Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New ID voter law? [CLOSED]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 595
New ID voter law?Page 29 of 29    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
And to follow up on code:




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colin Powell’s (overlooked) call to action on race
By Chris Cillizza , Updated: January 14, 2013
Retired Gen. Colin Powell delivered a surprisingly blunt assessment of his party’s relationship with minorities in an overlooked but fascinating portion of his interview on “Meet the Press” Sunday.


Retired Gen. Colin Powell

Asked by “MTP” moderator David Gregory to both diagnose what ails the Republican party and justify his ties to it — given that he endorsed President Obama in 2008 and 2012 — Powell responded this way:

“There’s also a dark — a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the Party. What I do mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor say that the president is shuckin’ and jivin’, that’s a racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well, he said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with it. Birther, the whole Birther Movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the Party?”

Powell is referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who said that President Obama was “shucking and jiving” in giving answers to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, who referred to Obama as “lazy” following the first presidential debate. (Worth noting: Obama told Barbara Walters in 2011 that “there’s a laziness in me.”)

What Powell is alleging — in short that a strain of racial intolerance exists within the GOP that makes it more difficult for the party to transform itself to fit into the changed demographic reality in the country — is a very serious accusation that Republicans have long dismissed as an unfair charge leveled primarily by Democrats.

But, is he right?

Trying to use data to analyze the data on racial attitudes within the Republican party is very difficult. A Washington Post poll conducted in August 2012 sheds some light. Asked why African American tended to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, by far the leading reason offered by Republicans was that blacks were “government dependents/wanted something for nothing/welfare”. (The question was open-ended with answers being grouped afterward for similarity.) Among independents asked the same question, the first choice was because black voters were “supportive of welfare/entitlements/health care” while the most commonly mentioned reason among self-identified Democrats was “issue of poverty/help poor/represent little guy.”

To be clear, believing that most black voters are Democrats because they are dependent on the government should not be directly equated to racial intolerance. But, the difference in how Republicans view African Americans’ loyalty to Democrats as opposed to how Independents and Democrats view it is striking.

The question going forward is how (and whether) Republicans will respond to Powell’s assertions. So far, there has been little reaction, with most people in the political world focused heavily on Powell’s strong endorsement of Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of Defense.

Even if Republican leaders want to dismiss Powell as a former Republican or a RINO (Republican In Name Only), they should also be mindful that simply having the perception out there that the party has a “dark vein of intolerance” within it is a major problem as the GOP tries to expand its voting coalition outward.

Powell is not exactly a reactionary or someone who says things without thinking of their impact first. (Few secretaries of State are.) That means he knew what he was doing. And what was it that he was doing? Attempting to wake his party leaders up to what he believes is a major unaddressed problem when it comes to race within the GOP.

Do any elected Republican officials follow suit? Do they dispute Powell’s characterization of the party? Do they even acknowledge Powell’s remarks? It’s all part of how the GOP sees itself now and where its leaders believe the party needs to — and can — go.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/14/colin-powells-overlooked-call-to-action-on-race/?print=1
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 596
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:46:53 AM
I said:


It's still to this day been overrun with Katrina survivors --- almost all taken off Louisana's welfare roles and added to ours (so I guess that makes my point that bums DO get ID's for hand outs) and the illegal alien populance there has gone through the roof in the last 4 years


And what I said is TRUE: these people are the dysfunctional result of LB Johnson’s “Great Society” -- a bunch of HUMAN beings trapped in a generational curse of welfare dependency. It matters NOT ONE WHIT what color they are.

You can look up county and state records and SEE that I speak the truth -- they were welfare dependent several years ago when they arrived in our state -- and they remain so. A tax burden on those of us -- of ALL colors -- who do pay taxes.

YOU said:


Yes...I do recognize code...


NO CODE INOVOLVED. Just an ol’ TIRED and TRUTHLESS, White LIBERAL mantra – from someone who has NUTHIN’ but name calling, left -- because you had NO legitmate argument to begin with.

Ridicule and name calling are taken straight from the Liberal’s favorite play book -- “RULES FOR RADICALS”.

NOBODY CARES ANYMORE about Collin Powell or his recent load of nonsense, which showed us all how RACIST he was HIMSELF.

History show us that the Republican Party has been VERY Good to Gen. Powell. They even tried to get him to run for President, when he admittedly didn’t even know what party he belonged to. But he’s really shot himself in the foot among Republicans -- and others -- this time.

He blew it when he shot off his mouth last week, in his final pathetic plea for attention. He has been “old news” among those who really matter – and now, for once and for all.

He can now join the ranks of Jessie Jackson, “Reverend” Al, and the other “Reverend” Wright.

