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
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 76
New ID voter law?Page 4 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)
The cost excuse has been addressed. I have shown where even the most expensive ID costs much less than a penny a day.

I even pointed out you could find enough money in the laundry to buy one.

The reasons the liberals don't want these laws is it would prevent many of the ones that are illegally in this country from voting.

Which is a crime to start with.
The democratic party's only hope of holding power comes from being sure they keep enough people on the government dime so they can count on their votes.

The only people this would disenfranchise would be millions of illegals that should NOT be voting to start with.

As someone pointed out the US is not a democracy it is a republic.

What gets me is why the democrats want to change a system that in less than 200 years birthed the greatest nation on earth.

One that a person can start with nothing except hard work, can rise out of the poverty that the government welfare system keeps them in.

The founding fathers never envisioned a welfare state when they hammered this nation out of their hard work and sacrifice.

It is sad when anyone would want the right to vote in this nation to be skewed by people that have no right to be in a voting both in this country to start with.

What do you think any other nation would say if Americans went into their country and voted?

Voter IDs are not only a good idea but necessary to insure the integrity of our country's election process.
 Worbug
Joined: 4/23/2009
Msg: 77
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 12:02:19 PM
From the opening thread:

"According to networks like MSNBC, and CNN, approximately 5 million American's will not be able to vote due to the new restriction."

Should have read ...........Approvimately 5 million PEOPLE in America who will not be able to vote due to the new restriction.

Again, as I understand it, they are not requiring a special Voting Photo ID card, they are merely requiring A Photo ID .

Now, since the argument that is perpetuated in this thread is that it disenfranchises the poor, are not these same disenfranchised people, required some sort of Photo ID to get all the FEE Goddies, i.e Food Stamps, Free Cell Phones, WIC, Welfare and a host of other FREE programs most of us do not even know exist?

I have no "VENDETTA" towards to poor nor do I have any tolerance for LAME excuses. If as much time and energy was spent looking for work and improvement as complaining about the sysytem, the poor could most likely change their economic situation, but why start at the bottom in some job when they can recieve so much more in public aide and blame the very system most of them exploit.

I have a small business in Chicago, and trust me, I lived well below the poverty level during the early days. What amazes me, I go into every income level home in Chicago doing service work.. When ever I am in a so called low income neighborhood, I get the sob story of how bad things are and wanting an extreme discount off of my already modest charges (to stay competitive). Yet when I see the stuff in their homes as walking through, what do I see, 48" Flat Screen TVs, 3 or 4 Computers, PS3's,$ 200.00 Sneakers (Long Sigh). Flashy newer car in drive way, and the best thing is, the LINK Card laying on the table and I am not making this up. Yet, I am to believe they cannot scrounge up at best 30.00 for an ID. I bet they have the times and meens to apply for all those FREE programs, and with a big smile on their face most likely.

So, yes, the Democrats definitely have a guaranteed vote from them for sustaing their lifestyle, but yet to see why they would be disenfranchised as they should already have a photo ID to get their "ENTITLEMENTS".

So who again does that leave out, the Lazy, The wanted criminal, the illegal Alien or the non tax payer flying under the radar.

And for the record, I am neither Republican or democrat, I am what Politicians forgot about being, AN American. My stance is pretty much Anti-Incumbant. No elected official seem to have the good of the nation or it's people in the forefront of their personal agenda, He11, the President has to almost start campainging as soon as in office for reelection. One term restrictions for all offices and corruption will start to diminish. less time to establish coolitions in the Senate and Congress. Get elected use your term to serve Public Service, the good or bad, you are done and get some fresh talent and ideas in the Offices.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 78
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 12:10:52 PM
Ahhh, the joys of debate with those incapable of reason! So let's see what pearls we have from the last 24 hours.

"entitle you to such condescension"

Gee, funny you seemed to enjoy that when posting funny racial rhetoric on that now deleted Limbaugh thread. Are republicans the only ones entitled to condescension? I'll make a note of that!

"everything must be SAVED"

Well I don't know about everything, voting is an important part of the process of keeping our rights, so in this case, YEAH, it must be saved.

"CHILDREN have not had the vote"

Oh I see, mocking the issue is why we debate, see my note above to the other guy about condescension..I forgot, this is a republican right only, yeah gotcha

"don't see what te big friggin deal is"

Well different from Canada, the right to vote here "IS" a big friggin deal!

"The poor shouldn't be voting anyway. It's not their money that is at stake. What property do they have to tax."

WOW!! Now we all can see the republican mind set! Who said slavery was dead? These poor people should be just chattel!

"do NOT own property-they rent. They have no stake in it."

