Voter ID requirement may affect black voter turnout, Dems Fear

[B-Man]

Whenever I hear one side declare what the other side should do to further its political interests I automatically assume the opposite is true.

 

 

 

100% correct.

 

The polls show that Americans favor Voter ID by a large magin.

 

 

"The GOP should drop this issue"....................yeah, EVERYONE knows they're doing this for only one reason............

 

 

Mindless parroting.

Edited July 20, 2012 by B-Man

[Doc]

Seems simplistic. So you don't think this won't get voters riled up at all? The Democrats could feed some line about the GOP trying to take away your right to vote.

What voters? Repubs? Nope. Independents? Nope. Legitimate Democrat voters who would have voted for Barry anyway? Sure. So what?

[Rob's House]

Seems simplistic. So you don't think this won't get voters riled up at all? The Democrats could feed some line about the GOP trying to take away your right to vote.

No, I can't see them getting that worked up about it. A catchy slogan? Sure. The idea that Republicans want to restrict the vote to those who have the right to vote? No, I'm just not seeing it.

[WorldTraveller]

So let me get this straight, even though for the most part, most people believe this is good policy, but whats standing in the way of endorsing this policy that we basically all agree on are motives?

 

As if motives and cynicism are all of a sudden a new found characteristic coming from congress.

 

If it's good !@#$ing policy, then pass the damn thing.

Edited July 20, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[3rdnlng]

Seems simplistic. So you don't think this won't get voters riled up at all? The Democrats could feed some line about the GOP trying to take away your right to vote.

 

The dems are already feeding the public that line. The republicans and independents will laugh it off, while the dems will protest, but do so knowing there are good reasons for their opponents to watch the polls carefully.

[DC Tom]

It has less to do with rights than a strict definition of "poll tax." A poll tax charges solely for the right to vote. A driver's license provides an official document which can be used for much more than just voting. And many activities require a photo ID and it's almost impossible to live ones life without ever presenting one.

 

Furthermore, if this went to court and "disenfranchised" people were brought in to give testimony, I'd ask how in the hell they got into the courthouse/room without a photo ID.

 

Except in several court cases, the Supreme Court has already taken a broader interpretation of a "poll tax" to include any tax or payment to the state, or any substitute for a tax or payment to the state that would abridge a person's right to vote.

 

Requiring someone to pay for an ID, even if that ID is used for other purposes, and even if it would be acquired regardless (and I know of no one who doesn't have a photo ID, even in my wife's destitute family), would arguably meet the courts' standards already established by precedent.

[Doc]

Except in several court cases, the Supreme Court has already taken a broader interpretation of a "poll tax" to include any tax or payment to the state, or any substitute for a tax or payment to the state that would abridge a person's right to vote.

 

Requiring someone to pay for an ID, even if that ID is used for other purposes, and even if it would be acquired regardless (and I know of no one who doesn't have a photo ID, even in my wife's destitute family), would arguably meet the courts' standards already established by precedent.

Figures. It's moot anyway, since states requiring voter ID provide free ones, which no doubt stem from that broader interpretation.

[/dev/null]

I bought a house not quite a year ago

 

I just checked my mailbox (yes it's 1:30 AM).

There was mail from my local voter registrar with a voter card that had my name, address, and pretty much any information necessary to vote

 

I'm not sure if I should feel White Guilt or discriminated against since people like me are expected to abide by the rules

[The Big Cat]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec12/pennsylvania_07-24.html

[IDBillzFan]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec12/pennsylvania_07-24.html

If you're 60 years old and after 10 years you're unable to get a copy of your birth certificate from the state of Georgia, maybe you shouldn't be voting.

 

How often did Wilola Lee try to get it? If the state of Georgia was responding, surely they must have been requesting some more information. They sent her back a document she said was "an application." Were they requesting more information? Was Wilola unable to get them the information? What precisely happened in this case beyond the 20 seconds of a 60-year-old Wilola saying she has been unable to get a copy of her birth certificate for over 10 years.

 

Oddly enough, I needed to get a copy of my birth certificate from NJ a while back. Filled out a form, gave them $5, got a sealed/stamped birth certificate in less than two weeks.

 

So what are the details of Wilola's case? Maybe Big Cat knows the real story of Wilola Lee.

 

Do you Big Cat? Do you know Wilola's REAL story? Let me go out on a limb and suggest you don't have a clue and just want to snipe people responding to this moronic link with a simplistic "What? I just posted a link! I didn't say anything!"