It’s time for truth tellers to take a stand – and stand up to this meaningless ol’ TIRED and TRUTHLESS virulence you spew.

It’s a conversation ender, designed to embarrass and shame us into backing down. I WON’T. ( And I’m not going to dignify this VERY false accusation with any more response.)

And the number of us who won’t put up with this anymore is growing FAST.

So:

GAME OVER!!!! YOU LOSE!!!

Please return to the subject of the New voter ID Laws. Thank you.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 597
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/15/2013 11:56:50 AM
LOL...sure...whatever you say...

Seems as though you live in the one spot in Texas that has no lines at the DMV (where one would go to get a voter ID card)





An NBC 5 investigation has found a major flaw in the way the Texas measures wait times at Department of Public Safety Driver License Offices.

The numbers DPS currently collects make the wait times appear shorter than they really are. More accurate measurements could help reduce the long lines that cause daily frustration at DPS offices across the Dallas and Fort Worth Metroplex.

On a recent 97-degree summer day, the line at the DPS license office in Plano snaked outside into the parking lot. People waited in the Texas heat for an hour or longer just to get in the front door.

"I've been here for three years [and there's] been a line like this ever since the day I walked through the door," a DPS staff member told the people in line.

DocumentsTexas DPS Driver License Office Wait Times

The staff member said it would likely take an hour to get inside and then at least another hour from there.

Other DPS offices across the Metroplex had even longer waits, with some people waiting three hours or more. NBC 5 Investigates often saw empty spots at the counter with no one to help. Some frustrated customers simply gave up and left.

"Man, it was hot. I've been in there three hours and still haven't got help," said Reggie Arrant, who spent a day off work waiting at the DPS office in Hurst.

To see how the problems might be fixed, NBC 5 Investigates traveled to Indiana, where the state has aggressively reduced driver's license wait times in recent years.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels hired a new management team to redesign the state's Bureau of Motor Vehicles. They hired management from retail stores, where customer services matters, and started paying workers incentives for providing better service.

"We were no better, I promise you, than Texas or anywhere else a few years ago." Daniels told NBC 5.

Daniels decided things had to change because millions of people spending hours in line also means millions of hours of lost productivity.

"There's a very literal cost -- not just in aggravation, but in precious time, which is money," he said.

Related Stories¦
Can $63 Million Shorten Driver License Lines?

DPS recently got $63 million from the Legislature...


One of the key changes Indiana made was to install a new touch-screen computer system that allowed customers to check in. It eliminates the line at the door, and it allows the state to track how long each person is waiting from the minute they walk in.

Scott Waddell, Indiana BMV director, said the system also alerts staff if average wait times go beyond 20 minutes at a single office, who are given resources to take instant action.

"In fact, the BlackBerries start going off if it exceeds 20 minutes," Waddell said.

Managers can call in extra workers from nearby locations to help eliminate the lines.

Right now, the average license office visit in Indiana takes just 14 minutes and 28 seconds. Even in metropolitan Indianapolis, average wait times rarely exceed 15 to 20 minutes. Each day, wait times are analyzed to identify slow points and address them.

"We operate here in Indiana state government on the old business principle -- if you're not keeping score, you're just practicing," Daniels said.

NBC 5 wondered if Texas tracks wait times at DPS offices and started asking the state for records. DPS provided dozens of official-looking charts and graphs, but when NBC 5 Investigates looked closer, the team discovered the numbers don't mean much and uncovered a big flaw in how the DPS measures wait times.

Rebecca Davio, one of the state's top DPS license office administrators, admitted in an interview that the DPS does not measure the amount of time it takes to reach the check-in counter.

The DPS doesn't start the wait-time clock until people reach someone at the counter who hands them a ticket. The agency has another name for the line to get inside the office -- the "pre-wait."

"We need good data to the fix the problem," Davio said. "We do not have the complete picture of the total wait time."

NBC 5 also discovered another problem in the records sent by the DPS.

A DPS document states that some license offices "experienced large increases in the number of tickets processed in under 60 seconds." These numbers "may represent walkouts" -- people who gave up waiting and left -- which can result in "artificially lower" transaction times, the document says.

In other words, the state gets credit for quickly helping the people who give up and walk out.

"Having artificially lowered transaction times doesn't help us do the job we want to do for our customers," Davio said.

In July, the DPS installed a touch-screen computer check-in -- similar to the ones Indiana uses -- at two offices in Austin as a test. If it works, the DPS plans to bring the machines to Dallas and Fort Worth. For the first time, Texas could accurately measure how long people actually wait.