Ohhh a second vote for disenfranchising the poor. They pay income taxes, unless they earn below a certain amount. They pay the same federal taxes on goods and services(gasoline, liqour, cigarettes, and other things the federal government taxes. They also comprise a high percentage of the military, to fight the wars, you republicans have seemed to enjoy starting these last 10 years. I rarely see richie rich, picking up a gun and going off to war. The only time he picks up a gun is for skeet or hunting!

@83 and THIS is your source...why am I not surprised"

then in #89 you quote the NY Post as a source? Hahahahahha!!! Murdock would be proud someone tries to actually get news out of that rag. They are so busy spewing hate, like faux news, that it's a wonder they have time for this instead of martian landings, 2 headed baby's and the only thing they were good for, sports news.

As for the "Bush inspired multi year investigation into voter fraud" yeah he was accused, so now he used an investigation to help republicans learn how NOT to be caught with their hand in the cookie jar, by suppressing voter turnout.

"We need a national Voting test."

Oh yeah, that will work out great for everybody. Not only do students in high school, college and as young adults, NOT know or are able to name and show where half the states are, even the ones next to where they live, but most couldn't name Clintons VP! They have for the most part no idea, nor do many care how the government works.

"The individual dressed in combat boots, beret, and baton been a WHITE REPUBLICAN"

Oh let me think now...would that be like when early in the republican candidate selection process, when a protester carrying a sign in front of the event, was thrown to the ground, and a rather large WHITE REPUBLICAN was seen in footage with his foot firmly planted on the side of her head?

Or how about all you good red necks showing up with your guns at events for congressional folks or the President? I don't remember that happening with Reagan , elder Bush or shrub, in fact not even Clinton had that happen to him! Oh but now you need them at rallies for congressional democrats or the President? So what's the story? Hoppin for a clear shot from a wacko, like what happened with Giffords?


The bottom line in all this is just about voter suppression, nothing less nothing more.

People are lazy, people are indifferent, people don't always follow the news or politics like some of us. They will show up to vote, having not changed certain documents, like the address on their drivers licenses.

Yes there are old people in senior's homes without all the neccessary ID's, why because they don't need them for their day to day existence. People suffer injury, broken bones, replaced knees, they maybe immobile, I doubt the top of their hit parade would be worrying about ID to vote once they regain mobility. As for those who claim you need it to use with a credit card, I go to dinner quite often out, and have yet to be asked to prove who I am. The same with most stores I shop in like Neiman, Bloomingdales or Macy's, he11 even the local grocery store never asked for ID.

As for students, so many attend college out of state. They have all the required ID's they need, a student ID, a drivers license from the state their families live in. They don't need a seperate one, nor would think to get one. This law would disenfranchise them as well.

How about home birth? Believe it or not, it's a common occurance in some locales of the poor. How about availability of documents? Events like the tornadoes, Katrina, has made some places hard to get the required documents from, if not damn near impossible.

BUT even given all that, no one has given me answers on the amount of voter fraud. The amount of illegal immigrants showing up in droves to vote. Funny in the last election I didn't see any, nor hear that it was even an issue. The numbers I've seen quoted were .00006, the amount persecuted was far less than 100.

This isn't about anything but the republicans hoping to suppress democratic votes in what promises to be a close election.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 79
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 12:33:11 PM
So, when Bush investigated voter fraud for 5 years he wasn't really trying to discover incidences of voter fraud???interesting:

April 12, 2007


In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud

By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA


Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped “Offender,” when he registered just before voting.

A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff’s or judge’s races paid voters for their support.

A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday.

Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls. But the federal cases provide little evidence of widespread, organized fraud, prosecutors and election law experts said.

“There was nothing that we uncovered that suggested some sort of concerted effort to tilt the election,” Richard G. Frohling, an assistant United States attorney in Milwaukee, said.

Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, agreed, saying: “If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent.”

For some convicted people, the consequences have been significant. Kimberly Prude, 43, has been jailed in Milwaukee for more than a year after being convicted of voting while on probation, an offense that she attributes to confusion over eligibility.

In Pakistan, Usman Ali is trying to rebuild his life after being deported from Florida, his legal home of more than a decade, for improperly filling out a voter-registration card while renewing his driver’s license.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, a Mexican who legally lives in the United States, may soon face a similar fate, because he voted even though he was not eligible.

The push to prosecute voter fraud figured in the removals last year of at least two United States attorneys whom Republican politicians or party officials had criticized for failing to pursue cases.

The campaign has roiled the Justice Department in other ways, as career lawyers clashed with a political appointee over protecting voters’ rights, and several specialists in election law were installed as top prosecutors.

Department officials defend their record. “The Department of Justice is not attempting to make a statement about the scale of the problem,” a spokesman, Bryan Sierra, said. “But we are obligated to investigate allegations when they come to our attention and prosecute when appropriate.”

Officials at the department say that the volume of complaints has not increased since 2002, but that it is pursuing them more aggressively.

