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

Just better not speed and lose your license for a month and lose the right to vote!
Click to expand...

That's where provisional ballots come in. Cast provisional ballot, establish identity at the courthouse within the next couple weeks. Done.

Hell, if you were speeding and lost your license you've probably got an appointment there anyway... ;)

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.
Click to expand...

Oh, the actual voter fraud this is meant to counter is largely a non-issue. And yeah, a lot of the opposition is of the "these people are want it so I'm against it." Which is why you won't find me supporting any similar law in my own state.

That all has nothing to do with whether it's constitutional, though.
 
I hate to interrupt your blatant speculation, but voter fraud of this type is nearly impossible.
Click to expand...

This was an important Supreme Court Ruling. Arguments were made from both sides. It's clear that the Supreme Court felt this case had merit to hear. Not even the dissenting Justices said the case should not have been before the court. I don't think the Justices would take the time if they thought voter fraud was nearly impossible.
 
This was an important Supreme Court Ruling. Arguments were made from both sides. It's clear that the Supreme Court felt this case had merit to hear. Not even the dissenting Justices said the case should not have been before the court. I don't think the Justices would take the time if they thought voter fraud was nearly impossible.
Click to expand...

I'd say the case had merit and posed an important constitutional question regardless of whether widespread voter fraud is currently an actual issue.
 
They didn't choose it based on rampant voter fraud. From the article:
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.
Click to expand...
 
The only reason to be against requiring proof of identity before voting is if you are politician who depends on fraudulent votes to get elected.
 
The only reason to be against requiring proof of identity before voting is if you are politician who depends on fraudulent votes to get elected.
Click to expand...
That is very narrow minded and short sighted thinking...as well as being completely wrong.
 
The only reason to be against requiring proof of identity before voting is if you are politician who depends on fraudulent votes to get elected.
Click to expand...

In as few direct words as possible....that's the main point.

That is very narrow minded and short sighted thinking...
Click to expand...
Yes, but I am old.:D


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.
Click to expand...

True. But you need to understand that they thought Indiana would be a good battle ground. They (Dems', ACLU, La Raza) did not want to make the issue in states like Arizona. Their choice...their mistake.
 
I am on my blackberry at the moment so I cannot really read the decision very easily. From what I have read the decision was not that requiring picture ID for voting is a valid idea but that states have the right to place restrictions on voting. Is that correct?

This all wreaks of misdirection to me. Get people directing all their energy and attention at something that is not really a problem so that they pay no attention to the real issue...meaning the easily hacked voting machines and lack of paper voting.

Even the proponents admit it is not a real problem but they sure want to attracted a lot of attention to it.
 
No free ID!

If you are a voting age citizen in this country, you need a photo ID for lots of things. Private non-governmental things as well as official things. You can no longer get on an airplane (and possibly soon a train or even a bus) without a photo ID. School children get photo IDs! Infringing on the poor? Pah! IF you are so poor that you cannot afford the $7 (or whatever), go to social services, they will get you one. Even if it is a voucher to take to the DMV. If you are that poor, odds are they are already paying for your food, and maybe your housing. Why wouldn't they pay for a photo ID?

Or you can just do what my state has done, eliminate in person voting. Now we (nearly) all vote by mail. I could still vote in person, but I would have to travel half way across the state to do it. I think that would "infringe on the poor" a great deal more than just requiring a photo ID (which nearly everyone already has) and going to a local polling place.

Just one more reason we should have a National ID card (according to them). I'm just waiting for the day you need to show a major credit card as well!:rolleyes:
 
I
am on my blackberry at the moment so I cannot really read the decision very easily. From what I have read the decision was not that requiring picture ID for voting is a valid idea but that states have the right to place restrictions on voting. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

No, I think the ruling is very specific...just photo ID, not restrictions on voting.
 
No, I think the ruling is very specific...just photo ID, not restrictions on voting.
Click to expand...
That is what I am meaning. I just did not state it well. The court did not say ID should be required to vote in this country. They said that states have the right to require ID if they so choose (which is a restriction).

I still do not see why it is an issue. I still think this is purely misdirection.
 
"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."

Bingo!!! Illegal aliens and convicted felons make up two of the largest Democrat constituencies. A utility bill may not be any good as voter ID. Unless, of course, it has a picture. :D
 
Illegal aliens and convicted felons make up two of the largest Democrat constituencies.
Click to expand...

Lets not get hyperbolic :)

There are lots of decent folks who vote democratic...they are forced to hold their nose as the national party swings far deeper into the left, but they do.

Like my Momma :)

WildnomommynoAlaska TM
 
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.
Click to expand...
I vote in every election that comes along. The only question I've been asked is for my address. The poll worker runs his/her finger down the listing in the registration book (as I read the information upside down), looks up at me and asks "Don?" (sometimes the worker goes past my listing and I stop her and tell her she's missed it by a couple of lines), I say yes, sign my name and am handed a ballot. No need to produce ID. I think, at least here, voter fraud would be relatively easy to commit.

Come to think of it, there was recently a case of voter fraud in one of the smaller counties where one of the candidates had something like 25 people registered at his home address. I don't believe that it's actually gone to trial yet.
 
Sometimes it's what you don't see

I have been following this case for a while. It's what's hidden that's important. The Supreme Court did not mention illegals voting, but this case is really partly about illegal's voting. No one made the filing that illegals should vote. This case did not come about because of or ordinary voter fraud, it really came about because of illegals voting...and that's the real under-current.
 
It would be nice if Americans would wake up before they lose their country by being too PC. I know the corporate greedy bastards dont care about America or Americans but profit. We have been sold out. Mexico is going to take this counrty without firing a shot.
 
the bigger issue

is these voting locations where you can end up in line for six hours. Now that has to be a greater deterrent to any one than any other aspect. How can we allow a system that knows there are people who have to wait in line for hours to exercise thier right to vote? And yet we hear nothing about how this problem needs to be addressed nor any actual plans implemented that eliminate the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top