Dead People and Other Voters

The big difference between all the situations he lists where ID is required and voting is that, out of that entire list, voting is the only one that is actually a guaranteed right. Fail.

(How many poor people fly?)

voting is the only one that is actually a guaranteed right

So are firearms. Should the government guarantee free firearms for anyone who cannot afford them? For that matter, why should you be required to have a photo id to purchase a firearm? It is a guaranteed right...

I notice that they didn't come anywhere near succeeding. And what they did was to try to get applications for absentee ballots, not to show up on election day and vote.

Statistically, actual vote fraud is extremely rare. The conservative desire to keep poor, black voters away from the polls, however, is enormous.

Statistically, actual vote fraud is extremely rare.

All evidence to the contrary, actually it's more of a problem than the democrats would want people to believe.

The conservative desire to keep poor, black voters away from the polls, however, is enormous.

What a lame assed attempt at race baiting, it's always about race with you people.

@!$%#ing spare us the bull@!$%#, how about:

PERSONS IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE.

Try to keep up here...............................

Kind of bigoted to assume because you don't have ID you must be black...

I notice that they didn't come anywhere near succeeding.

So your argument is: "People are getting caught perpetrating voter fraud and since they're getting caught, we don't need to make the laws tighter"? Wow.

You DO see the contradiction is (1) Asking us to *prove* voter fraud, and then when we do, dismissing it with (B)..."Well, at least they're getting caught and not succeeding".

And what they did was to try to get applications for absentee ballots, not to show up on election day and vote.

Statistically, actual vote fraud is extremely rare.

Let me get this straight. Voting illegally via absentee ballot isn't "really" voter fraud in your book?

The conservative desire to keep poor, black voters away from the polls, however, is enormous.

Then it must stand to reason that you think convenience stores are conspiring to prevent "poor, black people" from buying beer, too.

Or checking out a book at the library. Or driving a car. Or taking any form of commercial transportation, whether it me plane, Greyhound or Amtrak.

trex-138069

All I ask is that you produce one, even one, verifiable example of voter fraud that was perpetrated by someone other than Ann Coulter or Weasel Face O'Keefe.

I lived in Miami from 1996 through 1999. In November 1997, Xavier Suarez (Democrat) was elected Mayor by a little over 1000 votes, but in March 1998, it was ruled that there would be new elections and Joe Carollo (Republican) would hold office until the new elections (He won the new election). Why would a Judge do that?

It turned out that there was widespread voter fraud going on in Miami. In checking the Absentee ballots alone, over 50% of them had been sent in by residents of the Woodland Park, Lincoln Memorial, and Funeraria Memorial "Subdivisions" (Miami Cemeteries). On further investigation, 0ver 200 "deceased residents" of Miami had actually come into the polling offices in Suarez's home district and cast votes during the election. Some had been doing so since 1988 and had never missed an election since their interment.

I also live in Chicago during the reign of Mayor Daley and the Chicago Democratic Machine (Mob). Might I also direct your attention to such beacons of Democratic Party as Tammany Hall or the Lyndon Johnson political machine of the 60's ? Whine all you want to, but the Democrats have been at the forefront of voter fraud since the time of Tammany Hall. Most of the bastards are so crooked that they have to screw their socks on in the morning!

Statistically, actual vote fraud is extremely rare

It is much more frequent than you realize. The mainstream media "suppresses" many incidents, but if you search other medias, you will find shocking occurences. What is egregious, is it is practiced by large organizations, like Unions and Acorn (which was CONVICTED of voter fraud recently)

Philboo,

You don't have the Right to a FREE Gun, you have the Right to a FREE ID to obtain that Gun.

And if the ID is REQUIRED to vote, then the documents REQUIRED for the ID must be FREE also. And both the ID and the documents need to be easily available to the General Public.

And if an ID is REQUIRED to get a Firearm, then the same rules should apply also.

He ignored the fact that photo IDs are required to board airplanes; (from young people) to buy cigarettes or liquor; to buy certain over-the-counter medicines; and, in many stores, to buy things with a credit card.

Sure do see a bunch of poor people taking vacations that require flight, using all their money on cigarettes and liquor and putting it all on their Visa./s

Do you actually know what being "poor" means?

Do you ever see them checking out a book at the library, Jeff? How about taking Amtrak or a Greyhound? Applying for Pell Grants? Applying for financial aid? Enrolling their kids in school?

They all require photo ID.

So your argument is: "People are getting caught perpetrating voter fraud and since they're getting caught, we don't need to make the laws tighter"? Wow.

more likely the argument means is that since the system is able to prevent voter fraud already making it more difficult to vote doesn't offset with any additional benefits. its like trying to close a closed door.

You DO see the contradiction is (1) Asking us to *prove* voter fraud, and then when we do, dismissing it with (B)..."Well, at least they're getting caught and not succeeding".

to commit voter fraud one must be able to vote successfully, that wasn't done.

Then it must stand to reason that you think convenience stores are conspiring to prevent "poor, black people" from buying beer, too.

the right to vote is a whole lot more precious than beer.

Do you ever see them checking out a book at the library, Jeff? How about taking Amtrak or a Greyhound? Applying for Pell Grants? Applying for financial aid? Enrolling their kids in school?

to check out a book you need a library card, to get that I had to bring in a utility bill to prove that I am a resident, no ID.
Never took the Greyhound bus but I took Amtrak and Metra and never was asked for any ID.
I am a student and applied for financial aid and no ID was ever asked of me.

Poor doesn't mean poor anymore, Elaine.

I know a girl who live in public housing, has 2 girls, and both wear Abercrombie/Hollister/American Eagle clothing. AND both have smart phones. They are constantly taking pictures of themselves and posting it to Facebook.

But yet, THESE are the people that the Dems claim are being inconvenienced when being asked to provide a picture ID to vote.

It's nothing but a crock of @!$%#.

I can tell you that the "poor" people I know don't worry about car insurance because they don't have a car or Iphones or any TV much less cable TV. How's that for enlightenment in your little bubble where everyone who is poor really just wastes their money on trivial things. Tell that to our friend Tim who can't work because of his medical condition he doesn't have a photo ID because 1.) He doesn't own a vehicle 2.) Can't really roll himself all the way to the DMV to pick up an ID card given he's stuck in his bed. I'm sure he would trade places with one of your "poor" any day. Stop watching Fox where they act as if having a refrigerator and A/C is "living the good life".

How is your poverty stricken "friend" getting benefits for medical care without having ever supplied proof of identification via photo ID?

I know a girl who live in public housing, has 2 girls, and both wear Abercrombie/Hollister/American Eagle clothing. AND both have smart phones. They are constantly taking pictures of themselves and posting it to Facebook.

anecdotal evidence is quite funny. reagan new of that woman who abusd the system, except no one ever could find her.

How is your poverty stricken "friend" getting benefits for medical care without having ever supplied proof of identification via photo ID?

emergency rooms require no ID.

How is your poverty stricken "friend" getting benefits for medical care without having ever supplied proof of identification via photo ID?

emergency rooms require no ID.

Thanks for taking care of the light work.

Sounds bitter and envious to hate an entire tv network. It would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous.

How is telling you about what really poor people have deal with showing bitterness or envy?

Yes you nailed it. I'm bitter and envious that Fox has brainwashed you all into thinking poor people can all just crawl out of the gutter if they just did without power, heat and healthcare, you know "luxury"./s

Wake up! You realize there are multiple levels of poverty. You have poverty where they'll miss bills to pay for cell phones and there is poverty where they don't know where their next meal will come from.

Do you ever see them checking out a book at the library, Jeff? How about taking Amtrak or a Greyhound? Applying for Pell Grants? Applying for financial aid? Enrolling their kids in school?

Yeah you must have missed the "bed ridden" part.

Good thing people can get a FREE ID then, eh?

I am against voter fraud irregardless of which party benefits from the fraud. However, it has become a Republican brainless talking point that there was a huge Black Panther, ACORN, Obama conspiracy to register people that were ineligible to vote and because of that McCain/Palin lost in 2008. That was a desperate excuse to bypass the reality that McCain/Palin LOST the election by a substantial margin. Without accepting that this was a defeat, Republicans could then rationalize that they could keep going in the same direction.

BACKWARDS.

Then we got Teapublican victories in 2010 based on a 37 to 41 percent (eligible) voter turnout. NOT A MANDATE, but winning nevertheless with as little as 19 to 21 percent of the vote of all eligible voters.

Then we get cases like this:

93-Year-Old Tennessee Woman Who Cleaned State Capitol For 30 Years Denied Voter ID
A 93-year-old Tennessee woman who cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years, including the governor’s office, says she won’t be able to vote for the first time in decades after being told this week that her old state ID failed to meet new voter ID regulations.

Thelma Mitchell was even accused of being an undocumented immigrant because she couldn’t produce a birth certificate:

Mitchell, who was delivered by a midwife in Alabama in 1918, has never had a birth certificate. Butwhen she told that to a drivers’ license clerk, he suggested she might be an illegal immigrant.