Previously, charges were generally brought just against conspiracies to corrupt the election process, not against individual offenders, Craig Donsanto, head of the elections crimes branch, told a panel investigating voter fraud last year. For deterrence, Mr. Donsanto said, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales authorized prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against individuals.

Some of those cases have baffled federal judges.

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.”

The Justice Department stand is backed by Republican Party and White House officials, including Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser. The White House has acknowledged that he relayed Republican complaints to President Bush and the Justice Department that some prosecutors were not attacking voter fraud vigorously. In speeches, Mr. Rove often mentions fraud accusations and warns of tainted elections.

Voter fraud is a highly polarized issue, with Republicans asserting frequent abuses and Democrats contending that the problem has been greatly exaggerated to promote voter identification laws that could inhibit the turnout by poor voters.

The New Priority

The fraud rallying cry became a clamor in the Florida recount after the 2000 presidential election. Conservative watchdog groups, already concerned that the so-called Motor Voter Law in 1993 had so eased voter registration that it threatened the integrity of the election system, said thousands of fraudulent votes had been cast.

Similar accusations of compromised elections were voiced by Republican lawmakers elsewhere.

The call to arms reverberated in the Justice Department, where John Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator, was just starting as attorney general.

Combating voter fraud, Mr. Ashcroft announced, would be high on his agenda. But in taking up the fight, he promised that he would also be vigilant in attacking discriminatory practices that made it harder for minorities to vote.

“American voters should neither be disenfranchised nor defrauded,” he said at a news conference in March 2001.

Enlisted to help lead the effort was Hans A. von Spakovsky, a lawyer and Republican volunteer in the Florida recount. As a Republican election official in Atlanta, Mr. Spakovsky had pushed for stricter voter identification laws. Democrats say those laws disproportionately affect the poor because they often mandate government-issued photo IDs or driver’s licenses that require fees.

At the Justice Department, Mr. Spakovsky helped oversee the voting rights unit. In 2003, when the Texas Congressional redistricting spearheaded by the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, was sent to the Justice Department for approval, the career staff members unanimously said it discriminated against African-American and Latino voters.

Mr. Spakovsky overruled the staff, said Joseph Rich, a former lawyer in the office. Mr. Spakovsky did the same thing when they recommended the rejection of a voter identification law in Georgia considered harmful to black voters. Mr. Rich said. Federal courts later struck down the Georgia law and ruled that the boundaries of one district in the Texas plan violated the Voting Rights Act.

Former lawyers in the office said Mr. Spakovsky’s decisions seemed to have a partisan flavor unlike those in previous Republican and Democratic administrations. Mr. Spakovsky declined to comment.

“I understand you can never sweep politics completely away,” said Mark A. Posner, who had worked in the civil and voting rights unit from 1980 until 2003. “But it was much more explicit, pronounced and consciously done in this administration.”

At the same time, the department encouraged United States attorneys to bring charges in voter fraud cases, not a priority in prior administrations. The prosecutors attended training seminars, were required to meet regularly with state or local officials to identify possible cases and were expected to follow up accusations aggressively.

The Republican National Committee and its state organizations supported the push, repeatedly calling for a crackdown. In what would become a pattern, Republican officials and lawmakers in a number of states, including Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington, made accusations of widespread abuse, often involving thousands of votes.

In swing states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, party leaders conducted inquiries to find people who may have voted improperly and prodded officials to act on their findings.

But the party officials and lawmakers were often disappointed. The accusations led to relatively few cases, and a significant number resulted in acquittals.

The Path to Jail

One of those officials was Rick Graber, former chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

“It is a system that invites fraud,” Mr. Graber told reporters in August 2005 outside the house of a Milwaukeean he said had voted twice. “It’s a system that needs to be fixed.”

Along with an effort to identify so-called double voters, the party had also performed a computer crosscheck of voting records from 2004 with a list of felons, turning up several hundred possible violators. The assertions of fraud were turned over to the United States attorney’s office for investigation.

Ms. Prude’s path to jail began after she attended a Democratic rally in Milwaukee featuring the Rev. Al Sharpton in late 2004. Along with hundreds of others, she marched to City Hall and registered to vote. Soon after, she sent in an absentee ballot.

Four years earlier, though, Ms. Prude had been convicted of trying to cash a counterfeit county government check worth $1,254. She was placed on six years’ probation.

Ms. Prude said she believed that she was permitted to vote because she was not in jail or on parole, she testified in court. Told by her probation officer that she could not vote, she said she immediately called City Hall to rescind her vote, a step she was told was not necessary.

“I made a big mistake, like I said, and I truly apologize for it,” Ms. Prude said during her trial in 2005. That vote, though, resulted in a felony conviction and sent her to jail for violating probation.

Of the hundreds of people initially suspected of violations in Milwaukee, 14 — most black, poor, Democratic and first-time voters — ever faced federal charges. United States Attorney Steven M. Biskupic would say only that there was insufficient evidence to bring other cases.