Right now, the charts from the state show average visit times of about 55 minutes at DFW area offices in May -- not including "the pre-wait."

In June, times improved slightly across the state, but at eight out of 15 DFW locations, average visit times were worse than in June of last year

In Indiana, the license offices are celebrating being named the best in America by a group of DMV administrators.

The state is smaller than Texas -- its population is about the size of the Dallas and Fort Worth area, but the governor insists that any state can do it with the right people and information.

"I think some states are just defeatist about this," Daniels said. "They think it's a fact of life -- lousy, rotten service, long waits, best you can do -- but it isn't."

The Texas DPS would not let NBC 5 Investigates speak to the agency's director. Ada Brown, the local DFW representative on the Public Safety Commission that oversees the DPS, refused to meet with NBC 5.

The Texas DPS insists that it's trying many of the same solutions Indiana used. It is also spending tens of millions of dollars on two new license "megacenters" in Garland and Fort Worth and claim wait times will get better when those offices open sometime by early next year.

"We want the transaction at the driver's license office to be as quick and efficient as possible," Davio said.





Just how well-founded are fears of voter fraud?

There have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in a conviction. A New York Times analysis from 2007 identified 120 cases filed by the Justice Department over five years. These cases, many of which stemmed from mistakenly filled registration forms or misunderstanding over voter eligibility, resulted in 86 convictions.

There are "very few documented cases," said UC-Irvine professor and election law specialist Rick Hasen. "When you do see election fraud, it invariably involves election officials taking steps to change election results or it involves absentee ballots which voter ID laws can't prevent," he said.

An analysis by News21, a national investigative reporting project, identified 10 voter impersonation cases out of 2,068 alleged election fraud cases since 2000 – or one out of every 15 million prospective voters.

One of the most vocal supporters of strict voter ID laws, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, told the Houston Chronicle earlier this month that his office has prosecuted about 50 cases of voter fraud in recent years. "I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter id is one way to prevent cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the electoral system," he told the paper. Abbott's office did not immediately respond to ProPublica's request for comment.

How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?

It's not clear.

According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don't have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn't represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.

In late September, an analysis by Reuters and research firm Ipsos of data culled from 20,000 voter interviews found that those lacking proper ID were less likely to vote anyway, “regardless of state law changes.”

Among those who said they were “certain to vote,” only 1 percent said they did not have proper ID while another 1 percent said they were uncertain whether they had the proper ID.

The analysis also found that those who lack valid photo ID tended to be young people, those without college educations, Hispanics and the poor.

State figures also can be hard to nail down. In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.

In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.

As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.

"We don't know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans," said Hasen, author of the recently released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. "But there's no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome."

http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws

120 cases of voter fraud in the US over a 5 year period...it's not about legitimizing the vote it's about keeping minorities, the elderly, and the young voter from voting (most of which are democrat voters)...it's about attempting to steal the elections.
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 598
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/15/2013 12:52:53 PM
Most of the small towns NATIONWIDE have shorter lines at Drivers' License Renewal Centers than do larger metropolitan areas.

Even in MOST larger cities, there are several offices where you can get a driver' license or state ID cards, many of which are busier than others.

In Texas, as well as in many other states, you may obtain Driver''s License or State ID cards anywhere in the state you live in -- you do NOT have to go to your nearest office.

One you have attained a Photo Drivers' License or State ID you can renew it by mail -- in Texas and in many other states.

And whatever -- our ancestors fought and died for YOUR right to vote. So, HOW DARE anyone whine about wainting in a line to get a picture ID to vote????!!!!!! If ANYONE who can legally vote cares enough about their country, to vote, they have NO excuse to NOT get a valid ID.

A wait in line for a state ID shouldn't be that big a deal anyway. As I mentioned earlier, you have to have one to conduct just about any kind of business whatever, so people DO have them, and DO want to wait for them.

As far as those young people and people without college educations --- the public schools in most cases give out photo ID's, so maybe they should just stay in school. Maybe most of the "young" people who don't have them, don't have them because they are too young to attend school, or never bothered to attend. They are likely too young to vote, anyway. Because if they were old enough to vote, they would already be on welfare. BTW: State ID's are also issued at welfare offices in many states.

I doubt VERY much that the "poor" don't have them -- they HAVE to have them to get "benefits", and the "working poor" have to have them to legally work.

Hispanices in this country who don't have them are most likely not citiizens, who do not have the legal right to vote, anyway. (Although, some states DO issue drivers license's to illegals, anyway). Non-citizens who live here legally have Green Cards -- which are Government issued photo ID's -- but they have no legal right to vote.

