The Dem's & La Raza Not Going To Like This!

M

madmag

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

Well it's now the law of the land. You can require voters to verify who they are using photo ID. This really started because the Democrats filed suit saying it discriminated against poor, etc. to have to show photo ID. I think the real reason was to find a way for illegals be able to vote.

Why is it the Dem's never seem to worry much about voter fraud? Just a rhetorical question.:)
 
Why is this even an issue?
Click to expand...

It's an issue because the Dem's made it a big issue. They have been trying their best to make it so you can vote without photo ID or proof of who you are. Had they left it alone the ruling would not have occurred. The Dem's need to be careful of what they wish for.
 
Well, I can think of plenty of issues with a general photo ID requirement, but luckily I went and read the linked article before posting:

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.
Click to expand...

Well, that pretty much covers the only two significant ones.

I'd argue that with this law the state IDs should be provided free of charge to everybody who doesn't want/need a driver's license (regardless of income), as I don't think what amounts to a fee on voting is reasonable for the middle class any more than the poor. But obviously that's a losing argument, and kind of tangential to this issue.
 
just another anti-dem rant

as I see it this is was another opportunity for a rant against democrats by madmag. After all Republicans would never be concerned about the requirements established to validate who is voting.
 
It is what it is

Rant
I would say it's more like a rant by the Supreme Court. My so-called rant was by standards pretty short. I just posted a factual ruling.

After all Republicans would never be concerned about the requirements established to validate who is voting.
Click to expand...
That seems correct to me. The Dem's not the Republicans prompted filing.
 
Nothing wrong with it as long as it costs $0 to get a photo ID.
Click to expand...

I'd say it places at least some burden on the state to help some folks (particularly the elderly) get them as well. You do have to be careful when placing any sort of hurdles in the way of exercising a constitutional right.

But the requirement in general? Not seeing the problem.


Though to be honest I wouldn't support such a law in my own state, but I'd not try to argue that it's unconstitutional.

EDIT: And madmag, you have to consider that there are a lot of people who have no need whatsoever for a driver's license. People who live in dense urban areas, the elderly, etc.
 
It's an issue because the Dem's made it a big issue. They have been trying their best to make it so you can vote without photo ID or proof of who you are.
Click to expand...

That's because illegal aliens and dead people tend to vote for Democrats.
 
And madmag, you have to consider that there are a lot of people who have no need whatsoever for a driver's license. People who live in dense urban areas, the elderly, etc.
Click to expand...

Good point. I am on the older side and can relate. I want all legal voters to get their chance....even those evil Democrats that are legal voters.:eek:

Really, I take the right to vote very serious. If needed to volunteer, I would drive people to the polls that have no transportation...yes even Democrats.

(on the way I would offer them a free meal at Golden Corral buffet if they vote for McCain...I just couldn't help myself):D
 
I'd say it places at least some burden on the state to help some folks (particularly the elderly) get them as well. You do have to be careful when placing any sort of hurdles in the way of exercising a constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it always strikes me as funny when some people will disagree with background checks, proper identification, age restrictions, etc when it comes to buying a gun but then want to impose similar restrictions on voting. Especially since to vote you have to know your name, address, DOB and be pre-registered.

Voter fraud of this type is a red herring argument. It just does not really happen in any substantial numbers. It is a way to distract people from paperless voting, easily hacked electronic machines with no back ups, etc.
 
Actually most of the time the ID used will be existing drivers license.
Click to expand...

Ah, but there lies the issue. What if someone doesn't have a drivers license (think like 50% of residents of Manhattan, or those non-drivers over 80 in assisted care facilities)?

How do you proceed at the next election?
A) Do you turn these people away?
B) Do you require mandatory ID (free of charge) PRIOR to the election?
C) Do you put in some kind of "Get ID when you turn 18, maybe at the same time you sign up for selective service"?

How do we avoid (A) above?
 
Voter fraud of this type is a red herring argument. It just does not really happen in any substantial numbers. It is a way to distract people from paperless voting, easily hacked electronic machines with no back ups, etc.
Click to expand...

Yep. Voter fraud via blackbox is simply way easier. There needs to be a lot more education as to just how easy it is to circumvent the will of the voters via a few lines of code. At the LEAST, we should spend a few million dollars and develop an open source, reviewable system. Heck, we can even give it out as a gift to the world showing how democracy should be done. No reason that voting should be given over to private corporations without oversight. Some things are too important.
 
How do we avoid (A) above?
Click to expand...

Education regarding the policy well in advance of the election (I'd say it's arguable, though I don't argue it, that it might be unreasonable to apply this in November, and that rather it should apply in 2010). In Montana, we had billboards and such when the policy changed regarding proof of residency (not photo ID, just a bill or something would do. Place obvious notices in the voter registration paperwork. Basically, make sure people know.

Then, you make sure that non-driving ID's are free.

Lastly, you might have to provide some kind of subsidized shuttle program for those who are disabled or who generally just can't make it to the DMV reasonably. One every 8-10 years or so shouldn't cost the taxpayers that much.

At that point, I'd say you've reasonably removed any hurdles to voting that this would create.
 
It just does not really happen in any substantial numbers.
Click to expand...

I would have agree a few years ago. But one of the groups that has been trying to fight voter ID requirements is La Raza. Now why would they care if a legal citizen has to show ID? I think the answer is that they have almost openly being advocating people to vote...even illegals....in barley subtle ways.

At that point, I'd say you've reasonably removed any hurdles to voting that this would create.
Click to expand...
Yes, that agrees with how the court worded their ruling.
 
I hate to interrupt your blatant speculation, but voter fraud of this type is nearly impossible. Voters are pre-registered and are asked key questions when voting to confirm identity.

The system of just walking in and pulling a lever just does not exist anywhere except in the imaginary nightmare scenarios that the people who benefit most from suppressing voter turnout like to create.
 
And yet there is STILL voter fraud when the guy at the poll is paid to not actually read IDs. Just needs to check the little box saying the ID(or random piece of paper) matches up and hand the voter the ballot.

This is not even close to a magic bullet.


So, what amount of voter fraud currently exists that this would counter? Are there any hard numbers or just "a La Raza wants it so I'm against it" response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top