[Rob's House]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec12/pennsylvania_07-24.html

Dude, that's a bull **** story. I understand as well as anyone how slowly the wheels of government bureaucracy turn, but there's no !@#$ing way you can't get a birth certificate in 10 years. And if you can't figure out how to fill out an application and mail it I'm not sure how much value your opinion adds.

[The Big Cat]

If you're 60 years old and after 10 years you're unable to get a copy of your birth certificate from the state of Georgia, maybe you shouldn't be voting.

 

How often did Wilola Lee try to get it? If the state of Georgia was responding, surely they must have been requesting some more information. They sent her back a document she said was "an application." Were they requesting more information? Was Wilola unable to get them the information? What precisely happened in this case beyond the 20 seconds of a 60-year-old Wilola saying she has been unable to get a copy of her birth certificate for over 10 years.

 

Oddly enough, I needed to get a copy of my birth certificate from NJ a while back. Filled out a form, gave them $5, got a sealed/stamped birth certificate in less than two weeks.

 

So what are the details of Wilola's case? Maybe Big Cat knows the real story of Wilola Lee.

 

Do you Big Cat? Do you know Wilola's REAL story? Let me go out on a limb and suggest you don't have a clue and just want to snipe people responding to this moronic link with a simplistic "What? I just posted a link! I didn't say anything!"

 

At some point you realized it was absurd to hold me accountable for someone else's reporting, so to preempt that sensible response, you chastised me in advance for not being the obvious: accountable for the PBS story. You're amazing...

 

 

Dude, that's a bull **** story. I understand as well as anyone how slowly the wheels of government bureaucracy turn, but there's no !@#$ing way you can't get a birth certificate in 10 years. And if you can't figure out how to fill out an application and mail it I'm not sure how much value your opinion adds.

 

What other factors should bar a person from being eligible to vote?

[Joe Miner]

At some point you realized it was absurd to hold me accountable for someone else's reporting, so to preempt that sensible response, you chastised me in advance for not being the obvious: accountable for the PBS story. You're amazing...

 

So if you recognized it was poor reporting, why did you post it here?

 

Did you think it served some purpose or added to this conversation in any way?

[The Big Cat]

So if you recognized it was poor reporting, why did you post it here?

 

Did I say that? I don't recall offering my opinion on the report.

There seems to be a reoccurring theme of people making up an opinion for me just so they can tell me how idiotic that opinion is!

[Joe Miner]

Did I say that? I don't recall offering my opinion on the report.

There seems to be a reoccurring theme of people making up an opinion for me just so they can tell me how idiotic that opinion is!

 

So do you or do you no think that it was a good story that brings something relevant to the conversation here?

 

If so, what?

[WorldTraveller]

I thought this was somewhat relevant to the thread:

 

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.

 

The errant mailings from the Washington-based nonprofit group Voter Participation Center have befuddled many Virginia residents, leading to hundreds of complaints.

 

The organization has been mass-mailing the forms — pre-populated with key information such as names and addresses — to primarily Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as young adults, unmarried women, African-Americans and Latinos.

 

In a letter to Cuccinelli's office and the State Board of Elections, Kathryn Bieber, an attorney for the Romney campaign, calls for an investigation into the matter by law-enforcement officials, claiming that the mailings appear to violate "at least one and maybe several Virginia laws aimed at ensuring a fair election."

 

Bieber refers to the mailings as "tactics that amount to, or at the very least induce, voter registration fraud," and says the issue "presents a very significant risk to the proper administration of the upcoming general election."

 

Citing a Sunday Richmond Times-Dispatch story that brought the mailings to light, the letter also asks the State Board of Elections to require registrars to reject all pre-populated voter registration applications from the group and review the eligibility of all Virginians who have registered in the past two months.

 

"This is the only way for voters and other interested parties to regain confidence in the voter registration and electoral process that has been abused by the Voter Participation Center," the letter says.

 

Page Gardner, president and CEO of the Voter Participation Center, said the organization mailed nearly 200,000 third-party registration forms to Virginia addresses in June, which resulted in 15,026 new voters being registered as of July 18.

 

On Monday, the Voter Participation Center responded to the Sunday Times-Dispatch story, stating in a letter on its website that "imperfections in the VPC vendors' lists — while regrettable and unfortunate — should not be the reason or the excuse to call an entire process that is working into question."

 

Justin Riemer, the State Board of Elections' deputy secretary, said forms have been sent by the group to deceased infants, out-of-state family members, and non-U.S. citizens, among others.

