unquestionable disenfranchisement of voters with ID by those people that cannot legally vote either due to age, location, or illegal status.
LOL. This woman could be a precinct committeewoman (organizing Democratic voters), and she could file an affidavit with the Supreme Court, but she couldn’t get a photo ID?
And yet she wants to have a say in how my tax dollars are spent?
State laws on voter identification vary widely, with Indiana's and Georgia's considered the most restrictive. Nearly all states require a photo identification when people first register to vote.
So the voter is required to prove intially that they are who they claim to be and thus legal to vote. Are the Dems going to claim even that is too difficult?
The bottomline is the ID is needed to prove, just like a ticket to a professional sports game, that you have the right to access. As of now any state that doesn't require an ID each time they vote is unquestionably allowing illegal votes to be cast. All one needs to do is to know a person (or many more) that you know intially registered but are not voting and show up and "do them a favor" and vote for them proxy. For college students it would be a crapshoot. Be aggressive in registering all your friends to vote (or let motor voter do it for you), inquire non-chalantly whether they are going to vote and if not, go in their stead. Get info on senior citizens that are infirmed and vote for them. Etc, etc, etc.
Ultimately, if this lax standard continues and expands, Pubbies are going to give-up their standard of fair play and start doing some free voting for lazy Dems.
Don’t watch. Let ‘em do it.
The provisional ballot eliminated that legal avenue for the most part. What's funny is when somebody was not included on a voters list, 80% of the time after they vote provisional it is shown that they were not eligible to vote due to address change, legal status, criminal record, age and so on. That's what happened in Ohio when they had all those provisional ballots but Kerry conceded because not only did he need a major swing of votes for him to make up the statistical gap but they wrere to be from a a group of ballots where a vast majority wouldn't be allowed in anyways.
” Strong voter ID laws will be the end of the modern Democrat Party.”
You really think there’s that much fraud occuring due to this?
What in particular makes you think that?
Every election cycle we hear about the Dems’ “formidable turnout effort”. They repeatedly call or knock on the door of every potential voter.
They are able to determine if someone isn’t registered, then get them enrolled if necessary. They help them get absentee ballots. They know if someone needs a RIDE to the polls. They know if CHILD CARE is needed...or PLOWING the driveway. They know your church, union, and probably your bowling league.
Sooooo. Mightn’t they add one teeny little question in all this outreach prior to the election:
“Do you have a valid drivers license?”.
First, it would help them identify the real extent of the problem. Either the problem doesn’t exist or they don’t really want to quantify it. Second, if they can send someone to drive you to vote, couldn’t they just as easily drive you to the DMV?
It’s obvious they don’t really want to solve the problem.
Republicans would be wise to add this question to their scripts when contacting voters. It’s probably not widely needed, but it would help underscore that the Dems want the issue, not the solution.
PS: I found this troubling:
“NEARLY all states require a photo identification when people first REGISTER to vote.”
“Nearly”?! Pray tell, where can you REGISTER to vote without a photo ID?
Virtually every country in the world requires photo ID, fingerprints, etc. Granted, dictators find other ways of manipulating the vote, but that’s not the problem we face here in the US. Just getting reliable identification for voters would probably cut out most of the our fraud problems.
Most of these people manage to get drivers licenses, welfare ID cards and a host of other forms of ID that are required of them without complaint. So what’s the big deal about photo ID for voting? Well, I know that the big deal is that the Dems couldn’t cheat then, but I think that’s a little blatant to use as a defense in the Supreme Court!
She has a Florida drivers license. She also is registered to vote in Florida. She claims homestead credits in both Florida and Indiana. (A little tax fraud going on here?)
The Mo Supremes (packed with Dems) scuttled our similar law a couple years back. Same type of provisional ballots/affidavits for voters without valid ID. We also funded free non-drivers license ID cards for those who couldnt’ afford it. IDIOT LIBERALS!