As I already mentioned, the elderly have photo ID's in order get Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

So, the more one thinks about this, the more slanted, and BOGUS this ridiculous "study" sounds.

as far as the "poor" homeless go -- you'd be surprised how man of them are drawing benefits, so MOST of those folks have them, too.

And CLAIMING not to have a photo ID, tends to slant the elections in favor of the Democrats -- whiich it DID.

Period. Discussion over.

You can continue to re-print this list of "facts" as many times as you like. But the discussion is already OVER.

I Have Won. Now live with it.
 bogienights
Joined: 12/24/2012
Msg: 599
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/15/2013 2:56:33 PM
"I Have Won. Now live with it." I always thought adults debated. Some comments seem borderline racist. Sad. Actually, pathetic.
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 600
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:08:34 PM
I DID win, Bogie. And it was, in fact a debate, until one of us attempted to interject the "Race Card".







Some comments seem borderline racist. Sad. Actually, pathetic


Yes, Bogie. It is SAD and PATHETIC, when people play the RACE CARD in a an attempt to silence others. I'm sure YOU would never stoop so low, right?

Yes, this is a debate. So, if YOU are an adult, and have anything to contribute about the thread subject -- the New Voter ID Laws -- please share with us. I can certainly tell that YOU are too ADULT to attempt to high jack the thread with childish interjections of the "Race Card".

Thank you.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 601
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:00:49 PM

I Have Won


Yes, you sure are a winner.

Now why was Texas's voter ID law struck down by the federal courts...hmmmm...oh yea...because it discriminated against minorities and the poor.


A federal court on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would have required voters to show photo identification, ruling that the legislation would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens” on poor minority voters.

Describing the law as the most stringent in the country, the unanimous decision by a three-judge panel marks the first time that a federal court has blocked a voter-ID law. It will reverberate politically through the November elections. Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over whether tough voter-ID laws in a number of states discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics.

The panel at the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled that Texas had failed to show that the statute would not harm the voting rights of minorities in the state. In addition, the judges found that evidence indicated that the cost of obtaining a photo ID to vote would fall most heavily on African American and Hispanic voters.

Evidence submitted by Texas to prove that its law did not discriminate was “unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” David S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote in the panel’s 56-page opinion. Voting Rights Act cases must be decided by a special panel of three federal judges.

The ruling followed a decision Tuesday by another three-judge panel in Washington that found the Republican-controlled Texas legislature had intentionally discriminated against Hispanics in drawing new legislative districts.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-30/politics/35491521_1_type-of-ballot-integrity-voter-id-law-republican-controlled-texas-legislature




Texas has a history of discriminatory voting practices:




Texas Redistricting 101

By Keesha Gaskins – 01/12/12

The Supreme Court is considering the role of federal courts in creating interim plans while a state redistricting plan awaits a preclearance decision under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The dispute arises out of Texas’ current redistricting process. The Court heard oral arguments Monday on an expedited hearing schedule, so a decision is anticipated shortly.

Every 10 years, following a census, the federal government reviews population distribution across the country and, based upon a division of total population between total congressional seats, re‑allocates the appropriate number of congressional seats to each state. Any state may gain, lose or keep the same number of congressional seats in this process, depending on population growth or loss. Then, every state must redraw district lines for congressional and state legislative seats to satisfy the constitutional principle of “one-person, one-vote” in response to new population information. In 37 of 50 states, including Texas, the responsibility of drawing these lines falls to the legislature. Following the 2010 Census, Texas was allocated four additional congressional seats due to an increase of more than 4 million new residents, the overwhelming majority of which were Latino.

Due to a history of discriminatory voting practices, Texas has been under the jurisdiction of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act since 1975. The Voting Rights Act obligates Texas to submit any election change, like its new redistricting plans, to the federal government for preapproval, or “preclearance,” through either the Department of Justice or the D.C. Circuit Court before any part of the redistricting plan may be enacted. In order for Texas to conduct elections in 2012, it needs to have redistricting plans in place no later than March so candidates have time to file for the primary election.

In July 2011, Texas finalized new redistricting plans for its state house, state senate, and Congress and submitted those plans to the D.C. Circuit Court for preclearance. The Department of Justice opposed preclearance, alleging the Texas legislative plan unfairly discriminated against minority voters. While the preclearance process was pending in D.C., plaintiffs filed different claims in federal court in San Antonio, TX, claiming the legislative redistricting plans violated federal law and the constitution. Because the San Antonio court could not know whether the legislative plans would go into effect until after the D.C. Court made a decision about preclearance, it stayed all action until the completion of the preclearance action.