No residents of the house where Mr. Graber made his assertion were charged. Even the 14 proved frustrating for the Justice Department. It won five cases in court.

The evidence that some felons knew they that could not vote consisted simply of a form outlining 20 or more rules that they were given when put on probation and signs at local government offices, testimony shows.

The Wisconsin prosecutors lost every case on double voting. Cynthia C. Alicea, 25, was accused of multiple voting in 2004 because officials found two registration cards in her name. She and others were acquitted after explaining that they had filed a second card and voted just once after a clerk said they had filled out the first card incorrectly.

In other states, some of those charged blamed confusion for their actions. Registration forms almost always require a statement affirming citizenship.

Mr. Ali, 68, who had owned a jewelry store in Tallahassee, got into trouble after a clerk at the motor vehicles office had him complete a registration form that he quickly filled out in line, unaware that it was reserved just for United States citizens.

Even though he never voted, he was deported after living legally in this country for more than 10 years because of his misdemeanor federal criminal conviction.

“We’re foreigners here,” Mr. Ali said in a telephone interview from Lahore, Pakistan, where he lives with his daughter and wife, both United States citizens.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, who manages a gasoline station, had received a voter registration form in the mail. Because he had applied for citizenship, he thought it was permissible to vote, his lawyer said. Now, he may be deported to Mexico after 16 years in the United States. “What I want is for them to leave me alone,” he said in an interview.

Federal prosecutors in Kansas and Missouri successfully prosecuted four people for multiple voting. Several claimed residency in each state and voted twice.

United States attorney’s offices in four other states did turn up instances of fraudulent voting in mostly rural areas. They were in the hard-to-extinguish tradition of vote buying, where local politicians offered $5 to $100 for individuals’ support.

Unease Over New Guidelines

Aside from those cases, nearly all the remaining 26 convictions from 2002 to and 2005 — the Justice Department will not release details about 2006 cases except to say they had 30 more convictions— were won against individuals acting independently, voter records and court documents show.

Previous guidelines had barred federal prosecutions of “isolated acts of individual wrongdoing” that were not part of schemes to corrupt elections. In most cases, prosecutors also had to prove an intent to commit fraud, not just an improper action.

That standard made some federal prosecutors uneasy about proceeding with charges, including David C. Iglesias, who was the United States attorney in New Mexico, and John McKay, the United States attorney in Seattle.

Although both found instances of improper registration or voting, they declined to bring charges, drawing criticism from prominent Republicans in their states. In Mr. Iglesias’s case, the complaints went to Mr. Bush. Both prosecutors were among those removed in December.

In the last year, the Justice Department has installed top prosecutors who may not be so reticent. In four states, the department has named interim or permanent prosecutors who have worked on election cases at Justice Department headquarters or for the Republican Party.

Bradley J. Schlozman has finished a year as interim United States attorney in Missouri, where he filed charges against four people accused of creating fake registration forms for nonexistent people. The forms could likely never be used in voting. The four worked for a left-leaning group, Acorn, and reportedly faked registration cards to justify their wages. The cases were similar to one that Mr. Iglesias had declined to prosecute, saying he saw no intent to influence the outcome of an election.

“The decision to file those indictments was reviewed by Washington,” a spokesman for Mr. Schlozman, Don Ledford, said. “They gave us the go-ahead.”


Sabrina Pacifici and Barclay Walsh contributed research.

Correction: April 14, 2007



A front-page article on Thursday about the scant evidence of voter fraud that has been found since the Bush administration began a crackdown five years ago misstated a court ruling on a 2003 Texas Congressional redistricting law. While the Supreme Court ruled that the Texas Legislature violated the Voting Rights Act in redrawing a southwestern Texas district, the court upheld the other parts of the plan. It did not strike down the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=print
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 80
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 1:30:30 PM
@ Nr 99 ...


" ... This isn't about anything but the republicans hoping to suppress democratic votes in what promises to be a close election. ... "


Oh goodness. You are SO right. Why, it's not as if that nice Mr Obama has put in place with his policies and actions ANYthing that would cause his loyal liberal lapdog psychophants to have any feeling toward him save pure unvarnished joy. I mean, 'we all know' that there are more jobs out there than y' can stick a sheikh at, right? Those evil Republicans that control the news media are just using their powers of control to suppress that knowledge. Then there's the matter of the economy - 'we all know' that those evil Republicans are just trying to cram more and more tax increases down our throat, don't we? And what about ObamaCare? Once again, 'we all know' that those corrupt Republicans forced that nice Mr Obama to put pen to paper and sign it into law after those same evil Republicans twisted the Democrats' arms and threatened them with things like loss of committee chairmanships if they wouldn't play ball with them and vote for it, don't we? Damned right, we do.

