Free Dating Site    

I don't like ALL the laws, either --- but so much better than life in a dictatorship -- where one has NO rights or voting privileges at all.

And yet you mock "liberals" for concerning themselves with protecting the rights that we have.

protection from voter fraud.

Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) --
after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5)
A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7)
In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.
(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)
Ohio, Officials purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency.
A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent,
while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent

I'd like my rights to free and honest elections -- that is protection from voterfraud.
That is the real topic of this thread.

Poll tax and caging!

A hard working family man wakes up at 5 am to make coffee, but wait he can't afford the watr to make the coffe let alone afford the coffee because liberals are passing silly a.s.s law that give more protection to a plant or animal than a person has.

By passing such laws the price of evryday necessities sky rokcets. Clean water is not any cleaner then before but the price of is way higher, the same can be said for most things.

Sure inflation plays a role but imagine not being able afford the simple things in life then having your taxes go to support people who can work but don't.

I have a cousin 2 years younger than I out of high school he didn't want to work, he was lazy. His mom, my aunt told him to apply for SSI because as a very young child he was ran over by a car in his driveway he had many many stitches. His mom suggested that he might be having some complications from that accident. He seen a doctor filled out the forms and within a few weeks was collecting SSI. This person was young and healthy , he should hvae been working but liberal program make it easy for people to sponge off the system

Since poll taxes are unconstitutional, shouldn't the states that require IDs be forced to provide them for free? I think that should be the next step!

.... a gage I use to judge a political thing by..."what would Hitler do?"....

Also, since you are no doubt a liberal who believes in "redistrubtion of your wealth" to the "poor", please explain why those of us who are not poor are entitled to a free ID.

So a solution? Damn, I hate pointing to a problem and not having a real answer.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters - those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

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.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID 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.

Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.

Now, I will say "good night" to you all as I leave you to more of your continued typical liberal behavior. I won't available again to view this thread again, because I have a life. And you don't deserve any more of my time.

So, right again, Crash. But, that is the mantra of all you liberals -- continual whining about all your perceived "injustices" but NEVER an answer to these "problems" you wish to address.

Obtaining a duplicate Driver License or Identification Card is a quick and simple process:

ENTER PERSONAL INFORMATION

PROVIDE DETAILS FOR DUPLICATE

VIEW FEE BREAKDOWN

PAY FEE

VIEW AND PRINT CONFIRMATION

PROVIDE FEEDBACK

Before you start, you must have one of the following credit/debit/check cards:
AZ Dept of Transportation: MVD
https://servicearizona.com/webapp/driver/duplicate/start.do