In November 2011, the D.C. Court found that the Texas plans were not entitled to preclearance as a matter of law and ordered a trial on the merits. The San Antonio Court, noting that the D.C. Court could not finish its work in time for Texas to conduct its 2012 elections, ordered the parties to submit proposed plans so it could create interim plans to use for the 2012 elections. Then, the San Antonio court produced plans that were very different than the plans produced by Texas’ Republican-controlled legislature. In response, Texas filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to intervene and stop the interim plans developed by the San Antonio Court from going into effect.

On December 9, 2011, five justices of the Supreme Court ordered the stay and an expedited hearing on the issue of whether the San Antonio Court interim plan should go into effect, which they heard Monday.

In considering this matter, the Court will weigh whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act retains its full force and effect by not allowing implementation of any non-precleared plan in whole or in part, or whether the San Antonio Court should have given greater deference to the Texas legislative plans – which have not been found to violate any state or federal law – in crafting interim redistricting plans.

Courts are frequently called upon to craft redistricting plans. But courts typically step in only after a state legislature or commission fails to complete the plan in time or after there is a legal finding that the state plan violated state or federal law and a court must draw a remedial plan. Here, the court in San Antonio acted to create an interim redistricting plan that differed significantly from a completed legislative plan that had not been found to be illegal. But because Texas’ legislative plans are under the jurisdiction of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, no part of the plan may be enacted until Texas achieves preclearance from the federal government.

There is legitimate concern that if the Supreme Court orders the lower court to show deference to the state legislative plan in crafting an interim solution, it will significantly undercut the ability of Section 5 to protect jurisdictions from redistricting plans that discriminate against minority voters. Moreover, such a decision could incentivize Section 5 jurisdictions to drag out the preclearance process with the intention that the non-precleared plans will serve as a benchmark for any interim plan until preclearance is granted or denied.

It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will uphold the full force of Section 5 and refuse to permit any deference to an unprecleared plan, or whether it will require courts placed in the position of drafting interim redistricting plans to show some degree of deference to legislative redistricting plans during the preclearance process. Arguably, if the Supreme Court was going to allow the interim plans to stand, five justices would have allowed the interim plans to go into effect rather than stay the order of the San Antonio court.

At oral argument the Justices expressed clear opinions about the sufficiency of the interim plan. Certainly the “progressive” justices suggested that the San Antonio panel did an appropriate job in crafting an interim solution. However, there was an unwillingness of the more “conservative” members of the court to find the Texas legislative plan void. Because the San Antonio Court crafted an interim plan, not a remedial one, and because there was no judicial finding of infirmity, the right-leaning side of the court certainly suggested that a legislatively enacted plan is entitled to deference. While the outcome is not certain, the entire Court appeared to accept that the constitutionality of Section 5 is not at issue in this case.

We expect that the Supreme Court will rule on this case quickly to ensure that Texas has new district lines in place for this year’s elections. The litigation in the D.C. Court and in San Antonio will continue, and legal determinations will be made as to whether the Texas district lines are legal under the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. We can only wait to see what this will mean for the future of Section 5.

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/texas_redistricting_101/




It's still to this day been overrun with Katrina survivors --- almost all taken off Louisana's welfare roles and added to ours (so I guess that makes my point that bums DO get ID's for hand outs) and the illegal alien populance there has gone through the roof in the last 4 years


I know exactly which Lousianian's you are blabbering about...you can cry all you want about WHITE LIBERAL RACECARD...but, it is you who started all this back with post #695...and knowing your past post history about minorities...I know exactly what and whom you are refering to...it bleeds thru...yes, you are a winner.
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 602
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/15/2013 8:06:48 PM
Over 100,000 dead people voted for Lyndon Johnson in Texas, when he ran (look it up). and Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck actually voted for Obama, here, too.

"The Department of Justice opposed preclearance, alleging the Texas legislative plan unfairly discriminated against minority voters....." says your article

Yup! Eric Holder and his minions. The same folks who let the Black Panthers openly obstruct voting. (Racism cuts BOTH ways, too).

Your last rant spoke NOT of voter ID laws but of the fact that Texas is going to get gerrymandered AGAIN so there will be more all minority districts -- who the Democrats take for granted, will vote their way. We go though this every few years in Texas as our demographics change. If you don't believe me, look up our Congressional District maps.

And you know NOTHING about me. Nothing in my prior posts reflects racism AT ALL. You're just ashamed of the fact that someone FINALLY had the courage to stand up to your WHITE LIBERAL playing of the RACE CARD -- and you SHOULD be ashamed!