I must admit defeat. All this time I've believed the Democrats were the ones who were putting in place the policies that would cause everyone in possession of two neurons capable of firing sequentially to re-think their 'Loyalty Oath' to Dear Comrade Leader Obama (PBUH) ... but no, I was wrong. Mea culpa. Those damned evil Republicans have once again pulled the wool over my eyes and now - using their Most Top-Secret Master Plan to Regain Power - they're going to magically 'suppress the vote' so all those ones who can't afford a FREE PHOTO ID won't make the trip to the polling place on election day. I guess it's still up to the Democrats to win their hearts and minds with the free box lunch, free cigarettes, a ride to the polling place, and that $20 dollars worth of 'walking-around money'. How could I have ever believed those wonderful, caring Democrats wouldn't fight to protect the right of the illegal / incarcerated / deceased to cast a vote without proper photo ID? Why, that's crazy talk ...
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 81
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 1:53:19 PM
Now how should I catergorize that last post...is it condescension or sarcasm?

Thanks to your bestest pal, miyawn, we now know that "FREE PHOTO ID", is not real, since he lists costs for each state.

While we are on the subject of "free", isn't a cornerstone of the republicans agenda, to cut costs? Won't some of these voter ID's and their enactment, enforcement, cost money to do? I mean it's far better to spend money on voter suppression, than on say, oh I don't know, more teachers, police or firemen?

Although, I really did enjoy your tantrum, better luck next time, and thanks for playing!
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 82
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 2:19:14 PM

Where does it say , in the constitution that I have to have a picture I.D. to vote?

Would you mind showing me in the constitution where the rules for voting are spelled out. Especially the one that guarantees a universal right to vote


I did find this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Although I could swear that says "on account of sex" and doesn't really list anything about much of anything else and nothing about a universal right to vote.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 83
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 3:09:00 PM
@ Nr 103 ...

Aww. You're disappointed. How can I ever make that up to you ... ? Oooh! I know! Looky!

Here's some information (including some from your favorite 'news'paper, the NYT) about how 'unfair' FREE PHOTO ID is and how exceedingly hard it is to obtain ... O, the humanity ... !

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/voter_id.html

This Jimmy Carter and James Baker III op-ed was published in the Feb. 3, 2008, edition of The New York Times.

The center found that in three states with ID requirements — Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland — only about 1.2 percent of registered voters lacked a photo ID. (Wow. 1.2%. That's a damned shame, ain't it?)

We offered a proposal to bridge the partisan divide by suggesting a uniform voter photo ID, based on the federal Real ID Act of 2005, to be phased in over five years. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens; mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. (Please - just HOW LAZY does a 'voter' have to be to NOT be able to get a FREE PHOTO ID under this plan ... ?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id-state-requirements.aspx

States that Request or Require Photo ID

Strict Photo ID
Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin

Photo ID
Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, South Dakota

States that Require ID (Photo Not Required)
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Washington
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 84
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 3:16:49 PM
I wonder if there's a parallel here:

During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the U.S. South for "freedmen" – the African Americans who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually returned to power in the Southern states, sometimes as a result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaigns. In 1877, a national compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state These conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from the white population.

Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880s, but the establishment Democrats were passing laws to make voter registration and electoral rules more restrictive, with the result that political participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease. Between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites through a combination of poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests, and residency and record-keeping requirements. Grandfather clauses temporarily permitted some illiterate whites to vote.

Voter turnout dropped drastically through the South as a result of such measures. For example, Alabama had tens of thousands of poor whites disfranchised.[8] In Louisiana, by 1900, black voters were reduced to 5,320 on the rolls, although they comprised the majority of the state's population. By 1910, only 730 blacks were registered, less than 0.5 percent of eligible black men. "In 27 of the state's 60 parishes, not a single black voter was registered any longer; in 9 more parishes, only one black voter was. The cumulative effect in North Carolina meant that black voters were completely eliminated from voter rolls during the period from 1896-1904. The growth of their thriving middle class was slowed. In North Carolina and other Southern states, there were also the effects of invisibility: "[W]ithin a decade of disfranchisement, the white supremacy campaign had erased the image of the black middle class from the minds of white North Carolinians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_crow_laws
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 85
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 5:20:39 PM

Are you sure that is right? After all, they are sayhing that it was the democrat party were the "bad guys"........ How can that be, especially after having read you pontificate about how the republicans were the ones who were anti-civil rights during the '50's and '60's.............

You would have to have a little better understand of the history of political parties in the USA to know why that is so.

You should try the google I hear it is pretty good for that kind of stuff.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 86
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 5:40:41 PM
Are you sure that is right? After all, they are sayhing that it was the democrat party were the "bad guys"........


PK...you nailed again...failing to realize that democrats of that time are the new republicans...but, I don't think you'd understand all that.

