Voter ID requirement may affect black voter turnout, Dems Fear

[The Big Cat]

I don't remember this

 

What specifically do you have trouble recalling?

 

This is why I don't bother with him. You ask simple questions, he gives answer that not only doesn't answer your questions, but has nothing to do with anything else.

 

Learn from me. Spend time elsewhere.

 

Please, I beg you. Add me to your ignore list.

[IDBillzFan]

Please, I beg you. Add me to your ignore list.

The problem with ignore is it doesn't hide your comments when they're quoted, which happens a lot when people engage in useless dialogue like the one you're having with Rob's House.

 

At some point, he'll figure out like a lot of other people have that asking you a question like "Where are you getting the idea that voter fraud is non-existent?" will only ever result in an answer like "I just think it's awful darn funny that after the 2000 election, GOP sympathizers stayed pretty mum on the issue of voter reform, then it SUDDENLY became a problem when...you know...HE was elected."

 

Patience. I'm sure he's catching on.

[The Big Cat]

The problem with ignore is it doesn't hide your comments when they're quoted, which happens a lot when people engage in useless dialogue like the one you're having with Rob's House.

 

At some point, he'll figure out like a lot of other people have that asking you a question like "Where are you getting the idea that voter fraud is non-existent?" will only ever result in an answer like "I just think it's awful darn funny that after the 2000 election, GOP sympathizers stayed pretty mum on the issue of voter reform, then it SUDDENLY became a problem when...you know...HE was elected."

 

Patience. I'm sure he's catching on.

 

Well, considering it's a question I've answered no less than three times already in this thread, I figured might as well cut to the chase.

[DC Tom]

I just think it's awful darn funny that after the 2000 election, GOP sympathizers stayed pretty mum on the issue of voter reform, then it SUDDENLY became a problem when...you know...HE was elected.

 

Actually, if you've been paying attention, it's been talked about for a LOT longer than the past three and a half years.

 

And the 2000 election has nothing to do with it. That's less "voter fraud" and more "Florida's too stupid to define 'valid vote' up front," which I already mentioned is something that should be required.

 

Funny, though, that you should imply that 2000, as an example of piss-poor election laws and regulations, is something needing to be fixed, while continually denying that the lack of a requirement for voter ID, also an example of piss-poor election laws and regulations, isn't relevant.

[Rob's House]

What specifically do you have trouble recalling?

I don't remember the time when conservative leaning people weren't concerned with voter fraud, and I've been paying attention for a while now.

 

The problem with ignore is it doesn't hide your comments when they're quoted, which happens a lot when people engage in useless dialogue like the one you're having with Rob's House.

You can call me Rob. It's an honor I extend to those I deem worthy.

 

Actually, if you've been paying attention, it's been talked about for a LOT longer than the past three and a half years.

 

And the 2000 election has nothing to do with it. That's less "voter fraud" and more "Florida's too stupid to define 'valid vote' up front," which I already mentioned is something that should be required.

 

Funny, though, that you should imply that 2000, as an example of piss-poor election laws and regulations, is something needing to be fixed, while continually denying that the lack of a requirement for voter ID, also an example of piss-poor election laws and regulations, isn't relevant.

Are you saying it's a bad idea to require photo ID, or just a bad idea to require a voter ID?

[3rdnlng]

Well, considering it's a question I've answered no less than three times already in this thread, I figured might as well cut to the chase.

 

Here's some widespread voter registration fraud. You can say whatever you want but people could cast a ballot fraudulently by claiming they are someone on one of the registrations:

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

 

 

Here's what The American Thinker thinks:

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_lefts_war_on_voter_fraud_reform.html

 

 

Here's another example of voter fraud:

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/

 

 

Now, taking this climate into consideration do you not think that there is the distinct possibility that people will vote under other people's names?

[Doc]

Here's some widespread voter registration fraud. You can say whatever you want but people could cast a ballot fraudulently by claiming they are someone on one of the registrations:

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

 

 

Here's what The American Thinker thinks:

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_lefts_war_on_voter_fraud_reform.html

 

 

Here's another example of voter fraud:

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/

 

 

Now, taking this climate into consideration do you not think that there is the distinct possibility that people will vote under other people's names?

There ya go.

[Buff_bills4ever]

Hell, at this point, I'm going to cast 10 votes for Mitt Romney. Most of my friends don't vote, so Ill just use them. I mean, if Occupy Wall Street taught me anything, it's that breaking the law is okay as long as it's for a cause.