I'm not going to dignify your insults ("blabbering" ---- how RUDE and HATEFUL) with any more response than to repeat -- It matters NOT one whit what color ANY folks on any welfare rolls are -- the tax payers are stuck with the tab. And the MINORITY of us are those that DO pay taxes. We come in all colors, too.

And when it comes to illegals -- they are of all ethinicities. Whites, too. There are about 150,000 illegal IRISH here in NY area alone. They purport to be "students" -- but student visa overstay is more like it. Many are "Irish Travelers". Many are criminals. And, many of them are on some kind of subsidies, too.

And, once again, you know NOTHING about me and my "true colors" -- as in skin that is. I am so mixed I don't even really have an ethinicity. I just picked one.

But we can ALL tell what you are. And it goes a lot deeper than skin.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 603
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/16/2013 7:49:59 AM


Yup! Eric Holder and his minions.
NOBODY CARES ANYMORE about Collin Powell or his recent load of nonsense, which showed us all how RACIST he was HIMSELF
He blew it when he shot off his mouth last week, in his final pathetic plea for attention. He has been “old news” among those who really matter – and now, for once and for all.

He can now join the ranks of Jessie Jackson, “Reverend” Al, and the other “Reverend” Wright


It is clear that any successful Black man falls within your ire...number one being President Obama.



these people are the dysfunctional result of LB Johnson’s “Great Society”


AH yes, those people who's equality was stepped up to your's with the Civil Rights ct 0f 1964...along with the Great Society programs:

HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 DEC. 16, 1963

PREVENTION & ABATEMENT OF AIR POLLUTION
(THE CLEAN AIR ACT) DEC. 17, 1963

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT OF 1963 DEC. 18, 1963

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT JAN. 22,1964

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 JULY 2, 1964

URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964 JULY 9, 1964

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1964 AUG. 13, 1964

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 AUG. 20, 1964

FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 AUG. 31, 1964

WILDERNESS ACT SEPT. 3, 1964

NATIONAL ARTS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1964 SEPT. 3, 1964

MANPOWER ACT OF 1965 APRIL 26, 1965

OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965 JULY 14, 1965

SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1965 JULY 30, 1965

VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AUG. 6, 1965

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 AUG. 10, 1965

PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 AUG. 26, 1965

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT SEPT. 9, 1965

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS & THE HUMANITIES
ACT OF 1965 SEPT. 29, 1965

AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT OCT. 2, 1965

AMENDMENT TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OCT. 3, 1965

HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 NOV. 8, 1965

CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966 OCT. 11, 1966

CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1966 NOV. 3, 1966

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT MAY 8, 1968

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/gresoc.htm



All these programs must really stick in your craw to have helped minority ppl.




Yeah, so the largest city in Texas has a rush hour ONE day at NOON. Big deal. Don't go to the down town Drivers License Office if you live in Houston


And don't go to McKenny, Amarillo, Dallas, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Lubbock......if you need a picture ID...any time of day...cause the line starts at 4am.


Many are "Irish Travelers". Many are criminals


ROFLMAO...dayum Irishmen.


you know NOTHING about me and my "true colors"


Yep...I do...


as in skin that is


Perhaps you should change your profile..


And it goes a lot deeper than skin.


Hatred usually does...but, I find that it generally starts with those ethnic differences and blossums from there.



In retrospect, the campaign against voter fraud was long, patient, and strategic. Sen. Kit Bond got the ball rolling in 2002 when he made sure ID requirements were part of HAVA. In 2005, a commission on voting rights headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III gave a bipartisan blessing to photo ID rules. Thor Hearne spent the following two years barnstorming the country with dramatic tales of voter fraud. Meanwhile, the Justice Department and the Bush White House browbeat US Attorneys around the country to crack down on voter fraud, even firing a handful (including David Iglesias, then the US Attorney for New Mexico) who apparently weren't zealous enough. And then, finally, the 2010 election brought new GOP majorities to 11 states—and with them a brand new wave of restrictive voting laws.

At this point, you may be wondering if there's really anything wrong with all this. What's the problem with cracking down on voter fraud? And why shouldn't voters be required to show photo ID? If you need ID to cash a check or buy a six-pack, why not to vote?

The answer—surprising to many—is straightforward: Not everyone has, or can easily get, a photo ID. If you don't drive, you don't have a driver's license. If you're poor, you probably don't have a credit card. And if you're unbanked and don't need ID to buy liquor, you probably don't have much need for photo ID at all.

The actual rate of voter fraud in American elections is close to zero. So why the constant push to crack down on it?