President Franklin Roosevelt's electoral body in 1945 had included a diverse, in fact contradictory, set of elements — both conservatives and liberals, northern and southern Democrats and Republicans. By 1948, however, the civil rights issue revealed the real philosophical differences between northern and southern Democrats as never before. The move of Southern states from solidly Democrat to solidly Republican began to take place. In that environment, the Dixiecrats and the “Southern Strategy” was born.


At the 1948 Democratic National Convention, a group led by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota proposed some controversial new civil rights planks of racial integration and the reversal of Jim Crow laws to be included in the party platform. Southern Democrats were dismayed. President Harry S. Truman was caught in the middle for his recent executive order to racially integrate the armed forces. As a compromise, he proposed the adoption of only those planks that had been in the 1944 platform. That was not enough for the liberals. Truman's own civil rights initiatives had made the civil rights debate unavoidable.

The planks were adopted and 35 southern Democrats walked out in protest. They formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, which became popularly known as the Dixiecrats. Their campaign slogan was “Segregation Forever!” Their platform also included “states’ rights” to freedom from governmental interference in an individual's or organization's prerogative to do business with whomever they wanted.

New York moderate Nelson Rockefeller's defeat in the presidential primary election marked the beginning of the end of moderates and liberals in the Republican Party.

Clearer political and ideological lines began to be drawn between the Democrat and Republican parties as moderates and liberals converted from Republican to Democrat. Conservatives in the Democratic Party began to move to the increasingly conservative Republican Party.

Meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, the Dixiecrats nominated South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate, and Mississippi governor Field J. Wright, as their vice-presidential nominee. The party platform represented the openly racist views of most white southerners of the time. It opposed abolition of the poll tax while endorsing segregation and the "racial integrity" of each race. In the November election, Thurmond carried the states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Although Thurmond did not win the election, he received well over a million popular votes and 39 electoral votes.


By 1952, southern Democrats had concluded that they could exercise more influence through the Democratic Party and therefore returned to the fold. They remained in the Democratic fold, restive, until the candidacy of Republican conservative Barry Goldwater liberated them in 1964 by refreshing some of the Dixiecrat ideologies and therefore accelerated the transition from a solid South for the Democrats to one for the Republicans. Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican Party that year and remained there until his death in December 2003.

Other presidential candidates, such as Republican Richard M. Nixon in 1968, have effectively used the Southern strategy of "states' rights" and racial inequality to garner votes from the racially conservative electorate in the southern states.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1751.html


Yeah, makes sense to me.......................

Wait, let me loosen up my tin hat a bit................

Oh, geez..... now with my hat loose and blood flowing to my brain again, it doesn't make sense any more......................


Read above with hat loosened.

 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 87
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 6:04:35 PM
Yanno PK...reading is a powerful thing....


The democrats WERE the democrats, and still are the democrats, and as is plainly seen above in the official records, the republicans voted by AT LEAST 80% in the House and in the Senate FOR the civil rights bill................

There is a lot failin to realize goin' on here, I say, I say; but it isn't by me.

(Don't you just love foghorn leghorn, I say, I say, I say.....)

Paul K


PK...in two words...you're wrong.


President Franklin Roosevelt's electoral body in 1945 had included a diverse, in fact contradictory, set of elements — both conservatives and liberals, northern and southern Democrats and Republicans. By 1948, however, the civil rights issue revealed the real philosophical differences between northern and southern Democrats as never before. The move of Southern states from solidly Democrat to solidly Republican began to take place. In that environment, the Dixiecrats and the “Southern Strategy” was born.


At the 1948 Democratic National Convention, a group led by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota proposed some controversial new civil rights planks of racial integration and the reversal of Jim Crow laws to be included in the party platform. Southern Democrats were dismayed. President Harry S. Truman was caught in the middle for his recent executive order to racially integrate the armed forces. As a compromise, he proposed the adoption of only those planks that had been in the 1944 platform. That was not enough for the liberals. Truman's own civil rights initiatives had made the civil rights debate unavoidable.

The planks were adopted and 35 southern Democrats walked out in protest. They formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, which became popularly known as the Dixiecrats. Their campaign slogan was “Segregation Forever!” Their platform also included “states’ rights” to freedom from governmental interference in an individual's or organization's prerogative to do business with whomever they wanted.

New York moderate Nelson Rockefeller's defeat in the presidential primary election marked the beginning of the end of moderates and liberals in the Republican Party.

Clearer political and ideological lines began to be drawn between the Democrat and Republican parties as moderates and liberals converted from Republican to Democrat. Conservatives in the Democratic Party began to move to the increasingly conservative Republican Party.

Meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, the Dixiecrats nominated South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate, and Mississippi governor Field J. Wright, as their vice-presidential nominee. The party platform represented the openly racist views of most white southerners of the time. It opposed abolition of the poll tax while endorsing segregation and the "racial integrity" of each race. In the November election, Thurmond carried the states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Although Thurmond did not win the election, he received well over a million popular votes and 39 electoral votes.