[B-Man]

 

Minnesota: The Latest Shameful Attack on Voter ID

Hans von Spakovsky, July 16, 2012

 

The latest attack on voter ID is occurring in Minnesota, where on Tuesday, the state Supreme Court will hear a case filed by the League of Women Voters (LWV).

 

In League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie, the LWV is trying to convince the court to remove a referendum question from the November ballot. Its argument is that voters won’t be able to understand the ballot question.

 

This referendum was passed by the Minnesota legislature in April and would amend the state constitution to require all voters voting in person to “present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot.” The amendment would also require absentee voters to be “subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification.”

 

In Minnesota, once a constitutional referendum has been approved by the legislature, it has to be approved by the voters of the state. But unlike some states that simply put the entire constitutional amendment on the ballot, Minnesota puts a shorter summary of the referendum. There have been 213 prior ballot questions decided by Minnesota voters, and the legislature has typically provided voters with a single-sentence description. The legislature designated the ballot question for this constitutional amendment as:

 

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?"

 

According to LWV, this ballot question is “so fundamentally unfair and misleading that it evades the constitutional requirement to submit the proposed constitutional amendment to a popular vote.” In other words, Minnesota voters are too dumb and ill-informed to understand a ballot question that says that it will amend the state constitution to require photo ID of all voters.

To no one’s great surprise in Minnesota, the ACORN-endorsed secretary of state, Mark Ritchie, who helped Al Franken pull the 2008 Senate race right out from under Norm Coleman, refused to file an answer to the lawsuit. That indicates that he agrees with the plaintiff and would no doubt like to lose the case (what is called collusive litigation in legal circles).

 

So the Minnesota legislature intervened in the case to defend the ballot referendum and hired a prominent Minnesota law firm, Winthrop & Weinstine, to protect the interests of the Minnesota legislature and, most importantly, the voters of Minnesota.

 

The legislature has pointed out that under both Minnesota law and longstanding precedent, the language of such a ballot question is solely and exclusively within the province and authority of the legislature. It would indeed be an unprecedented interference in the legislature’s prerogatives and a violation of separation of powers if the court intervened and either changed or eliminated the referendum question from the ballot.

 

What no doubt annoys the LWV and the other organizations that have joined the suit (such as the ACLU and Common Cause) is that they lost in the legislative process. This amendment was thoroughly debated and discussed by the duly elected representatives of the voters in three House committee hearings, four Senate committee hearings, one conference committee hearing, and numerous floor debates. Fourteen amendments were offered in the House and 15 in the Senate. But neither the LWV nor any of the other opponents of voter ID could make the case that there was anything wrong with this common-sense election reform.

 

The LWV, whose mission statement says that it works to promote the “active participation of citizens in government,” is trying to prevent the active participation of voters in government in Minnesota. The LWV does not want Minnesota voters to vote on this issue because they are afraid it will pass—polling shows that Americans overwhelmingly approve of voter ID. So the LWV is trying to stop the democratic process through litigation, a thoroughly anti-democratic action that strikes at the very idea of popular sovereignty.

 

The LWV should be ashamed that it is trying to suppress the vote of Minnesota citizens. Let’s hope the Minnesota Supreme Court is not taken in by this discreditable attempt to circumvent the democratic process

 

The Foundry

[The Big Cat]

Just renewed my drivers license two days ago.

 

Cost me $30.

 

Just sayin'

[WorldTraveller]

Just renewed my drivers license two days ago.

 

Cost me $30.

 

Just sayin'

We get it, you're for it, but you're not, but you are, but you're not, but you are, but ultimately you're not.

[The Big Cat]

We get it, you're for it, but you're not, but you are, but you're not, but you are, but ultimately you're not.

 

To Tom's point--it would be a "voter tax" if anyone had to pay a cent to obtain anything which allows them to vote.

 

To anyone who thinks enacting an ID mandate wouldn't suppress voter turnout: you're wrong.

 

To anyone who thinks suppressing voter turnout is unquestionably harmful: you're also wrong.

 

To anyone who thinks a voter ID requirement isn't aimed at suppressing a very specific voter bloc: you're wrong too.

 

To anyone who thinks this isn't a deliberate tactic of the GOP to help them win election: you're in denial.

[B-Man]

To Tom's point--it would be a "voter tax" if anyone had to pay a cent to obtain anything which allows them to vote.

 

To anyone who thinks enacting an ID mandate wouldn't suppress voter turnout: you're wrong.