Thelma Mitchell told WSMV-TV that she went to a state drivers’ license center last week after being told that her old state ID from her cleaning job would not meet new regulations for voter identification.

Most 93 year olds would not be in any shape to self advocate their way back into eligibility. THAT is a crime against Americans.

Republicans are specifically targetting Black Americans and Hispanic Americans, who invariably vote overwhelmingly Democrat. And we are talking about eligible voters, not illegal immigrants!!! Carl Rove was caught during the Bush years trying to establish extra requirements of Americans with Hispanic last names for voting eligibility. That was a throw back to caging lists during the Jim Crow era in the deep south. More recently, Rick Perry was busted in court for trying to redistrict Texas to minimize the impact of Hispanic American voters.

Then on top of all of the new efforts to win by weaselly new voter ID laws specifically aimed at ethnic minorities we have the return of the same old, same old Diebold voting machines issue after it has been proven once again that they can be hacked.

emergency rooms require no ID.

According to Jeff, his friend is chronically ill. Bedridden and wheelchair bound. That sounds like more than just emergency room visits to me. That sounds like regular care from a Dr. Not to mention, a lot of prescription medication. How does a person who has no money to pay a Dr, is chronically ill to the point they can't work and is likely on a multitude of prescriptions manage to apply for the financial aid and get the scripts without photo ID?

Incidentally...do you find his anecdotal evidence *funny*, too?

That sounds like regular care from a Dr. Not to mention, a lot of prescription medication.

I do know Jeff? no Do I argue for Jeff? No what I can tell you that doctors haven't asked me for ID nor have pharmacists.

Oh my God, do you mean that there is a possiblility that somehow, someone has managed living without photo ID? How could that be?

You do know there are these things called free clinics, pro bono work and charities right? Or do you think they'll need an ID to recieve charity?

The mainstream media "suppresses" many incidents,

Show your math. Or did you just get that little tidbit from FAUX?

but if you search other medias, you will find shocking occurences

While spit-spraying RWNJ blogs and conspiracy theory sites msy be considered "media," they do not constitute reliable sources.

You do know there are these things called free clinics

Hmmm. Lets see here. So you're telling me that this guy is so chronically ill that he can't work and is completely bed-ridden...so much so that he can't make it to the DMV for a photo ID, yet he CAN make it to a free clinic and that free clinic is so advanced in their medical care that they don't need to refer this bedridden, chronically ill friend of yours to any specialists and his 'condition' is somethig a free clinic, general practitioner can handle.

I'm trying to think of ANY medical condition that would leave someone bedridden, yet doesn't need a specialist.

So you're telling me that this guy is so chronically ill that he can't work and is completely bed-ridden...so much so that he can't make it to the DMV for a photo ID, yet he CAN make it to a free clinic and that free clinic is so advanced in their medical care that they don't need to refer this bedridden, chronically ill friend of yours to any specialists and his 'condition' is somethig a free clinic, general practitioner can handle.

Hmm let's see he can make it in to a free clinic but can't seem to make it to the DMV. Maybe because him going to the free clinic is to stay healthy versus going to the DMV to vote.

Also I never said he was terminally ill. I said he had a medical condition...unless being a quadriplegic is terminal illness. I'm sure you'll say he should be able to jump in his free telepathically controlled wheelchair and zip down to the DMV no problem.

His disability isn't the topic. It's that there are people out there that don't have the ability or the money to get a photo ID. But by all means let's try to pick apart the facts about my friend's health, because that furthers our discussion so much.

Here is some voter fraud;

"Barack Obama and Acorn."

http://theobamafile.com/obamaacorn.htm

To say Holder is not attempting to skew the votes by allowing Dead Voters to go unchecked is incorrect. He is attempting to shut down any attempts at stopping voter fraud in all states.

he can't make it to the DMV for a photo ID

you made several points and i explained why they are wrong. what exactly are you arguing now about?

voter fraud does not happen in any significant manner. by making any more strict rules will simply start making it more difficult to vote.

JEFFINVA

Also I never said he was terminally ill. I said he had a medical condition...unless being a quadriplegic is terminal illness. I'm sure you'll say he should be able to jump in his free telepathically controlled wheelchair and zip down to the DMV no problem.

And here is where your argument falls apart (nice Strawman tho, I must say). He is able to jump into his "free telepathically controlled wheelchair and zip down to vote, no problem," but he cannot just ONCE make arrangement with a "Friend" as you call yourself, to have one of you assist him to get a photo ID or use the same "free telepathically controlled wheelchair and zip down to the DMV."

In my state, someone like your "friend" can contact DHHS and a DHHS Employee will come to his place of Residence with a portable photo ID Device and make him one without him ever having to leave his home. All he as to do is call DHHS and Request One as he is undoubtedly in their system since he uses their services. All he has to do is ask and it will be provided at no cost to him and on his schedule.

infrared-

That's what I've been saying all along.

Plus you haven't made my points wrong, you backed me up. Read much?

Study after study after study after study has shown that taken as a whole, the instances of voter fraud are almost non-existent. In fact, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than to actually come across voter fraud. Read this study by The Brennan Institute for Justice at NYU.

Why don't you concentrate your efforts on an actual problem like the gerrymandering of districts that makes 70% of seats in the senate and house safe seats for both parties. Making it almost impossible for real change through the ballot box. That is a problem worthy of attention by all. Not these voter ID initiatives which are nothing more than a solution looking for a problem.

Yes Chris. IN YOUR STATE.

Plus considering he has trouble doing just about anything I don't think he gives a rat's a$$ about voting, I was just showing that it's possible for somone to not have access to an ID.

Jesus you guys grab something and drag it along don't ya?

Why not do both?

JEFFINVA,

Jesus you guys grab something and drag it along don't ya?

They aren't interested in rational debate. I'm actually pretty sure that anytime someone points out how wrong they are, they stick their fingers in their ears and chant La-La-La-La as loud as they can so as not to hear it. That way they can deny there is another side to the argument.

Tell me about it.

They would much rather drag my story of a handicapped friend through the ringer and try to pick it apart (as if I live with him and know how he manages to get everything he needs)then accept the fact that there are reasons stricter voting laws would hurt people who want to vote.

Hmm let's see he can make it in to a free clinic but can't seem to make it to the DMV. Maybe because him going to the free clinic is to stay healthy versus going to the DMV to vote.

If he doesn't want to vote, then why did you bring him up as an example?

Also I never said he was terminally ill.

Neither did I. I said "chronically ill".

I said he had a medical condition...unless being a quadriplegic is terminal illness.

WOW! You have a free clinic that can treat quadriplegics with no specialists! That's amazing!

His disability isn't the topic.

Then why did you use him as a basis of your argument? And now...suddenly...you want to divert attention AWAY from your own argument after it's been pointed out that your anecdotal story has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

It's that there are people out there that don't have the ability or the money to get a photo ID.

So they don't enroll their kids in school? They don't check out books from the library? They are too poor to get a photo ID to vote, but can manage to get on state or federal assistance which has the same ID requirements? They never cash a check?

Why is the GOP arguing that the one thing that needs more regulation is voting?

And not surprisingly in the old "Jim Crow" states.

The time to see if a person can legally vote is when they register to vote.

Innocent legal voters being tossed off voter rolls is a much more bigger problem, which will only increase after adding more voter regulation.

Wonder why the conservatives don't seem to be worried about that?

In my mind the whole issue can be seen as, The cure being worse than the disease.

The disease (voter fraud) - so minimal that it couldn't change the out-come of an election, - compared to -

The cure (voter ID) - that will disenfranchise enough legal voters to have an effect on the out-come of elections.

WOW! You have a free clinic that can treat quadriplegics with no specialists! That's amazing!

You do too...if you served. It's called Walter Reed. I didn't say he lost his arms and legs yesterday. And after the amputation and healing what does a quadriplegic need a specialist for? Physical therapy?

You know what I'm tired of this crap. Believe me or not I could care less.

Stricter voting laws are just the GOP's way of trying to get an advantage in the next election, minorities don't vote Republican and that's why the GOP are pressing the issue. If they all voted Republican you guys would offer to drive them to the polling station, ID or not.

Pat N do not cherry pick arguments.

Pat N, it's almost like you are deliberately being obtuse. At least I hope it's deliberate for your sake.

minorities don't vote Republican

Goddamn, that's one of the BIGGEST lies I've seen posted here!

Not ONE SINGLE minority person has ever voted Republican, in this entire country? Really, Jeff?

Sounds like a Liberal thing. They just can't get it through their heads why "Minorities vote for Republicans". Liberals have done soooo much to help them. Stay down that is. :)

Just ask a Liberal politician come election time. "We feel your pain" over, and over, and over, and over again, decade after decade.

Funny how Liberals keep feeling their pain. They just don't know how to fix it. :D

JEFFINVA

Jesus you guys grab something and drag it along don't ya?