By 1952, southern Democrats had concluded that they could exercise more influence through the Democratic Party and therefore returned to the fold. They remained in the Democratic fold, restive, until the candidacy of Republican conservative Barry Goldwater liberated them in 1964 by refreshing some of the Dixiecrat ideologies and therefore accelerated the transition from a solid South for the Democrats to one for the Republicans. Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican Party that year and remained there until his death in December 2003.

Other presidential candidates, such as Republican Richard M. Nixon in 1968, have effectively used the Southern strategy of "states' rights" and racial inequality to garner votes from the racially conservative electorate in the southern states.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1751.html
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 88
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 6:21:21 PM
Perhaps, a little more history, and a little less rhetoric, should be injected here. Southern politics, was, is and always will be a combination of regional, social and ideological issues, relating to the view of a agricultural economy versus what was in the north an industrial one.

After Lincoln(a republican) ended up enforcing the anti slavery stance and embarking on the civil war. Almost all southerners, turned away from the republicans, and became democrats. Then for the next 100 odd years, they elected solely democrats, but rarely shared democratic ideals. Dixiecrats, as they were called, were actually worse than the republicans, who at that time, actually acted sane, none of this religious nonsense, or racial bigotry we see today, no looking down there nose or protecting what was theirs.

That's why we had Gov. Wallace and others in the democratic party. By all means they should have been drummed out at the time, but politics make for strange bedfellows. You guys should understand that more than anyone. Your tea party advocates, who align with the republican party, have embarassed the speaker of the house so often, he should be called their whipping boy!

As the republicans moved right, those dixiecrats, moved back to the republican fold over the decades after the civil rights movement. A slap at the party and president(LBJ) who signed that civil rights law. As they joined with each passing year and with the aid of the tea party they have pushed the party so far right, no reasonable man could be a part of it.

It's too the point, that Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon and even Ronald Reagan( a big republican hero) would not even be able to enter the primaries, much less win one today.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 89
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 6:25:22 PM

There is a lot failin to realize goin' on here, I say, I say; but it isn't by me.

So you are sure about that are you?




(Don't you just love foghorn leghorn, I say, I say, I say.....)

He is a great guy one, and here is one of my favorite quotes from him:

"Yap-yap-yap, keep that mouth flappin' and do no listenin'."
FHLH
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 90
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 6:38:31 PM
not knowing who voted for what, after all, he is from the great frozen north, a country I think is beautiful, but I thought that you were from south of the Canadian border...... correct me if I am wrong..................


Well, I actually was old enough to live thru the end of the dixicrat era and to understand the concept of the dixicrat...and saw Wallace completely defy his party...and have seen the migration of the bigoted and racist south to independent then to the republican party..many of these people's attitudes about racism haven't changed...they just went to a party more aligned with their way of thinking.

Read further PK...not that it will change your mind...but, the same two words still apply "you're wrong":

Many sources cite numbers provided by an issue of Congressional
Quarterly. For example, on the web site of the 5th Legislative
District Republican Party for the State of Washington, they state:

"The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the
Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for
the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for,
6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act.
[...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152
for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103
Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent
(138 for, 34 against) voted for it."


http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/183344.html
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 91
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/20/2012 9:01:50 PM
It wouldn't solve anything - just make things worse.

You've got a lot of illegal immigrants in your country. Initially they couldn't get a driver's license because of that. In some states they now can, because they were driving anyway. I'm a pretty safe driver, but I've been at fault 3 times in accidents - none serious luckily. You get people driving, some of them are going to get into accidents. If they don't have a valid driver's license, there's no insurance coverage. So the injured pedestrian or whoever has to try to collect damages from an illegal alien who hides from authority as a way of life.

It's not a bad idea, until you think about it a little bit.
 MondoVman
Joined: 4/26/2009
Msg: 92
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/21/2012 4:12:59 PM
Ah, the almighty Entitlement Mantra No. 2, in Gee Minor:
"If they don't have a (free) ___, there's ____."
1. "If they don't have a (free) valid driver's license, there's no insurance coverage."
2. "If they don't have a free high school education, there's less taxes illegals would pay."
3. "If they don't have a free college education, there's less higher bracket taxes illegals would pay."
4. "If they don't have (free) birth control, illegals would be less responsible."
5. "If they don't have free, clean needles, IV illegal drug users would be less responsible."
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 93
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/21/2012 4:35:01 PM
Ok...PK...it's alright if you don't see what everyone else see's with the transition of the dixicrat to independent to republican...ok, less democrats voted for the civil rights buill than republicans percentagewise...that was then this is now...and the republicans have become the party of islamaphobia...homophobia-race-aphobia/racism and bigotry-and mysogyny...their actions prove it...their pinpoint focus on the multitude of bills dictating the morality of the masses-instead of working of correct the financial mess the last group of republicans left us in proves it too.

