Voter ID

[/dev/null]

<br /><br /><br />

 

I have never had to anywhere I lived (NYS, IA, IL)... Just sign on the line: "Yep, that is me."

 

I do agree. What is the harm?

I've never had to sign

 

And before today I always assumed the poll workers checked ID's and addresses to verify that the voters were at the correct polling station. I never realized that I was being oppressed.

[DC Tom]

I've never had to sign

 

I have to.

 

But I'm an independent in the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland. If I were a Democrat, I probably have to sign something completely different stating I'll vote at least twice more that day.

[Chef Jim]

I've never had to sign

 

And before today I always assumed the poll workers checked ID's and addresses to verify that the voters were at the correct polling station. I never realized that I was being oppressed.

 

Not here in CA. They ask your name, find it on a list and have you sign. Many may think it's still "one signature one vote" but not the case. Uhhh, I can read your list that you have in font of you. I'll be back later in the day to vote as __________ whose name I saw on your list.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Chef Jim

[GG]

I've never had to sign

 

And before today I always assumed the poll workers checked ID's and addresses to verify that the voters were at the correct polling station. I never realized that I was being oppressed.

 

Don't need ID in NJ, but have to sign the form.

[Doc]

<br /><br /><br />

 

Texas is a "red" state.

Crap, I thought I deleted the post before anyone saw it. But I guess EII got his responses.

[ExiledInIllinois]

GG... That is how it is here in IL (Will County). Book & they give you a reciept stub out of it. When they (both dem & republic judges on hand) look me up, I can spy and see if my wife voted yet.

[Chef Jim]

GG... That is how it is here in IL (Will County). Book & they give you a reciept stub out of it. When they (both dem & republic judges on hand) look me up, I can spy and see if my wife voted yet.

 

You "spy" on your wife to see if she voted?

[ExiledInIllinois]

<br />You "spy" on your wife to see if she voted?  <img src='http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

Not really, but the wacky old lady judges would call it that.

 

<br />Crap, I thought I deleted the post before anyone saw it.  But I guess EII got his responses.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

Ha! HTML & all.

[GG]

South Carolina's ID law (before DOJ blocked it), not only gave them a free ID, but also gave people a free ride to the DMV to get it.

 

Well, there you go. Discriminatory because only some classes get the IDs for free and get a free ride to boot.

[Wacka]

Not here in CA. They ask your name, find it on a list and have you sign. Many may think it's still "one signature one vote" but not the case. Uhhh, I can read your list that you have in font of you. I'll be back later in the day to vote as __________ whose name I saw on your list.

 

The guy after me one year said that somebody had voted as him when he went to sign.

[Fezmid]

Wisconsin just passed Voter ID and it's being struck down by a liberal judge in Dane County (that's Madison):

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/ruling-expected-monday-in-second-voter-id-case-c44hifo-142307425.html

 

What's funny is the first judge who blocked the law also signed the "recall Scott Walker" petitions. Good to see he's being impartial.

 

The guy after me one year said that somebody had voted as him when he went to sign.

 

It's trivial to do. We knew that one of our neighbors wasn't voting a few elections ago -- he just didn't care, although this wife was there. It would've been trivial to go back to the poll a second time and say I was him. I don't see why flashing an ID is such as a big deal...

[IDBillzFan]

Interesting read.

 

Analyzing Texas data, the Justice Department contends that anywhere from 6 percent to 10 percent of Hispanic registered voters don’t have ID. It piles up a parade of horribles — no cars, great distances, inconvenient hours — for why such potential voters can’t get to an office to acquire one, even though the state’s Department of Public Safety will issue election-identification certificates for free.

 

The experience of other states with voter-ID laws suggests that minorities are not the hapless victims that Holder’s Justice Department portrays them to be. Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation points out that black turnout increased in Georgia in 2008, the first election under a voter-ID law, more than it did in Mississippi, which didn’t have such a law. A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln concluded that “concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”

 

Before his next speech, Holder should bone up on the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008 upholding Indiana’s voter-ID law. The liberal Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. The Court held that “there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” and “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.”

[Doc]

There are a lot of requirements that pose challenges. That doesn't mean that we should make exceptions. No ID, no vote.

