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

That's a County not national or State issue. It's wrong headed to look to National government with local problems. Your County recorder is an elected official and you have a County board or council to go to. I get frustrated when I hear the liberal mindset of national power being somehow a solution. National goovernment is the very worst solution to anything less then national problems.
 
how that

Brux having people stand in line for some unreasonable time is not an issue for national consideration. While it is a problem created by local authorities the right to vote is a constitutional right not a state right. When local authorities place any obstacle in your way it infringes upon a constitutional issue. Voting in a national election is not a state issue. States get to conduct the voting process for federal elections. I know of no federal laws that mandate states as the interpreter of your right to vote in federal elections. Should they (the state) conduct the process in such a manner as to discourage you from voting it becomes a national issue.
 
I believe the state should provide a photo ID to those who can not afford one, how many would that be considering that just about everyone has cell phones or other items that are a luxury. I also believe the state, city and county shouls provide free transport to the polling places for those who need it.
 
I believe the state should provide a photo ID to those who can not afford one,
Click to expand...

From the link:

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to people without driver's licenses. It also allows voters who lack photo ID's 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...

Nothing said about transportation.
 
Oddly enough there has never been a case of voter fraud by assumed identity brought to court in Indiana.
So a law was passed that prosecutes a non-existent crime, that has the side effect of disenfranchising voters.

I believe that there is an absolute right to vote and it is up to the state to prove that a person shouldn't vote. It is not the job of the citizen to prove their innocence/voting bona fides.
The supreme court of course disagrees and hands more power to the state and takes rights from the individual.
 
that has the side effect of disenfranchising voters.
Click to expand...

There is nobody out there (citizen wise) without ID. Know anyone yourself? Anybody?

And if there are, the population is so miniscule that the interests of the state in ensuring fair elections far outweighs the purported dienfranchisement.

I love the hypocrisy of the opponents of this measure, primarly Democrats, who are so efficient in organizing their voters but can't possibly get an ID for the poor bum on the street who hasn't been sober enough to vote since LBJ.

WildevenmymommahasadriverslicenseAlaska TM
 
There is nobody out there (citizen wise) without ID. Know anyone yourself? Anybody?
Click to expand...

At the moment? No. In the past? Yes. Sure, there's the provisional ballot/courthouse option, but for somebody who doesn't make so much money taking time of to A) vote, B) go to the courthouse, and C) go get ID for next time actually starts to become a bit of a burden. And often the reason people find themselves without ID is because of some other paperwork SNAFU that's preventing them from getting it, or making it difficult enough that it requires multiple trips (again, each trip representing at least a time commitment and probably lost wages as well).

Considering we're talking about the exercise of a Constitutional right, even so small an impediment has to be given quite a bit of weight.

And if there are, the population is so miniscule that the interests of the state in ensuring fair elections far outweighs the purported dienfranchisement.
Click to expand...

Far outweighs? Out of curiosity, how many cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted in Indiana in, say, the last decade? I know this is almost certainly a non-zero number, but I'm curious what the actual count is. Because again, assuming that count is small I'm not so sure that the interest of the state far outweighs the impediment that this presents, even if only to a small minority. Again, Constitutional right and all.


EDIT: Not that I'm arguing all that strongly against this law. I just think that we may want to consider the implication of passing such a restriction on a Constitutional right to address a possible problem or a potential problem...considering where we are. Sure, in this case the infringement is small...but the interest it's addressing is also pretty underwhelming. Scale the level of infringement to the level of interest in, say, protecting the public from guns...well, suddenly you can justify even stricter regulations than we have now. Just a thought, probably not worth the penny.
 
And often the reason people find themselves without ID is because of some other paperwork SNAFU that's preventing them from getting it, or making it difficult enough that it requires multiple trips (again, each trip representing at least a time commitment and probably lost wages as well).
Click to expand...

Stop. This is the 21st century, I know of no state in the US that doesnt have multiple venues for obtaining a picture ID at nominal cost and fast and easy.