And the parallel I see is voter ID laws are a republican effort to restrict voting of the poor, students, and minorities just like the dixicrats pulled 50 years ago and longer....when you can't gerry-mander a win you look to stop those voters that would insure a loss.
 MondoVman
Joined: 4/26/2009
Msg: 94
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/21/2012 5:23:42 PM
@I Sigh, you've committed a big bad egregious wrong.
that would insure a loss

The word is "ensure", not "insure".

Ensure means to make certain, implies a guarantee.

Insure means to obtain insurance (money would be involved) to indemnify against a loss.

However, if you wished to convey, as opposed to imply, that your side views elections as being for sale, then you should try to be more expansive in your wording so as to ensure a better understanding by the reader.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 95
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/21/2012 5:31:25 PM

@I Sigh, you've committed a big bad egregious wrong.

that would insure a loss


The word is "ensure", not "insure".

Ensure means to make certain, implies a guarantee.

Insure means to obtain insurance (money would be involved) to indemnify against a loss.

However, if you wished to convey, as opposed to imply, that your side views elections as being for sale, then you should try to be more expansive in your wording so as to ensure a better understanding by the reader.

Oh gee, thank you for your thoughtful correction and adding such meaningful comment to propel the topic onto higher ground....where would we all be without you.


Repeating that the republicans, of who I am no fan of, are trying to restrict voting by making too expensive is beyond silly, and just shows that you have nothing else.


Nope, that wouldn't be my only point...that republicans...and make no mistake...it is only republicans that wish to use voter ID as a means to inhibit poor, students, the elderly, and minorities voting rights....one of my other points is...voting is a fundamental right...

 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 96
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/21/2012 5:32:41 PM
You really need to stop telling people how their systems work when you obviously have no clue. He can be driving without a DL, but driving a friends car which is insured.

Check the terms of service on your insurance. You will find that if you lend your vehicle to someone who doesn't have a driver's license, then the coverage is invalid. You have to have a licensed driver for your coverage to be in effect.


The police chief and the mayor are pushing for a law that cars impounded by police not be impounded, and all other still be impounded.......... Guess what political party they belong to?

I don't care. I also don't know what that sentence means. Cars impounded not to be impounded, but all others still impounded? That's word salad.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 97
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/21/2012 5:50:25 PM
Nope. If someone without a driver's license is driving your car without your permission, they will cover liability. Depending on the laws of your state, if you give permission to an unlicensed driver they will either deny coverage outright, or pay the injured party, then come after you civilly for their costs. You'll find that the states that allow non-citizens to get driver's licenses are mostly states where the insurance companies deny coverage completely when an unlicensed driver is in an accident.
 Luke_Mason
Joined: 9/16/2011
Msg: 98
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/22/2012 1:07:39 PM
Hmmmm I wonder how such people ever got a job LEGALLY without ID?

I can just imagine droves of millions of people who lack sufficient ID, most people know 99% of such people are ILLEGAL ALIENS. The argument about the elderly not having ID is absurd, unless of course a very small % of them were under the influence of Alzheimer disease and subsequently lost their ID.

Because if they lived in the U.S. till an elderly age surely they've had ID at some time in their lifetime, or they would not be able to retrieve any form of Social Security benefits.

Without ID ANYONE, from ANYWHERE could simply walk into a voting booth and vote. (like they already do)
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 99
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/22/2012 1:20:06 PM

Hmmmm I wonder how such people ever got a job LEGALLY without ID?

I think they call them social security cards.




I can just imagine droves of millions of people who lack sufficient ID, most people know 99% of such people are ILLEGAL ALIENS. The argument about the elderly not having ID is absurd, unless of course a very small % of them were under the influence of Alzheimer disease and subsequently lost their ID.

Just because you can not image it, does not mean that it does not happen.

Unless you subscribe to the Dunning–Kruger school of thought.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 100
view profile
History
New ID voter law?
Posted: 3/22/2012 1:46:54 PM

Just because you can not image it, does not mean that it does not happen.


But that is the point... it takes imagining it. There is no reason or justification to not have it as an assumption. It is called "reasonable expectation." It is reasonable for me to assume that voters will have a proper valid method of identification, including photo ID. It would be an unreasonable expectation to think that they do not. It is a reasonable expectation that any legitimate voters that are intent on voting will not have an issue voting as that situation is covered with a VOTER ID Number. It is not reasonable to assume that these things are insurmountable to a willing eager voter.

I would say it should be a uniform federal law for eligibility but then people would think that was a declaration that universally everyone had the right to vote... and they don't.

Reasonable expectations are routinely used in courts.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > New ID voter law? [CLOSED]