 

In a letter this month, the State Board of Elections asked the group to cease pre-populating their forms and raised questions about how the group was obtaining lists of registered voters, citing the errant forms.

 

Riemer noted that pre-populating the forms violates rules set forth in the state code and the Virginia Constitution requiring that voters fill out their own forms.

 

The State Board of Elections had not received the letter from the Romney campaign Tuesday afternoon and declined to comment on the specifics.

 

No comment was immediately available from Cuccinelli's office.

 

Asked for comment on the Romney campaign's letter, the Voter Participation Center issued a statement noting that their forms are official applications, not registration cards.

 

"Furthermore, they were approved before we sent them out by the State Board of Elections and are the same applications that anyone can access at a local government office or on the internet," the statement read. "Our process is legal and working."

 

 

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/jul/25/tdmain01-romney-camp-asks-va-to-probe-voter-forms-ar-2081517/

[The Big Cat]

So do you or do you no think that it was a good story that brings something relevant to the conversation here?

 

If so, what?

 

Whether or not it was a good story is not the issue, dummy. And the fact that you've distilled the discussion thusly shows me that some items of the report had some resonance and are making you rethink whether nor not these laws will, in fact, make it harder for people to vote, and whether or not that "solution" fits the "crime."

 

750,000 registered voters in PA without a "valid" photo ID, 0 proven cases of voter fraud. So to combat ZERO crimes, it's appropriate to add a barrier to voting to nearly 3/4 of a million people, that !@#$ed up logic corroborates what's been my stance since the beginning: these laws stand to a lot more harm than good, considering the "good" what have been to curb the nonexistent voter fraud.

 

Also:

 

500,000 registered voters nationwide with no access to a vehicle who live 10 miles from offices who provide them that are only open 2 days a week.

 

So to say that hundreds of thousands of people might not vote in the Presidential election could be accurate. And why are we sacrificing their vote? Again, tell me. Are there hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud? Hell no there's not.

 

And quite frankly, anyone arguing against the idea that this is a blatant ploy to get less Democrats to vote has their !@#$ing head buried in the sand/their ass.

 

I thought this was somewhat relevant to the thread:

 

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.

 

The errant mailings from the Washington-based nonprofit group Voter Participation Center have befuddled many Virginia residents, leading to hundreds of complaints.

 

The organization has been mass-mailing the forms — pre-populated with key information such as names and addresses — to primarily Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as young adults, unmarried women, African-Americans and Latinos.

 

In a letter to Cuccinelli's office and the State Board of Elections, Kathryn Bieber, an attorney for the Romney campaign, calls for an investigation into the matter by law-enforcement officials, claiming that the mailings appear to violate "at least one and maybe several Virginia laws aimed at ensuring a fair election."

 

Bieber refers to the mailings as "tactics that amount to, or at the very least induce, voter registration fraud," and says the issue "presents a very significant risk to the proper administration of the upcoming general election."

 

Citing a Sunday Richmond Times-Dispatch story that brought the mailings to light, the letter also asks the State Board of Elections to require registrars to reject all pre-populated voter registration applications from the group and review the eligibility of all Virginians who have registered in the past two months.

 

"This is the only way for voters and other interested parties to regain confidence in the voter registration and electoral process that has been abused by the Voter Participation Center," the letter says.

 

Page Gardner, president and CEO of the Voter Participation Center, said the organization mailed nearly 200,000 third-party registration forms to Virginia addresses in June, which resulted in 15,026 new voters being registered as of July 18.

 

On Monday, the Voter Participation Center responded to the Sunday Times-Dispatch story, stating in a letter on its website that "imperfections in the VPC vendors' lists — while regrettable and unfortunate — should not be the reason or the excuse to call an entire process that is working into question."

 

Justin Riemer, the State Board of Elections' deputy secretary, said forms have been sent by the group to deceased infants, out-of-state family members, and non-U.S. citizens, among others.

 

In a letter this month, the State Board of Elections asked the group to cease pre-populating their forms and raised questions about how the group was obtaining lists of registered voters, citing the errant forms.

 

Riemer noted that pre-populating the forms violates rules set forth in the state code and the Virginia Constitution requiring that voters fill out their own forms.

 

The State Board of Elections had not received the letter from the Romney campaign Tuesday afternoon and declined to comment on the specifics.

 

No comment was immediately available from Cuccinelli's office.