They are your words and your example. You are the one that created the straw man and then whine when someone burns it down. Get a grip, kid.

Stricter voting laws are just the GOP's way of trying to get an advantage in the next election, minorities don't vote Republican and that's why the GOP are pressing the issue. If they all voted Republican you guys would offer to drive them to the polling station, ID or not.

Ah, when all else fails, throw the Race Card. I hate to break it to you, but I'm not "white" and I take personal affront when someone like you cries and whines "It's not Fair, your are just doing this because you don't like [insert the race you of your choice here]. If you go to the bank, go to the welfare office to get a benefits card, go to DHHS for assistance, or damned near anything else, you need a picture ID. Hell, my 88 year old step-father has a picture ID, now how hard is that?

But, likewise, are you willing to let a convicted felon vote just because he has no ID? When he committed that level of crime, he gave up his right to vote. It is called "Felony disenfranchisement" and has been upheld as constitutional by the supreme court on many occasions (see Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974)). But, in your mind, it is OK for this person to cast a vote because they don't have an ID and can call themselves anything they please to get registered; is that it?

You constantly bitch about how you want the US to be like Europe. Have you ever been to Europe? EVERYONE has a Picture ID and can be Arrested for not having one. But, to you and yours, the European Model is the Only One that can be used in a civilized world. If that logic holds true, then there isn't a voting issue at all, because EVERYONE will have an ID under penalty of law.

Jeff -

You do too...if you served. It's called Walter Reed.

Ummm...Walter Reed isn't a free clinic. It's a VA facility. My how the story keeps changing. And for a VA facility, you do indeed, need photo ID.

I didn't say he lost his arms and legs yesterday.

You didn't say he lost arms or legs at all. You said he was a quadriplegic. Story changing again? Now he's an amputee? Just how well do you know this "friend"?

what does a quadriplegic need a specialist for?

Did you seriously just ask this question? Quadriplegics have that condition usually due to severe spinal cord or brain injury.

Stricter voting laws are just the GOP's way of trying to get an advantage in the next election, minorities don't vote Republican and that's why the GOP are pressing the issue.

So it's your contention that all poor people are minorities? Hmm. That sounds a little *racist*. First your argument was poverty. Then health. Now it's minorities. Make up your mind.

Ditto -

Pat N, it's almost like you are deliberately being obtuse. At least I hope it's deliberate for your sake.

Nope. I just happen to be someone who has a duel disability and I call out BS when I see it.

greg-709692,

tell me you're not offering up the GOP as the protector of minority rights. That would be laughable if I thought you didn't believe what you were saying. As it stands now, it's more sad than humorous.

Brava Pat N!!!!

Keep slaying 'em with truth and logic!

Pat N, your disability aside, I am sure you must have a medical degree to compliment your clairvoyance.

Nope. I just happen to be someone who has a duel disability and I call out BS when I see it.

no you are getting off topic.

Keep slaying 'em with truth and logic!

what? i countered pretty much every single point Pat brought up. now Pat is just ignoring and picking petty arguments.

Like my knowledge of disabilities, sorry I forgot on rightie threads you have to look everything up first to fact check and then add links and proof of existence of of anybody you mention.

I am sure you must have a medical degree to compliment your clairvoyance.

It doesn't take a clairvoant to know the difference between an amputee and a quadriplegic. It doesn't take a clairvoyant to know that Walter Reed isn't a free clinic or a charity. It doesn't take a clairvoyant to know that quadriplegics see specialists. It doesn't take a clairvoyant to know that if someone can make it to a VA hospital, they can make it to the DMV. It doesn't take a clairvoyant to know that VA hospitals require photo ID's.

The poster put up an example that was shot down. Blasted down, in fact. If he wants to admit his strawman and anecdotal story was a weak one and cite bonafide proof that voter ID laws have disenfranchised ANYONE...I'm willing to debate it.

Here ya go Pat N

https://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=republicans+indited+for+voter+fraud&oq=republicans+indited+for+voter+fraud&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=61l12186l0l12810l34l34l0l20l3l0l350l3592l0.4.4.6l14l0#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=republicans+convicted+of+voter+fraud&pbx=1&oq=republicans+convicted+of+voter+fraud&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=903671l910834l0l911269l24l24l0l0l0l0l525l5612l0.5.10.4.1.1l24l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=86d17c3ff7210107&biw=963&bih=507

Don -

Thanks for bolstering the case IN FAVOR of having photo voter ID laws.

Thanks for bolstering the case IN FAVOR of having photo voter ID laws.

lol, that's funny. does the opposite if you actually read. some stories are about schemes suppressing the vote through the exact same voter id rules, others are about things that happened that were internal.

It's funny reading all the bull @!$%# about how having to show an ID to vote can hurt the poor get there right to vote. Florida requires you to show ID and I didn't hear anyone here complaining about not being able to vote if they wanted to. The only reason someone would even care about showing an ID is they have something to hide or are trying to pull something over the system for their own benefit.

And to say we don't have a problem with voter fraud makes no sense ,since we have had cases of it over the years.

Alright let's put my "big hoax" to bed. I have a friend named Tim. Tim has no arms or legs (sorry for thinking that is quadriplegic, disability dictionary). Tim lost his arms and legs while fighting in Iraq (Desert Storm). He was treated at Walter Reed. Tim is what most would consider poor. Tim votes currently (don't ask me how, I'm guessing a mail in ballot). Tim doesn't have an ID (said since he rarely leaves his house he doesn't need one) (BTW ID cards in Virginia cost $10). Now with his situation how would making him figure a way out to get to and from the DMV just to get an ID card to vote not disenfranchise him from voting? Sorry if I don't know every nook and cranny of Tim's medical records or how he recieves treatment and where, but like I said I'm his friend, not his physician. Now go debunk something else.

Actually, investigations of supposed instances of "dead people" voting have shown virtually no instances where that has been true. RATHER, what has been found is that either, on election day, the person was alive and voted, but died shortly thereafter, or the person voted early via early voting or absentee ballot, and died shortly thereafter (and the complaining individual only noticed that the person was dead, but didn't bother to check to see when that person died).

JEFFINVA

Tim was an active U.S. soldier in IRAQ, was a patient at Walter Reed, but doesn't have a valid ID to allow him to pass the voting ID requirement of proving his identity? Rich or Poor, abled or disabled has nothing to do with him not passing the requirement to prove his identity to vote. He obviously has had a valid ID to enlist in the military, and register to vote in the first place, now just how would asking for valid Identification from him deter him from voting.

If the lefties are going to persist with their insistence that dead people vote, the nation should insist they drag their carcasses to the polls.

I would like to see people like Pat N, robynlewisTX., Elaine-1503791 and others try to rationalize the fact that like IFeelSoCheapAndDirty has indicated that when O'Keefe tried to "prove" that dead people were registered to vote that the supposedly "dead" voter was still very much alive...

Well since he currently doesn't have an ID (hell it might of expired, I don't know why) getting a man with no legs or arms to go down to the DMV, provide all proper documentation and fill out forms to get an ID solely for the purpose of voting seems to be a quite a hastle. Especially considering that he currently doesn't have to do any of that to vote. Also it has to be valid so it's not like he can flash his old military ID card.

I would like to see people like Pat N, robynlewisTX., Elaine-1503791 and others try to rationalize the fact that likeIFeelSoCheapAndDirty has indicated that when O'Keefe tried to "prove" that dead people were registered to vote that the supposedly "dead" voter was still very much alive...

Good luck with that.

I lived in Miami from 1996 through 1999. In November 1997, Xavier Suarez (Democrat) was elected Mayor by a little over 1000 votes, but in March 1998, it was ruled that there would be new elections and Joe Carollo (Republican) would hold office until the new elections (He won the new election).

It turned out that there was widespread voter fraud going on in Miami. In checking the Absentee ballots alone, over 50% of them had been sent in by residents of the Woodland Park, Lincoln Memorial, and Funeraria Memorial "Subdivisions" (Miami Cemeteries). On further investigation, 0ver 200 "deceased residents" of Miami had actually come into the polling offices in Suarez's home district and cast votes during the election. Some had been doing so since 1988 and had never missed an election since their interment.

Suarez was a republican (not a Democrat) running as an independent in that election.

Beside the point, surly.

I don't want fraudulent votes cast for Democrats or Republicans.

IFeelSoCheapAndDirty and SuperSaiyan,

Actually, investigations of supposed instances of "dead people" voting have shown virtually no instances where that has been true.

Perhaps you would like to look at the Board of Elections investigation for the City of Miami in the 1997 Mayoral Race between Xavier Suarez (Democrat) and Joe Carollo (Republican). It is a matter of Public Record. 20 election officials were accused of malfeasance, I seem to remember that either 4 or 6 were indited but I had moved from Miami by the time it went to the Grand Jury and Trial. Does that count to be a case of "Voter Impersonation Fraud"?