Once that sinks in, the electoral significance becomes obvious. In 2007, shortly before the Crawford decision was handed down, the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race released a study of Indiana voters showing that among whites, the middle-aged, and the middle class, about 90 percent possessed photo ID. Among blacks, the young, and the poor—all of whom vote for Democrats at high rates—the rate was about 80 percent. Overall, 91 percent of registered Republicans had some form of photo ID, compared to only 83 percent of registered Democrats.

Likewise, an NAACP report in 2011 concluded that the recent flood of new voter ID laws had a "disproportionate impact on minority, low-income, disabled, elderly, and young voters," prompting an NAACP official to dub these laws "James Crow, Esquire." Attorney General Eric Holder last year blocked South Carolina's new photo ID law, noting that more than 80,000 minority voters in the state don't have driver's licenses.

Still, Republicans argue, anyone can obtain a photo ID with a modest amount of effort if they really want to vote. And isn't this small amount of inconvenience worth it in order to crack down on fraud?

Sure—but first there needs to be some actual fraud to crack down on. And that turns out to be remarkably elusive.

That's not to say that there's none at all. In a country of 300 million you'll find a bit of almost anything. But multiple studies taking different approaches have all come to the same conclusion: The rate of voter fraud in American elections is close to zero.

In her 2010 book, The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine Minnite tracked down every single case brought by the Justice Department between 1996 and 2005 and found that the number of defendants had increased by roughly 1,000 percent under Ashcroft. But that only represents an increase from about six defendants per year to 60, and only a fraction of those were ever convicted of anything. A New York Times investigation in 2007 concluded that only 86 people had been convicted of voter fraud during the previous five years. Many of those appear to have simply made mistakes on registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, and more than 30 of the rest were penny-ante vote-buying schemes in local races for judge or sheriff. The investigation found virtually no evidence of any organized efforts to skew elections at the federal level.

Another set of studies has examined the claims of activist groups like Thor Hearne's American Center for Voting Rights, which released a report in 2005 citing more than 100 cases involving nearly 300,000 allegedly fraudulent votes during the 2004 election cycle. The charges involved sensational-sounding allegations of double-voting, fraudulent addresses, and voting by felons and noncitizens. But in virtually every case they dissolved upon investigation. Some of them were just flatly false, and others were the result of clerical errors. Minnite painstakingly investigated each of the center's charges individually and found only 185 votes that were even potentially fraudulent.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University has focused on voter fraud issues for years. In a 2007 report they concluded that "by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare." In the Missouri election of 2000 that got Sen. Bond so worked up, the Center found a grand total of four cases of people voting twice, out of more than 2 million ballots cast. In the end, the verified fraud rate was 0.0003 percent.

One key detail: The best-publicized fraud cases involve either absentee ballots or voter registration fraud (for example, paid signature gatherers filling in "Mary Poppins" on the forms, a form of cheating that's routinely caught by registrars already). But photo ID laws can't stop that: They only affect people actually trying to impersonate someone else at the polling place. And there's virtually no record, either now or in the past, of this happening on a large scale.

With Republican majorities in place across the country, state lawmakers were eager to pass laws restricting voting rights. ALEC made it easy.

What's more, a moment's thought suggests that this is vanishingly unlikely to be a severe problem, since there are few individuals willing to risk a felony charge merely to cast one extra vote and few organizations willing or able to organize large-scale in-person fraud and keep it a secret. When Indiana's photo ID law, designed to prevent precisely this kind of fraud, went to the Supreme Court, the state couldn't document a single case of it happening. As the majority opinion in Crawford admits, "The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history."

This mountain of evidence suggests to most liberals that there's another agenda at work: suppressing votes from Democratic-leaning populations. And Minnite's research confirms a partisan tilt. Today's voter ID laws are championed "almost exclusively by Republicans," she told me, and, with only one exception, have been enacted only when Republicans have unified control in a state capitol.


There's more to voter suppression than just photo ID laws, of course (see our related charts), and the Brennan Center has identified a host of other tactics that have sprung up over the past few years. Some states have ended Election Day registration. Others have restricted early voting, which is more heavily used by minority voters. Laws requiring proof of citizenship have been proposed in a dozen states—a legislative push closely associated with the right-wing campaign against illegal immigration. Laws making it harder for students to vote have mushroomed. And last year Florida placed such stringent rules on voter registration drives that the League of Women Voters simply stopped conducting them.

None of this is a coincidence. In the same way that ACVR and Thor Hearne helped win the public-opinion war following the 2004 election, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council picked up the ball after the 2008 election with model voter fraud measures that were prepackaged and ready to be enacted. With Republican majorities in place across the country, state lawmakers were eager to pass laws restricting voting rights. ALEC made it easy.

Yet as important as all these tactics are, photo ID laws remain the spearhead of the push to restrict voting rights. So it's fair to wonder how much impact these laws have in real life.