 

Asked for comment on the Romney campaign's letter, the Voter Participation Center issued a statement noting that their forms are official applications, not registration cards.

 

"Furthermore, they were approved before we sent them out by the State Board of Elections and are the same applications that anyone can access at a local government office or on the internet," the statement read. "Our process is legal and working."

 

 

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/jul/25/tdmain01-romney-camp-asks-va-to-probe-voter-forms-ar-2081517/

 

Actually, voter registration has nothing to do with this thread, at all.

[Joe Miner]

Whether or not it was a good story is not the issue, dummy. And the fact that you've distilled the discussion thusly shows me that some items of the report had some resonance and are making you rethink whether nor not these laws will, in fact, make it harder for people to vote, and whether or not that "solution" fits the "crime."

 

750,000 registered voters in PA without a "valid" photo ID, 0 proven cases of voter fraud. So to combat ZERO crimes, it's appropriate to add a barrier to voting to nearly 3/4 of a million people, that !@#$ed up logic corroborates what's been my stance since the beginning: these laws stand to a lot more harm than good, considering the "good" what have been to curb the nonexistent voter fraud.

 

Also:

 

500,000 registered voters nationwide with no access to a vehicle who live 10 miles from offices who provide them that are only open 2 days a week.

 

So to say that hundreds of thousands of people might not vote in the Presidential election could be accurate. And why are we sacrificing their vote? Again, tell me. Are there hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud? Hell no there's not.

 

And quite frankly, anyone arguing against the idea that this is a blatant ploy to get less Democrats to vote has their !@#$ing head buried in the sand/their ass.

 

So in other words, you posted a **** story, and when called on in, you change the subject.

 

The only thing this story has shown is that you can't comprehend what you see, read, or hear in order to draw a logical conclusion. Or in other words, you're an idiot.

[WorldTraveller]

Whether or not it was a good story is not the issue, dummy. And the fact that you've distilled the discussion thusly shows me that some items of the report had some resonance and are making you rethink whether nor not these laws will, in fact, make it harder for people to vote, and whether or not that "solution" fits the "crime."

 

750,000 registered voters in PA without a "valid" photo ID, 0 proven cases of voter fraud. So to combat ZERO crimes, it's appropriate to add a barrier to voting to nearly 3/4 of a million people, that !@#$ed up logic corroborates what's been my stance since the beginning: these laws stand to a lot more harm than good, considering the "good" what have been to curb the nonexistent voter fraud.

 

Also:

 

500,000 registered voters nationwide with no access to a vehicle who live 10 miles from offices who provide them that are only open 2 days a week.

 

So to say that hundreds of thousands of people might not vote in the Presidential election could be accurate. And why are we sacrificing their vote? Again, tell me. Are there hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud? Hell no there's not.

 

And quite frankly, anyone arguing against the idea that this is a blatant ploy to get less Democrats to vote has their !@#$ing head buried in the sand/their ass.

 

 

 

Actually, voter registration has nothing to do with this thread, at all.

Man, talk about someone's !@#$ing head buried up their ass.

 

you're hopeless

[Jauronimo]

Whether or not it was a good story is not the issue, dummy. And the fact that you've distilled the discussion thusly shows me that some items of the report had some resonance and are making you rethink whether nor not these laws will, in fact, make it harder for people to vote, and whether or not that "solution" fits the "crime."

 

750,000 registered voters in PA without a "valid" photo ID, 0 proven cases of voter fraud. So to combat ZERO crimes, it's appropriate to add a barrier to voting to nearly 3/4 of a million people, that !@#$ed up logic corroborates what's been my stance since the beginning: these laws stand to a lot more harm than good, considering the "good" what have been to curb the nonexistent voter fraud.

 

Also:

 

500,000 registered voters nationwide with no access to a vehicle who live 10 miles from offices who provide them that are only open 2 days a week.

 

So to say that hundreds of thousands of people might not vote in the Presidential election could be accurate. And why are we sacrificing their vote? Again, tell me. Are there hundreds of thousands of cases of voter fraud? Hell no there's not.

And quite frankly, anyone arguing against the idea that this is a blatant ploy to get less Democrats to vote has their !@#$ing head buried in the sand/their ass.

 

 

 

Actually, voter registration has nothing to do with this thread, at all.

Wasn't your stance from the beginning one of support for the requirement? You support it, you don't think its unreasonable to require a photo ID, but you think its "f#$%ed up", racist, and sleazy. How do you reconcile these ideas?