But, please tell me how much voter fraud constitutes "minimal"; one vote, 10 votes, 100 votes? In Durham County this year, an incumbent won the election by just 6 votes. That is under review because that same incumbent collected, witnessed, and delivered to the elections office over 100 Absentee ballots (a blatant violation of state election laws. this person will probably be removed from office because of their actions. But, what if it had been because of voter fraud at the ballot box and it was only 10 votes?

Would you be willing to give an election to Newt Gingrich by 6 votes without a challenge? I think not. Without a picture ID prior to voting, how would you know? With a Picture ID, how would it be challenged?

I would like to see people like Pat N, robynlewisTX., Elaine-1503791 and others try to rationalize the fact that likeIFeelSoCheapAndDirty has indicated that when O'Keefe tried to "prove" that dead people were registered to vote that the supposedly "dead" voter was still very much alive...

I wasn't specifically referring to O'Keefe and his cohorts criminally conspiring to commit felonies. HOWEVER, I would add that at least one supposed "dead person", who O'Keefe's cohort criminally pretended to be, was someone who actually was ALIVE.

I was referring to investigations into allegations of dead people voting, which have found virtually no instances of "dead people" voting, but rather found that, in almost all cases, the voter properly cast a legal vote and then died shortly thereafter or there was a clerical error that mistakenly appeared to show that a "dead person" voted when such a thing did not actually occur, or there was a false assumption of "dead people" voting made by the individual alleging that "dead people" voted.

The Brennan Center for Justice details the false claims of "dead people" voting and "voter fraud" in general here:

www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

Reading the posts from some of those "values" people on the right (especially PatN about the quadriplegic) I wonder how they can look themselves in the mirror. The posts are so full of malignity and show a total lack of understanding for someone in that position.

PatN, do you believe in Jesus? I'll bet he would want that lazy quad to get his ass down the DMV so republicans can solve a problem that DOESN'T EXIST. sarc/

IFeelSoCheapAndDirty

Suarez was a republican (not a Democrat) running as an independent in that election.

And where did you find that one? Joe Carollo is a Republican (I knew him personally from his work with Toys for Tots). Suarez was supported by the Democratic Machine when we were there. He may have claimed to be an Independent, but he always sided with the democrats on everything. I have never seen Suarez ever associated with the Republicans.

@Chris-382117 -

Perhaps you would like to look at the Board of Elections investigation for the City of Miami in the 1997 Mayoral Race between Xavier Suarez (Democrat) and Joe Carollo (Republican).

AGAIN, Suarez was a republican (not a Democrat) running as an independent in that election.

Further, the point is that photo ID is NOT necessary in order to stop the minimal instances (almost non-existent instances) of "dead people" voting. ACTUALLY a photo ID requirement would NOT have stopped the "dead people" voting in Florida in 1998, since those votes related to absentee ballots, rather than in-person voting.

All of this "voter fraud" nonsense and photo ID requirement legislation is just a way for republicans to try to suppress voter turnout by groups of voters (e.g., students, minority voters, poor people, etc.) who are much more likely to vote for Democrats.

IFeelSoCheapAndDirty

AGAIN, Suarez was a republican (not a Democrat) running as an independent in that election.

Show me where you found that one , Slick! Joe Carollio IS a Republican; show me where Suarez registered as one, if you can.

Further, the point is that photo ID is NOT necessary in order to stop the minimal instances (almost non-existent instances) of "dead people" voting. ACTUALLY a photo ID requirement would NOT have stopped the "dead people" voting in Florida in 1998, since those votes related to absentee ballots, rather than in-person voting.

Read the WHOLE report from the State Election Commission and not just the headline from the Miami Herald. There were representatives of the Election Board that were indited and some 200 votes spread across several precinct offices in southeast Miami that were "suspected of being cast by fraudulent means under the names of deceased individuals." But what does it matter, "The Brennan Center for Justice" didn't acknowledge it so it obviously didn't exist. If you and yours didn't see it, it must not have happened.

But you still didn't answer the question; how much voter fraud constitutes "minimal"; one vote, 10 votes, 100 votes? As in Durham County, is 10 enough to qualify as voter fraud, but not 5? Or does it only count as fraud if your candidate lost? If your Candidate wins, it must be completely true and correct. You Democrats would NEVER do something like that! Does Tammany Hall ring any bells? How about Daley's Chicago?

In the Miami Beach mayoral race three years ago, incumbent Joe Carollo, a Republican, won 51 percent of the votes cast at polling places. His challenger, ex-mayor Xavier Suarez, who ran as an independent, won 61 percent of the absentees, forcing the contest into a runoff that Suarez won with a large number of absentee ballots.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,87787,00.html

It seems Carollo would have had the election locked up with 51 percent of the vote if Suarez, an independent, had not produced a last-minute flurry of absentee ballots, forcing a runoff.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n10_v14/ai_20391681/

While the mayoralty is officially nonpartisan, recent Cuban mayors have had strong Republican inclinations (Xavier Suarez was a registered independent, but his politics were Republican).

http://books.google.com/books?id=voGMo2WAjksC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=xavier+suarez+republican+running+independent+miami+mayor+1997&source=bl&ots=wApQajWOF2&sig=LvW_x-2erRujBqJamA_Sssjqwq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2-IVT4qRCMrjiAL1qJXFDQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=xavier%20suarez%20republican%20running%20independent%20miami%20mayor%201997&f=false

Also see:

One is ex-Miami Mayor Xavier Suárez, whose slim 1997 electoral win was overturned in court when it was found that his staff, among other fraudulent acts, had tampered with absentee ballots—as many as 4,740, a civil suit later found. Although Suárez' buddy, city commissioner Humberto Hernández, and thirteen other campaign workers and city officials went to jail for this, Suárez himself escaped indictment. Today, he sits on the executive committee of the Miami-Dade Republican Party.

http://www.thegully.com/essays/america/001113absentee_ballots.html

But you still didn't answer the question; how much voter fraud constitutes "minimal"; one vote, 10 votes, 100 votes? As in Durham County, is 10 enough to qualify as voter fraud, but not 5? Or does it only count as fraud if your candidate lost?

"Minimal" is relative to the overall number of votes.

As the Brennan Center for Justice found, in Ohio, a statewide survey found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004 out of 9,078,728 votes cast - a rate of 0.00004%. That certainly qualifies as minimal.

Further, not only are instances of voter fraud minimal, these voter-suppression photo ID laws wouldn't even prevent the types of voter fraud that do occur.

Basically it's republicans wanting to cut off a person's right arm because the person got a scratch on the pinky of his left hand.

Read the WHOLE report from the State Election Commission and not just the headline from the Miami Herald. There were representatives of the Election Board that were indited and some 200 votes spread across several precinct offices in southeast Miami that were "suspected of being cast by fraudulent means under the names of deceased individuals." But what does it matter, "The Brennan Center for Justice" didn't acknowledge it so it obviously didn't exist. If you and yours didn't see it, it must not have happened.

You apparently don't have a strong grasp of the voting process. Those votes supposedly cast in that Miami election were absentee ballots, not in-person votes. A requirement to show a photo ID when voting in person at the polling place would NOT stop an absentee ballot from being cast.

This is rich. Jeff, either you're lying or you just have no clue.

It's called Walter Reed

Been closed since August. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed_Army_Medical_Center

If he's a vet and is being treated by the V.A. he has an ID card.

Do you just make up stuff as you go?

He said his friend was INITIALLY treated there - instead of hammering at his example how about you address the POINT? Talk about diverting!

We could take these frantic efforts to purge a crime that statistically is extremely rare and even less rarely successful if some states didn't find so many creative excuses to deny photo ID's. A family Bible instead of a birth certificate? "Sorry, ma'am, you have to go and use that family Bible to get a birth certificate, even if it costs you a lot of time and money and you don't have a car to get you to the appropriate office. Of course, the Bible will be all the proof they need to give you a birth certificate, but that Bible, your stack of gas and electric bills and the other forms of ID you brought in aren't enough for us." I'm sure it's just coincidence that most of the people turned away from the offices that issue photo id are black.

So no, I don't think blacks and poor people are too "stupid" to know how to get photo ID's. I think they're intelligent enough to know when they're getting a run-around.

"Sorry, ma'am, you have to go and use that family Bible to get a birth certificate, even if it costs you a lot of time and money and you don't have a car to get you to the appropriate office."

Oh boo hoo. Our forefathers traveled in covered wagons across prairies, climbed mountains and crossed river to settle this country. Today people don't have the grit to get in a motor vehicle and drive on a paved road to reach the appropriate ID office. A trip any kid would hop on his bicycle and peddle to with no complaint.

Funny how you completely ignored Philboo's question, resorting instead once again to playing the poor me victim/race card.

Disgustingly old and worn out to say the least.

I got a library card last week, and did need photo ID.

Oh, the horror...

I require ID for my shop to work on your car.

Have to make sure the person signing the waiver is who they say they are.

Copy the numbers onto the work order.

The VIN numbers from the car are on it too.

And then I require it for checks, debit cards, and credit cards as well.

Oh the horror. Even the "poor" have to show ID.