[B-Man]

From the same article that LABillzFan posted;

 

That Holder can equate the fight against voter ID to the struggles of the 1960s demonstrates a moral obtuseness insulting to the memory of the civil-rights pioneers. His Justice Department is now blocking a new voter-ID law in Texas, after doing the same to a South Carolina law. It argues that the Texas statute will disproportionally affect poor Latinos and therefore violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

 

Why would the yokels in Texas do something so outrageous as ask that people prove who they are at polling places? It is obviously a basic check against fraud. Requiring an ID to vote was one of the proposals in 2005 of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, neither of whom had previously been noted for his hostility to minorities or the poor.

 

 

 

Also this....The Foundry

Photo ID for DOJ, But Not for Texas

Hans von Spakovsky, March 12, 2012

To no one’s surprise, the Obama Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division have objected to the voter ID law passed by the Texas legislature. The DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder claims that it is discriminatory under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for Texas to require voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polling place, because it will supposedly hurt Hispanic voters—even though any Texan can get a photo ID for free.

 

Never mind that if you want to exercise your First Amendment right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” by talking to anyone at the Justice Department, you have to present a government-issued photo ID if you want to get into their headquarters in Washington.............. How discriminatory!

 

{snip}

 

Texas, just like South Carolina, will have to get this decision overturned by a federal court in the District of Columbia, after a lot of wasted time and money. Given the predominantly liberal makeup of the federal court, the state may have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, just like Indiana did to get its voter ID laws approved and implemented. But this decision also is just one more example of why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act—the special provision of the law that gives the Justice Department such authority over Texas and a few other states—is unconstitutional and ready for the dustbin of history.

 

Neither Texas nor South Carolina deserves to be in the equivalent of federal receivership 47 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed—particularly when you have a Justice Department where politics, not justice, drives law enforcement.

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Okay, this is just embarrassing.

 

NAACP To Address UN About US Voter ID Laws

 

Yes, that's right. Ben Jealous plans to ask the UN to pressure the US to stop with these silly voter ID laws.

 

The NAACP is taking its battle against new US voting laws all the way to Geneva, McClatchy reports. The venerable civil rights organization plans to argue next week before a United Nations panel that a recent crop of voting laws violate civil and human rights. Members of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which agreed to hear the argument, will get a break from their usual caseload involving far-flung nations like Syria and the Ivory Coast.

 

The UN can't actually change laws in US states, but NAACP president Benjamin Jealous says he hopes the international body can exert public pressure: "The power of the UN on state governments historically is to shame them and to put pressure on the US government to bring them into line with global standards for democracy." Since last year, 15 states have approved laws requiring proof of citizenship before voting—a standard the NAACP says disenfranchises millions of black voters.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

If I have to show ID for silly things like tobacco and alcohol or other age related items, I.should absolutely have to prove I am who I say I am and legally allowed to vote in elections.

 

I'm all for freedom liberty and limited government regulation but showing ID to vote is just common sense and should be a requirement

[Just Jack]

My brother was in the book for years, even though he moved out of state. But it was a small town, about 2,000 people, so it would be difficult for someone to say they were him, since everyone in town knew everyone else.

[Magox]

Is the intent behind conservatives motives to suppress Democratic voters? certainly possible. But in what twisted, (*^*&amp;%^&#036;^#world, is it too much to ask ANYONE to bring a freaking ID to vote for the president of this country?

Edited March 15, 2012 by Magox

[Oxrock]

Some issues just baffle the mind as to why they are not 100% bi-partisan. This is one of them. Every single reason the liberal left can give as to why NOT to require ID's to vote is easily shot down.

[IDBillzFan]

Some issues just baffle the mind as to why they are not 100% bi-partisan. This is one of them. Every single reason the liberal left can give as to why NOT to require ID's to vote is easily shot down.

I read a liberal argument the other day that, in a nutshell, it's hard to get an ID for most middle class people because it requires two things they may not have: time off from work and a birth certificate. Apparently, these are very, very difficult barriers for many Americans to overcome.

 

The rebuttal was simply this: you have one day to vote and can manage to show up, but somehow the other 364 days of the year aren't enough time to get an ID?

Edited March 15, 2012 by LABillzFan