The answer: It's not entirely clear. The Brennan Center generated a lot of headlines for a recent report suggesting that upwards of 5 million voters could be affected just by laws passed in 2011. But a 2009 study published in Politics on the actual impact of voting law changes concluded that "voter-ID laws appear to have little to no main effects on turnout."

Minnite, along with coauthor Robert Erikson, concluded much the same in a 2009 paper. They specifically investigated turnout among vulnerable groups in states with varying types of voter ID laws, and although they did find an impact, it was quite small and nowhere near statistically significant. "The moral is simple," they concluded. "We should be wary of claims—from all sides of the controversy—regarding turnout effects from voter ID laws."

As more states enact strict photo ID laws and the number of affected voters increases, it's possible that empirical studies will more reliably show an effect. But it will likely remain fairly small, according to Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California-Irvine. "Whether it's really affecting a whole bunch of votes," he told me, "I'm skeptical."

The reason for this is pretty simple: Only about a tenth of the voting-age population lacks some form of photo ID, and that tenth includes a lot of demographic groups that already have low turnout in state and federal elections. That means a large number of them probably didn't intend to vote in the first place, so the new laws have no real effect on them. Of the rest, many will go ahead and get the requisite form of ID even though it's an extra effort. It's only the remainder—say, one-tenth of the original tenth—who want to vote but end up being stopped because they can't procure photo ID.

Still, in a close race, a modest effect can make a difference, and the cliff-hangers of 2000 and 2004 demonstrate that even presidential contests can hinge on tiny changes in turnout. If photo ID laws give them an advantage, however small, Republicans have an incentive to continue pushing for them.

Hasen offers another possible motivation: The voter wars, he suggests, have become a fundraising issue for both parties. Charges that the other side is stealing elections are incendiary, and promises to pass—or block—voter ID laws can be turned into demagogic appeals for money.

In St. Louis, outrage about dogs and dead people has a long pedigree. It is, a local official told the American Prospect, "code for black people."

Those things may all be true. But even so, there's one more layer to the voter fraud crusade.

If you're the jaded sort, you might write off the whole thing as just another dreary example of cynical politicking. But what you can't write off is the strong evidence that, as Hasen puts it, there are "underlying racial currents" in these laws.

Statistics tell part of this story: According to a survey by the Brennan Center, 8 percent of voting-age whites lack a photo ID, compared to 25 percent of blacks. Getting an ID card from the state usually requires you to produce a birth certificate, and Barbara Zia of the South Carolina League of Women Voters recently explained what this means in her state: "Many South Carolinians, especially citizens of color, were born at home and lack birth certificates, and so to obtain those birth certificates is a very costly endeavor and also an administrative nightmare."

In St. Louis, where our story opened, Kit Bond's outrage about dogs and dead people has a long pedigree. It is, a local official told the American Prospect's Art Levine, "code for black people." This kind of racial dog whistling, which relentlessly paints ethnic minorities as corrupt and dishonest, is corrosive not just to our political discourse, but to democracy itself.

The scandal of the photo ID laws, then, isn't so much that they give one party an advantage, or even that they affect minorities disproportionately. The scandal is that they knowingly target minorities. So even if the real-life effects of these laws are small, they're impairing civil rights that African Americans and others have spent decades fighting, and sometimes dying, for. This in turn means that something most of us thought was finally taboo—active suppression of minority votes—isn't really taboo after all. As Eric Holder put it in a speech earlier this year, there are those who fear that "some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance."

Electoral politics has always been a dirty game, but in recent decades most of us felt that there was, at least, a consensus that systematic, national-level efforts to discourage minority voting were at last beyond the pale. But maybe we were just kidding ourselves.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-suppression-kevin-drum?page=2
 bogienights
Joined: 12/24/2012
Msg: 604
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/16/2013 2:04:11 PM
"You can site (sic) all the "facts" you want.." I have enjoyed reading the facts cited, they are at least eye opening. it gives some of us from other countries food for thought. And it is interesting to see the words used by people yet they don't see how racist or borderline racist these comments are. I guess if you've always been this way...it's normal to you. Sad. Again, pathetic that some haven't learned to grow.

Perhaps some of the "haves" could give of their time to assist the poor in getting proper ID, like offer a ride, maybe chip in for bus fare or a bag lunch. Or give them a magazine to read while they are in line for 6 or 7 hours.
 forum_moderator
Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 605
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 1/16/2013 4:40:56 PM


To all - Best Read the Following
Acceptable Use and Posting Rules
Found at the top of any forum.

CLOSED


Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New ID voter law? [CLOSED]