What should receive a greater degree of scrutiny:

• Voting
• Getting a library card

I really don't understand the left thinking the latter requires a higher level of security.

Strawman argument, as if people on the left/Democrats are really saying its OK to have ineligible voters voting. Not the case. I previously presented the case of a 93 year old AMERICAN worker that was being declared ineligible to vote for the first time in her life and told by a DMV employee that she must be an illegal immigrant (see reply above). Most 93 year olds will not have the capability of self advocating for themselves to re register in these cases. Should I say most people on the right would have no problem with that?

This issue is not to be spun away so easily. Carl Rove was caught trying to establish caging lists, which are ILLEGAL. Rick Perry was caught redistricting Texas to minimize the impact of Hispanic AMERICAN voters on elections (since they vote overwhelmingly Democrat). That's called CHEATING on America and Americans.

all they wanted from me was a deposit to fix my car. Didn't even ask for ID when I gave them a master card. It wasn't for just a "few" $$ either - try 3500

Different things required different amounts of id.

I got a library card last week, needed a photo id.

To be honest, it seems a little redundant to have a library card for my city and one for my county, but that's government for you.

I got a library card last week, needed a photo id.

i too got a library card and all i needed was to show one of my pieces of mail.

Different states different rules I guess.

My county librarian said "We need a photo ID."

Can't remember what the city library asked for, its been a few decades.

tyler, fyi I'm white. So I'm not claiming to be any sort of a victim. The woman in her 90's who had voted in every election of her adult life, however, and was turned away from the office issuing photo ID's because she presented several forms of identification including a family Bible, was certainly treated poorly. And someone who doesn't own a car and is probably too old to get a driver's license needs a lot more than "grit" to go on a paper chase from one bureaucrat's office to another while they dream up ways to stonewall her from exercising her rights as a citizen. Don't tell me it's a coincidence that most of the people being turned away when they request photo ID's are black.

I got a library card last week, needed a photo id.

Sorry, but you DO NOT need a photo ID in order to get a library card. While providing a photo ID is one form of acceptable ID that you can present to get a library card, other forms of ID are acceptable as well (e.g., a piece of mail with recent postmark, a current lease, a checkbook with your name and address, a school schedule or report card with your name and address, etc.).

FURTHER, there is a HUGE difference between voting and library cards. The right to vote is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT guaranteed under the US Constitution. In contrast, the right to have a library card is only a privilege.

So the librarian lied to me? She said I did.

And the library web site says:

You will receive a permanent card when you visit any Pierce County Library. Bring photo ID and proof of address to check out books, CDs and other materials from the library. Other benefits of a permanent card include:

The right to a firearm is a fundamental right guaranteed under the US Constitution. Therefore, I should not be required to have to go through a background check, be fingerprinted, and carry my permit with me when I am armed, right?

Sorry, ma'am, you have to go and use that family Bible to get a birth certificate, even if it costs you a lot of time and money and you don't have a car to get you to the appropriate office."

Here something for the Democrats to ponder, when you are out trying to buy votes why don't you set it up to have an official of the state give them a photo ID. Now they can vote and do all those other things you need IDs for? Now was that so bad but in reality you don't want them to have ID do you?

Just remember you just have to drag the dead one (but use fresh ones)and sit them in a chair and hold on to them until the photo is taken. Or just hire the local drunk to take all the photos and put different names on them. I'm sure in Chicago the locals wouldn't say anything about the same picture on all the cards. They are used to it.

STOP IT (Yes, I am yelling) with the library card nonsense. Getting a library card in your locality where every locality has different rules has NOTHING to do with the Constitutionally protected right to vote in National Elections which should have just one set of rules nationwide. All the evidence points to almost nonexistent fraud in actual votes cast, some very small amount of fraud in voter registration, and a very racist effect in voter id requirements. What my township does with library cards affects my interest as a local taxpayer and that of my neighbors. Disenfranchising fellow Americans affects ALL of us.

The right to a firearm is a fundamental right guaranteed under the US Constitution. Therefore, I should not be required to have to go through a background check, be fingerprinted, and carry my permit with me when I am armed, right?

There is a HUGE difference between the right to bear arms and the right to vote. There is a significant risk of someone being killed by a gun in the wrong hands. The government has a compelling government interest in trying to ensure that guns don't end up in the hands of felons, mentally disabled people, or others who should not have a gun. A background check and permit process is an appropriate and narrowly tailored means of regulating guns in furtherance of the compelling government interest without unduly infringing on a person's right to bear arms.

So the librarian lied to me? She said I did.

And the library web site says:

You will receive a permanent card when you visit any Pierce County Library. Bring photo ID and proof of address to check out books, CDs and other materials from the library. Other benefits of a permanent card include:

AND with a quick call to the Pierce County Library, I was able to find out that, if you don't have a photo ID, you can bring in a recently postmarked letter with your name and address on it, or a recent utility bill showing your name and address on it, among other forms of non-photo identification they will accept.

AGAIN, as has already been pointed out many times, this is all a moot point, because the right to vote is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT guaranteed under the US Constitution, and getting a library card is a privilege.

oops.

That damned false outrage...

Always causing folks to jump to conclusions and make up "facts" (HINT: that's called "lying")

Yes, and yet poor people can't afford a free ID...

ignorance at it's best....

Nothing ignorant about validating the identity of someone casting a ballot.

Ignorance would be denying the fact that a problem exists.

GREAT seed Elaine!! Holder is nothing but Obama's head thug and the guy needs to be prosecuted for F&F.

I don't show id when i vote and yes i vote in every election, and the New Jersey has some of the toughest ID requirements to get an ID. I even have a passport, and served in the military so the FBI has my finger prints.

I have never had to so ID.

It ain't going to happen. So stay in Fantasy Island

Yes, and yet poor people can't afford a free ID...

And how much does it cost to replace a birth cert. or a marriage lic. thats of course if those doc's are still available.

Birth cert. florida $9.

"And how much does it cost to replace a birth cert. or a marriage lic. thats of course if those doc's are still available."

When NJ made photo ID mandatory for a driver's license, I had to get a copy of my marriage certificate. The cost was $6.00. When I recently purchased additional certified copies (raised seal) of my children's birth certificates, the cost was around $10.00 for each copy.

If a poor person (of any race) can afford fancy phones, cable TV service, Air Jordans, and game systems, they can certainly afford a one-time reasonable charge for a photo ID. Said photo ID does not have to be a passport or driver's license.

I don't hear anyone, of any race, shouting racism and/or profiling when it comes to registering a child for school. Again, the parent/guardian must provide photo ID (and other documents) as verification that they live in that district and are entitled to attend school in that district. Why should proof of US citizenship for voting be any different? Both education and voting are RIGHTS.

To those who say that voter fraud is non-existent to minimal, take a look at additional proof that contradicts your claims. I deliberately chose CNN for both, even though Fox offers the same information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkUKOSnv2zY

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-22/politics/voter.fraud_1_voter-registration-acorn-workers-number-of-swing-states?_s=PM:POLITICS

Voter fraud and election fraud. I can't forgive and forget the problem in the deep South of Democrat votes getting "lost" or counted as Republican. My issue isn't about only eligible voters voting, its CHEATING on the election system.

hate to burst your bubble phil, but state issued Id is NOT free. There is a cost (minimal, but there is a cost - just like a DRIVER'S LICENSE)

As I understand it, all states that require a photo ID also have a means of getting a free ID, in order to pass constitutional scrutiny.

Which I tend to agree with. Though to be honest, if I were writing a new constitution, as a check on government growth, I might put in some sort of "You must pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits in order to vote" but too late for that now.

well, that would certainly leave GE out in the cold... /s

As I understand it, all states that require a photo ID also have a means of getting a free ID, in order to pass constitutional scrutiny.

nope, no free IDs

For what state are your referring to infrared?

Illinois, New York, California, Washington, Indiana, Wisconsin

I think Wisconsin and Indiania are the only states you mention that will require a photo id to vote.  According to dmv web sites of those two states free id's are available.

"www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections-campaigns/voter-id-state-requirements.aspx

I'm pretty certain any state that requires photo ID to vote is also required to supply free ID's.

and that's not a bad idea - eliminates "zombie" votes for sure.

Do any voters remember when registering that you had to show proof when registering? So now you want it again when it time to Vote.

In other states you have to prove your a citizen when asked.

next thing you know states will state putting up check points on the roads demanding to see papers as to why your traveling through that state..... It all sounds very police state to me.

bse1963 - Welcome to Arizona ! Your papers please.

Foy-49

Only been to Arizone once, when i walked across the top of Hover Dam and not looking for a return trip anytime soon with the laws that they have passed. Also some states in the south also.

I wonder if the people screaming about the very rare instances of vote fraud are as concerned about verifying the accuracy of Diebold touch-screen machines?

I am. I even mentioned it above.

Yes, and yet poor people can't afford a free ID...

Get Hi tonight or get an ID? HI or ID, Hi or ID? Sorry ID looses!