 

To anyone who thinks suppressing voter turnout is unquestionably harmful: you're also wrong.

 

To anyone who thinks a voter ID requirement isn't aimed at suppressing a very specific voter bloc: you're wrong too.

 

To anyone who thinks this isn't a deliberate tactic of the GOP to help them win election: you're in denial.

 

 

What a load.

 

No evidence, we just KNOW its suppression......of a specific group.

 

and if you don't agree, you're in denial.

 

 

Well sir, then the vast majority of the people in the US are "in denial", because polls show that they thinkVoter ID is common sense and will help the integrity of elections.

 

 

But, hey, YOU know differently..................lol

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

To Tom's point--it would be a "voter tax" if anyone had to pay a cent to obtain anything which allows them to vote.

 

To anyone who thinks enacting an ID mandate wouldn't suppress voter turnout: you're wrong.

 

To anyone who thinks suppressing voter turnout is unquestionably harmful: you're also wrong.

 

To anyone who thinks a voter ID requirement isn't aimed at suppressing a very specific voter bloc: you're wrong too.

 

To anyone who thinks this isn't a deliberate tactic of the GOP to help them win election: you're in denial.

 

 

You in the "Event" thread (post # 7):

 

 

 

"Right, and I've said many many many times: I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for ID at polling stations."

 

 

How disingenuous can you be?

[Jauronimo]

You in the "Event" thread (post # 7):

 

 

 

"Right, and I've said many many many times: I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for ID at polling stations."

 

 

How disingenuous can you be?

What Big Cat is trying to say is that requiring a photo ID to vote is reasonable and racist and slimy and underhanded because minorities are too dumb and/or lazy to obtain a photo ID. What don't you understand about his position?

[WorldTraveller]

To Tom's point--it would be a "voter tax" if anyone had to pay a cent to obtain anything which allows them to vote.

 

To anyone who thinks enacting an ID mandate wouldn't suppress voter turnout: you're wrong.

 

To anyone who thinks suppressing voter turnout is unquestionably harmful: you're also wrong.

 

To anyone who thinks a voter ID requirement isn't aimed at suppressing a very specific voter bloc: you're wrong too.

 

To anyone who thinks this isn't a deliberate tactic of the GOP to help them win election: you're in denial.

Well, I guess when you say with that must conviction, it must be so.

Edited July 20, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[DC Tom]

You in the "Event" thread (post # 7):

 

 

 

"Right, and I've said many many many times: I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for ID at polling stations."

 

 

How disingenuous can you be?

 

It's perfectly reasonable to ask. It's just not reasonable to require it.

[The Big Cat]

What a load.

 

No evidence, we just KNOW its suppression......of a specific group.

 

and if you don't agree, you're in denial.

 

 

Well sir, then the vast majority of the people in the US are "in denial", because polls show that they thinkVoter ID is common sense and will help the integrity of elections.

 

 

But, hey, YOU know differently..................lol

 

 

.

 

Do you suffer from sort of topsy-turvy dislexia?

You're in denial that this isn't a GOP ploy to get more votes. THAT'S what I said.

And the GOP themselves have stated so. Won't bother re-linking because you'll probably miss the point of that too.

 

 

You in the "Event" thread (post # 7):

 

 

 

"Right, and I've said many many many times: I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask for ID at polling stations."

 

 

How disingenuous can you be?

 

OMFG you're dumb.

[DC Tom]

Do you suffer from sort of topsy-turvy dislexia?

You're in denial that this isn't a GOP ploy to get more votes. THAT'S what I said.

And the GOP themselves have stated so. Won't bother re-linking because you'll probably miss the point of that too.

 

And the Democrats' resistance to it is to avoid losing votes.

 

If either party was being honest and not whoring for votes, they'd both say "Y'know...ID should be required, because it really is important that we protect the integrity of the electoral system." But they're not honest, they're whores.

[The Big Cat]

And the Democrats' resistance to it is to avoid losing votes.

 

If either party was being honest and not whoring for votes, they'd both say "Y'know...ID should be required, because it really is important that we protect the integrity of the electoral system." But they're not honest, they're whores.

 

The rationale the Democratic party has thrown in opposition is SHAMEFUL. But to your point, insofar voting is free--it costs NO money. If it costs money to get an ID ($30 for my latest renewal), then voting is no longer free.

 

If one was to oppose the measure--which I don't, I've just maintained the rationale for implementing it has been whorishly trumped--opposing the sudden "poll tax" seems to be one of the few, if not the only irrefutable stance.