Far outweighs? Out of curiosity, how many cases of voter fraud have been prosecuted in Indiana in, say, the last decade? I know this is almost certainly a non-zero number, but I'm curious what the actual count is. Because again, assuming that count is small I'm not so sure that the interest of the state far outweighs the impediment that this presents, even if only to a small minority. Again, Constitutional right and all.
Click to expand...

Come on now, then what is the percentage of un ID'd folks? Bet its less than the historically documented instances of voter fraud. lack of prosecution is not an indication that the problem doesnt not exist, in fact, on a purely evidentiary basis a Court would take judicial notice of numerous governmental reports relating to voter fraud, as well as permitting, on an expert basis, any reputable history professor to testify as to the continuity of vote fraud in the US, especially in NYC, Chicago, LA and beleive it or not, Indiana (google "vote fraud Indianapolis"...and East Chicago :))

I think the Supremes made the right call in this one

WildsamootsamantunaAlaska TM
 
Oddly enough there has never been a case of voter fraud by assumed identity brought to court in Indiana.
So a law was passed that prosecutes a non-existent crime, that has the side effect of disenfranchising voters.
Click to expand...

I was gonna reply to this, but WA beat me to it, and did it perfectly:
lack of prosecution is not an indication that the problem doesnt not exist
Click to expand...
 
I seeing a lot of statements

that could be interpreted in a very dangerous manner. Do some posters believe anyone should just be able to show up at the polls and be able to vote with no regards for who they are, where they live, or if they already voted? It sure sounds that way when you read through this thread.

It is easy to indicate no prosecutions for voter fraud implies there is none to worry about. Yet at the same time it is a fact that in many places across the country the number of ballots cast and counted exceeded the number of registered voters. Do those instances indicate a problem with who is voting where or are all the counts in error? There are some major problems with voting in America and doing nothing is not going to improve the situation.
 
Here in California, if I know the name of a registered voter, I can vote as them by just giving that name. If they show up later I am sure that there will be a problem, but if they don't show up, I got an extra vote.
Check the recent obits, take a chance that they were registered, and a dead man votes.
 
You will need to know their name, address, and in some cases (like here) the last four of their social. Plus, if they already have voted you are going to be in trouble.

I just don't see that happening in any real numbers but it seems like a lot of people are eager to restricted voting rights based on "boogie man" arguments.

I guess hatred of tan skinned people can make people irrational.
 
Let me repeat, HERE IN CALIFORNIA (at least in my county) all you need is a name. They look it up in the book on the table in front of you.
You said name a single place, which I did. You did not specify that it had to happen in any real numbers,
 
Let me repeat, HERE IN CALIFORNIA (at least in my county) all you need is a name. They look it up in the book on the table in front of you.
You said name a single place, which I did. You did not specify that it had to happen in any real numbers,
Click to expand...
And even in that case you are having to know the full registered name of a registered voter. You are having to check in and you are not simply walking in and voting.
 
Do some posters believe anyone should just be able to show up at the polls and be able to vote with no regards for who they are, where they live, or if they already voted?
Click to expand...

The latter two are already covered without an ID requirement. That's what registration is for.

Yet at the same time it is a fact that in many places across the country the number of ballots cast and counted exceeded the number of registered voters. Do those instances indicate a problem with who is voting where or are all the counts in error?
Click to expand...

This indicates that votes aren't being checked against the list of voters registered, and suggests anything from equipment error, to human error by poll workers, to malfeasance by poll workers (or levels higher). None of which are addressed or will be stopped by an ID requirement.

You did not specify that it had to happen in any real numbers,
Click to expand...

This is implied...otherwise even the slightest issue merits infringement of Constitutional rights. Do 30 dead in a school shooting justify further infringement on your gun rights? You may argue that the new restrictions wouldn't stop future shootings anyway...then again, it's arguable that an ID requirement won't stop voter fraud, either.
 
And yet again you move the standard. Your original standard was that a person could not vote without being registered. I gave you an example of how they could. Just accept it, and quit changing the goal post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top