Good deal. No loss.

Get Hi tonight or get an ID? HI or ID, Hi or ID? Sorry ID looses!

Apparently, so does literacy.

Apparently, so does literacy.

Apparently , a lefty running out of an augment?

Philboo,

if I were writing a new constitution, as a check on government growth, I might put in some sort of "You must pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits in order to vote"

You do realize that a rule like that would keep many Red States from participating at all, don't you?

There are a whole lot of Red States that Receive more in Federal Funds than they Pay in Federal Taxes.

If this would shut down those Hypocritical Red Welfare States, I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment that says that a State can't receive more Federal Funds than they pay in Federal Taxes.

Also I think that the it would be a good idea to tie the number of Electoral College Votes to the number of Registered Voters in a State rather than just the Population Number. That way any attempt to disenfranchise voters will primarily hurt the State that does it.

As I understand it, all states that require a photo ID also have a means of getting a free ID

If you know just how to ask. For example, there is a $40-some fee in Wisconsin for your free ID, if you don't ask for it free.

Also I think that the it would be a good idea to tie the number of Electoral College Votes to the number of Registered Voters in a State rather than just the Population Number. That way any attempt to disenfranchise voters will primarily hurt the State that does it.

I think that is a capital idea.

Apparently , a lefty running out of an augment?

No, but you keep putting your foot in your mouth. You know, most major browsers now come with built-in spellcheck. If you just accept the default browser on your default system, you won't have one. You do have to put some effort into it.

Maybe all should have free ID's since voting is a right

I hate to break it to you, but in all states that require a photo id to vote, a free id is available.

How about this though. Each state should be required to have exactly the same process for voting and carrying a handgun (as they are both rights).

If a state does not require any thing besides a signature to vote, the people of that state should be allowed to carry a firearm as long as they have a piece of paper with their signature on it.

If a state requires fingerprints and background check and photo id to carry a firearm, than they should require fingerprints, background check, and photo id in order to vote.

And if people are prevented from carrying out their 2nd amendment rights because they cannot afford to, a free firearm shall be supplied by the state. After all, we wouldn't want to disenfranchisethe poor in their 2nd amendment rights.

After all, they are both rights, so why treat them differently?

My state has never required ID to vote. Nor has it been proposed for use in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that Holder's position in S.C. was to ensure the 1965 Voter's Rights Act was fully upheld. If I recall correctly, this law had to be implemented due to discrimination against minorities in some southern states.

If a state requires finderprints and background check and photo id to carry a firearm, than they should require fingerprints, background check, and photo id in order to vote.

I can't say I agree with that statement. No one can be killed by a ballot box, but they sure can be by a weapon. Perhaps I misunderstood?

The point is not whether someone can be killed or not, the point is a right is a right.

If I recall correctly, this law had to be implemented due to discrimination against minorities in some southern states.

How is it "discrimination" if the state is not only offering free photo ID's, but free transportation to go get them?

no one can be killed by a ballot box

Actually, come to think of it, one might say that by LBJ being reelected killed tens of thousands of Americans. So the ballot box can be quite deadly.

But the larger point, is I don't mind reasonable limits (background checks, fingerprints, fee) to get a concealed weapons permit, nor do I mind reasonable limits (photo id, free of charge) to vote.

Philboo,

Ok. Really, I'm kind of on the fence with this idea. No doubt that is because it has never been an issue where I live.

How's the wife feeling? Some of the stress lessening? I'm still wishing for the best! :)

Pat,

Perhaps, you may remember the civil rights movement in the 60's? At that time in our history, discrimination was an issue for many in the south. Some say it is still an issue to this day. As I do not live in that area of the country, I really couldn't say if it is or isn't an ongoing issue.

As to your question, as I previously stated, I'm on the fence with this one. My state does not require ID of any kind. So for me, this is a non-issue. That is why I asked questions on the topic. :)

Thanks for the kind though outragious. Still lots of stress.

But (trying to not be too gross) after six months of oozing puss a hole on her chest closed yesterday.

She was pretty happy about that.

We haven't need ID before so why now.

The problem has escalated and become more rampant in the last few years. That is why, since groups like Acorn and Unions were discovered committing and attempting rampant voter fraud, with many and more convinctions, states began implementing laws before this Holder and Obama adiministration made their presence.

Philboo,

That is great news! Glad to hear she is doing better.. :)

She was pretty happy about it. The day after day grind of cleaning and bandaging was really getting her down.

@ lifeisgood43 (#5) who said, "We haven't need ID before so why now." Your question begs me to answer as follows: You've never read about illegals voting? Illegals registering their children in school using false IDs? Legal citizens registering their children in a particular school because that school offers a "better" education? Dead people voting? Cartoon characters voting?

Ponder the following regarding your "why now" comment:

• We didn't use toothpaste 400 years ago or go for biannual cleanings, so why now?
• We didn't have laws for mandatory educational rights at one time, so why now?
• We didn't have labor laws, so why now?
• We didn't encourage higher education for women 100 years ago, so why now?

I could go on, but I sense it would be futile to do so.

Some say it is still an issue to this day

Where, ? I'm from the south and I have never seen it. But I did see two black panthers who would of been shot if they tried what they did up north here and that would be even if they were white.

And exactly what did these 2 Black Panthers do?

Still rambling about those bad ol' black panthers?

@!$%#ing pathetic strawgrasping...

Funny to see that's all they've got.

57 states!!!

To Terry-2167801 (5.13) who said, "And exactly what did these 2 Black Panthers do?" and Don't you people have jobs? (5.14) who said, "Still rambling about those bad ol' black panthers?" ---- Oh, please .... name ONE ... only ONE ... ethically and morally GOOD thing that the Black Panthers militant organization has provided to better the USA for ALL AMERICANS. Just ONE. Thank you.

The 2008 Black Panthers' menacing tactics at a Philadelphia voting location in 2008 was just one of the latest examples of how "benevolent" these thugs are. In case you've forgotten what they did, here's a reminder:

Black Panthers identifying themselves on camera as "Security" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

Black Panthers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94b78rnWMP4

Just who did they threaten? Very possibly elderly Black, Asian, Hispanic, or Caucasian elderly people. But, I don't suppose you'd ever consider that old people of ANY race or ethnicity might be intimidated by big, uniformed, unsmiling men wielding and thumping sticks in their hands, right?????

Black Panthers, such a "peaceful" but militant organization that encompasses ALL Americans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

http://www.blackpanther.org/MissionStatement.html

Good try. No prize for either of you.

I've seen the video myself.

Please explain in your own words EXACTLY what these 2 Black Panthers did, not possibly did, but actually did.

Any threats? Any violence? Any intimidation (Other than their mere presence.)? Did they question anybody? Did they ask for ID? Did they do anything other than just stand there?

Did anybody turn away and not enter the poll? Did any citizen complain? Did anybody not cast their vote? Did they break any law? Did they cross over the 40' line into the polling zone? I'm curious too, what happened, exactly. BTW they were not the Black Panthers, they were a group called "The New Black Panthers", different group.

And a very small group at that.

You mean those TWO "Black Panthers" with ONE nightstick, that "intimidated" exactly ZERO people?

Please...

Stop.

It makes you look so pathetically desperate. I'm actually a little embarrassed for you...

You mean those TWO "Black Panthers" with ONE nightstick, that "intimidated" exactly ZERO people?

Actually, they intimidated at least 1 black elderly lady which was witnessed by a Civil Rights Attorney. I forget his name, but he was one of those that was at the forefront of Civil Rights when MLK was alive. I saw the interview he gave AFTER the Obama Administration decided to drop the charges.

tomwcraig - #5.21 -

If you believe your post, then I would hope that you will, seriously consider your sources of information. It appears that you may have been misled ?

There was no "interview" as you have described it -

"AFTER the Obama Administration decided to drop the charges"

THE Bush DOJ determined that there were no "serious crimes" committed in the New Black Panther Party incident, at the heavily Democratic precinct polling place, - 11 days before the Obama Inauguration, and 26 days before Eric Holder was appointed.

Links?

oh wait... they don't have factual links to made-up bull@!$%#.

never mind.

Whatever !!!!!!

Free ID's are available in each state that requires a photo id to vote.

Also, photo id as a voting requirement was approved by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote in 2008.

I don't need an ID to buy liquor or cigarettes, I need a driver's license to drive a car not an ID, I don't fly so don't need one there either.....what I do need ID for is medical treatment at the doctor's office.....

ID to buy liquor? Only if you don't look old enough (grey hair and wrinkles - no need). (don't smoke so don't care) The D/L IS ID. I see NO NEED for ID to board a plane (that idiocy came out of 9/11 - why? I don't know - and he plays 3rd base)

no - you don't need ID for medical treatment (I will admit to being rather MIFFED at being asked for ID when I wanted to use a credit card to pay a MEDICAL BILL - in MY name - with a CREDIT CARD IN MY NAME - and sort of insulted the bureaucrat by asking "why I would want to pay my own bill with my own card and NOT be me". She didn't GET IT)

as to voting - I see no reason that ID cannot be required as a state chooses (or not, as the case may be) but that IF they are going to require ID for the indigent they need to have provisions for issuing that ID "free".

Now IF you want to talk about IDIOCY - try Arizona where they want 2 pieces of ID even if you give them a US PASSPORT.

as to voting - I see no reason that ID cannot be required as a state chooses (or not, as the case may be) but that IF they are going to require ID for the indigent they need to have provisions for issuing that ID "free".

I'm fairy certain that is the case. And I agree. Poll taxes with the intent toward keeping someone to vote bad.

On the other hand, a simple multiple choice civics test I might be able to get behind...

nope - can't do the civics test - voting is determined by AGE, not intelligence (and we see numerous rightwingnuts with the brains of a TURNIP voting - of course, there's CHICAGO with people over 120 years old who STILL vote...)

Too bad.

I'd rather have 50% voting turnout with voters who care about the issues enough to inform themselves than 75% turnout with 25% just pulling a R/D lever.

or listen to fuchs news... (rarely is someone informed about the choices they make - for some races, I just go "first" then "second" then "first"...etc. They are, of course, the "local" ones that don't make a lot of difference to ME. I NEVER vote a "party ticket" - NEVER EVER)

Free ID's are available in each state that requires a photo id to vote.

that's not true,, neither Kansas nor tennessee has a provision in the new laws for free ID's... that I can find...

that's not true,, neither Kansas nor tennessee has a provision in the new laws for free ID's... that I can find...

Hmmm. Kansas only took me 60 seconds to find.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576333650886790480.html

But just in case any person lacks a photo ID, Kansas's law provides a free state ID to anyone who needs one. Other states have included similar provisions in their photo-ID laws.

And golly gosh gee whiz! Lookie here! Only another 60 seconds to find TN's free ID info!

http://www.tn.gov/safety/photoids.shtml

If you are a registered voter and do not have a government-issued photo ID, the Department of Safety and Homeland Security will provide you with a photo ID at no charge.

So, agent57...couldn't find it? Or didn't bother to look for it, hoping no one else would?

I've found an msnbc article about the Kansas law that says "One of the provisions of the law: there must be the option of a free ID card so that there would be no cost associated with voting."

In regards to Tennessee (according to the AARP)

When the proposed rules were under discussion in the legislature, AARP Tennessee worked to make sure people could get a free state identification card if they didn't have another form of photo ID.

Because people older than 60 can decline to include a photo on their driver's license — as many as 126,000 Tennesseans have chosen that option — older residents are of particular concern.

Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett, R, said they can use an expired license that includes a photograph or go to a driver service center to get a new one with a photo for no charge.

AARP Tennessee also pushed to make sure nursing home and assisted living residents were exempt if they vote at the facility.

Both provisions were included in the law, which will apply to next year's elections.

If you hate the concept of voter ID, or love it, I'm virtually sure that a free ID is included in all of the states that require ID to vote.

So, agent57...couldn't find it? Or didn't bother to look for it, hoping no one else would?

actually not true but what you think really matters not one iota to me..

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012

good to see that both states addressed that as the law has no provision for free ID's

don't need an ID to buy liquor or cigarettes, I need a driver's license to drive a car not an ID, I don't fly so don't need one there either.....what I do need ID for is medical treatment at the doctor's office.....

For liquor ,that's because you look like an old fart like me. Try being in our twenties and see if they don't ID you. In most states driver's license are considered an ID. In Florida you now have to show proof you are a citizen of US and have a address in florida and age. When I vote they ask me for it and I show it . It's that easy!

@6.12 - "or listen to fuchs news... (rarely is someone informed about the choices they make...."

Ha, ha! Good one! You do know that "fuchs" is a surname pronounced Fewks, I hope? Anyway, Fox didn't provide the following ignorance and arrogance:

Howard Stern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybR8inTl3pE&feature=related

NBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc&feature=related

Off topic, but I found this one interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3e41prVDv4&feature=related -- A 37-year-old unmarried, unemployed, homeless, welfare woman with 15 kids saying, "Somebody owes me." Huh?? The kids wear dirty clothes, the motel room stinks of dirty diapers .... doesn't this almost middle-aged woman know about soap and water and birth control yet? But .... SOMEBODY OWES HER?? Where's her "Hope and Change" buddy? - Expand the "Show More" for details.

nor tennessee has a provision in the new laws for free ID's

Oh puleeze, of course they do...

http://www.tnca.org/pc323/how.pdf

They even are open on Saturday to accommodate people...the only thing missing is shuttle service, free lunch and tickets to the minor league ball game....sheeze.

Free ID's are available in each state that requires a photo id to vote.

Also, photo id as a voting requirement was approved by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote in 2008.

However, certified copies of birth certificates, marriage licenses, divorce decrees, etc., are not free, and there are many people, including poor people, who do not have copies of such documents. Some people never had a birth certificate or their birth certificate was lost. These people would need a certified copy of a birth certificate in order to get a "free" photo ID. Other people have gotten married and/or divorced and would need certified copies of that documentation in order to get a "free" photo ID.

Further, a lot of people, including poor people, no longer live near the jurisdiction where such documents are held, and it can be very difficult to obtain certified copies of such documents, without actually traveling to the jurisdiction, depending on the jurisdiction. One time I was representing a client in Ohio, and we needed to get a certified copy of the client's birth certificate from the client's birthplace in Maryland. It was a PAIN IN THE F#@KING ASS trying to get my client's birth city to provide us a certified copy of my client's birth certificate. It took a number of weeks and A LOT of going back and forth with the clerks in her birth city before we were finally able to get a certified copy of my client's birth certificate.

As for the Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court did NOT hold that laws requiring photo IDs are always permissible. Further, that was a facial challenge to the photo ID law, which required the plaintiffs to show that there were no instances where the photo ID law could be constitutional. There still could be instances where an "as applied" constitutional challenge to the Indiana photo ID law would result in the Indiana photo ID law being found unconstitutional (e.g., poor woman who doesn't have a photo ID, doesn't have a certified copy of her birth certificate, but the county requires her to have a certified copy of her birth certificate (at a cost of $25), in order to get a "free" photo ID - in such instance, a court may ultimately still find that the Indiana photo ID law is unconstitutional as applied to that woman and others like her).

@ 6.20 -- People don't get copies of their divorce decrees? Didn't they go to, and pay for, a lawyer? Oh, I guess they walked out of the lawyer's office AND the courtroom without documentation proving that the divorce was final. Yep, that's it.

"People no longer live near the jurisdictions where" ___— and ___— and ___— occurred.

True. However, did you ever hear of a telephone book? A telephone? Postal service? Email? The Internet? My mother was born in Brazil and LEGALLY came to the USA when she was 19. In order to get her green card and then finally her US citizenship after years of waiting and lawyer and US government fees, had to PAY for documents to be released from Brazil and translated by agreement with the USA and Brazil before her paperwork began. It CAN be done. All that's needed is the WILL to do it and to go through legal channels.

Keep bringing on the "excuses."

@ 6.20 -- People don't get copies of their divorce decrees? Didn't they go to, and pay for, a lawyer? Oh, I guess they walked out of the lawyer's office AND the courtroom without documentation proving that the divorce was final. Yep, that's it.

Some people are poor, don't have an attorney, and represent themselves in divorce court. Further, they don't realize that they can get one certified copy of their divorce decree at the end of the hearing. Also, other people are not at their divorce hearings. There are many instances where a person lives in a different state than where the spouse files for divorce, and the divorce is granted without the person ever going to court. Furthermore, even when initially having a certified copy of the divorce decree, some people lose their divorce decree. The only way to get another certified copy is to pay for one.

"People no longer live near the jurisdictions where" ___— and ___— and ___— occurred.

True. However, did you ever hear of a telephone book? A telephone? Postal service? Email? The Internet? My mother was born in Brazil and LEGALLY came to the USA when she was 19. In order to get her green card and then finally her US citizenship after years of waiting and lawyer and US government fees, had to PAY for documents to be released from Brazil and translated by agreement with the USA and Brazil before her paperwork began. It CAN be done. All that's needed is the WILL to do it and to go through legal channels.

AS YOU STATED, IT COST MONEY for that. HOWEVER, voting is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT guaranteed under the US Constitution. Voting laws that in effect amount to a poll tax are unconstitutional.

Further, as I stated above, in trying to get a certified copy of our client's birth certificate from a county in another state, in addition to all of the costs incurred by our client to get the copy of the birth certificate, our law office had to spend a F#@KING LOT OF TIME going back and forth with the county clerk just to get the county clerk to provide it to our client. (First, the county clerk kept insisting that my client had to go from Ohio to Maryland to apply for a certified copy of her birth certificate in person. Then, we finally convinced the county clerk that a personal appearance was not required, but the clerk insisted on our client providing a bunch of different documentation before the birth certificate would be given to her.)

Fine that your mother was able to do it, but there are A LOT of people who do not have the ability or financial resources to do it.

AS YOU STATED, IT COST MONEY for that. HOWEVER, voting is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT guaranteed under the US Constitution.

Gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, too. Are you suggesting people shouldn't have to show photo ID or pay a permit fee to obtain a gun as well?

Freedom of the press is also guaranteed. Does that mean reporters should get to travel for free and not have to show a press pass when they're on an investigative story? How about free speech? Do you think people shouldn't have to pay for the carboard and markers they use to make their signs?

Gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, too. Are you suggesting people shouldn't have to show photo ID or pay a permit fee to obtain a gun as well?

The only place they have to show ID is at a gun store not from a gun show or buying from an individual or yard sale.

And the key words are: they have to show ID

Thanks Don!

No robyn the key words are individuals and gun shows.

Gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, too. Are you suggesting people shouldn't have to show photo ID or pay a permit fee to obtain a gun as well?

when guns aren't used to kill people

Does that mean reporters should get to travel for free and not have to show a press pass when they're on an investigative story?

reporters travel for free because their company pays their fares. reporters do not show their ID's they just say they work for so and so.

Do you think people shouldn't have to pay for the carboard and markers they use to make their signs?

what does this have to do with showing ID?

Don -

You seem to be overlooking the gun permit cost. I'll assume it was just an oversight on your part and you weren't being deliberately evasive.

So. Tell us. Do you think gun owners shouldn't have to pay permit fees? Do you think people exercising their right to peacefully assemble shouldn't have to pay for their own sign making material?

How do you feel about having to show photo ID to join the military? Or have photo ID to drive a car? Or get federal entitlements? Or travel commercially?

You seem to be overlooking the gun permit cost. I'll assume it was just an oversight on your part and you weren't being deliberately evasive.

No, and I'm not trying to be snarky either.

Pat if you buy from a gun show or individual you don't have to have a permit, except for some states.

Pat stay away from subjects you are not versed in.

Do you think people exercising their right to peacefully assemble shouldn't have to pay for their own sign making material?

Scott Walker believes they should.

when guns aren't used to kill people

That response makes no sense. The 2nd Amendment is just as much a part of the Constitution.

reporters travel for free because their company pays their fares.

Ridiculous. Reporters pay for 3 oz. toiletries for their trip, they pay for the clothes they need for the trip they have a ton of personal expenses associated with it. Just like people need to fork over the bucks for their BC or other documentation if they don't have it and live in a state that has photo voter ID laws.

reporters do not show their ID's they just say they work for so and so.

Ridiculous again. Try to be a reporter and get into ANY event merely by saying: "Hey there! I'm a reporter. I work for CNN! Let me in!" and not showing your credentials.

what does this have to do with showing ID?

Because people are bitching about the "cost" of having to obtain a copy of acceptable documentation in order to get a FREE photo ID. If they believe that's wrong, then they must also believe that having to pay for the necessary items to exercise their 1st Amendment rights is wrong too, right?

I think I heard some where that one of the parties is; and has been for years, under a Federal Court ordered injunction, because of a history of trying to "fix" elections by blocking legal voters.

Any body know which party that is ?

Given that these court orders are from more than half a century ago, I'd guess the Democratic party.

#7.3

Then - Philboo - You would be wrong .

7.4

Perhaps you could tell me which party was in charge when the injunctions were put in place.

Or heck, supply me with the year and state and I'll look up which party the injunction was put in place for.

"I think I heard some where that one of the parties is; and has been for years, under a Federal Court ordered injunction, because of a history of trying to "fix" elections by blocking legal'

You THINK you HEARD? Is it possible you just think you heard, but you really didn't?? Come, on you need more than that, Foy.

#7.5 - #7.6

RNC - 1981 - Voter Caging -

Despite the injunction, which remains in effect, vote caging schemes continue to be used as an integral part of an ongoing campaign to suppress minority voting rights

Pay particular attention to the motive - to suppress minority voting rights.

Dodging the question.

Supply me with the year and state and I'll look up which party the injunction was put in place for.

Philboo - This stuff is common knowledge, can't imagine you've never heard of it before ?

New Jersey - 1981

Louisiana - 1986

N. Carolina - 1990

Florida - 2004

Nevada - 2004

Ohio - 2004

Pennsylvania - 2004

Wisconsin - 2004

So are Democrats!!!

#7.10 - (¿)

Philboo

Court mandated agreement signed by the RNC that the whole rnc would stop disenfranchising voter in minority districts, in certain states...pity it was limited to certain states..and just the RNC

Republicans always spend alot of time swallowing camels and choking on gnats. Diverts away from their big laissez fare style of government You guys crack me up, with the technology available, and what is going on with Citizens United, this is your mission. Hey, way to fix a drop in the bucket problem, ranks right up there with the chasing Mexicans around and putting them in jail idea, instead of addressing systemic problems. By the way, the government could care less how many obsolete guns you want to tote around to kill each other off. Defense technology is always 1,000 steps ahead of the market, and we spend a @!$%# load of money on defense technology.

By the way, the government could care less how many obsolete guns you want to tote around to kill each other off.

Ha, good one. That would explain why there are so few laws about gun ownership and concealed carry...

alot of time swallowing camels and choking on gnats

where did you come up with that love it

Foy

What caging is . Personally I believe not one should ever be purge unless proof of death.

Voter caging is a method of challenging the registration status of voters to potentially prevent them from voting in an election. It refers to the practice of sending direct mail to addressees on the voter rolls, compiling a list of addressees from which the mail is returned undelivered, and using that list to purge or challenge voters’ registrations on the grounds that the voters do not legally reside at registered addresses. This typically results in the voters' having their votes discarded or submitted through the use of provisional ballots requiring further registration confirmation.^[1]

While this practice is considered legal in many states and is in some cases engaged in by the state's registrar of voters, it has been challenged in the courts and in some cases where it appeared to have a racial component it has been declared illegal under the Voting Rights Act. For example in the 2008 US Election, Terri Lynn Land, the Secretary of State of Michigan, was found to be purging thousands of voters from voting rolls based on Voter ID cards being returned as undeliverable.^[2] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the Secretary of State to court over the purges. Judge Stephen J. Murphy ruled the purge illegal under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 and directed Land to reinstate affected voters. (See full ruling here).

The argument that vote caging should be illegal is that it could disenfranchise qualified voters simply because of the high possibility that data errors in the mailing list and voters' changing addresses could result in undelivered mail, rather than any problem with their qualifications. The fact that the mailings used to cage voters have had 'do not forward' printed on them resulted in disproportionately disfranchising of students away at college, citizens who move often, and soldiers overseas. In addition, targeting certain neighborhoods with a history of voting for one political party while not targeting areas dominated by the opposing party may lead to a racial component in the disqualifications which raises a serious legal issue under the Voting Rights Act.

The New York Times found in its review of state records that unlawful actions in six states led to widespread voter purges, which could have impact on the 2008 elections. Some of the actions were apparently the result of mistakes by the states' handling voter registrations and files as they tried to comply with a 2002 federal law related to running elections. While neither party was singled out, because the Democratic Party registered more new voters this year, Democratic voters were more adversely affected by such actions of state officials.^[

ebookout - Thanks.

except it NOT legal, and the wikipage(which anybody could edit) cites an example where it was found to be illegal...the other mater was not voter caging...

So for a cost of far less than Obama's crony capitalism deal with Solyndra scandal we've made the voter system more fraud-proof.

Sounds like a good deal.

And of course fiscal conservatives tend to say that the 10th amendment allows the states to make their own decisions in this sort of thing.

James O'Keefe, on the other hand, made a fool of himself trying to "expose" the plague of vote fraud by going to a poll and asking for a ballot for someone who was still very much alive. He's under criminal investigation for it, and this time I hope they put his sorry arse in jail.

Yeah? And what kinds of hoops do they make people jump through to get them? If you make the process difficult enough, a lot of people will just give up. I've heard of older people denied ID's because they presented their family Bibles as proof of citizenship, along with other documentation like utility bills.

That free ride was only for one day, Sept. 28th. Based on your link only 30 people called. Only about 200,000+ to go.

And what kinds of hoops do they make people jump through to get them?

Show up. Present proof of residency and proof of SSN. They have several documents from two different lists that you can choose from. Get your picture taken. Walk out with your card. Tough stuff, huh?

If you make the process difficult enough, a lot of people will just give up.

If people think that obtaining a photo ID is "too much of a hassle" to exercise their right to vote, then they don't take their right to vote very seriously.

Pat N

Are you speaking as a 96 year old woman without a birth certificate? Or a disabled person who has to rely on public transportation or the kindness of family and well wishers? Or a mother on welfare with kids and 2 jobs and no car? Do you live in one of the 3 counties in Wisconsin that have no DMV's? Where 26% of the 91 DMV's in Wisconsin are open only 1 day per month? A state that closed 10 DMV's in Democratic controlled areas, yet expects to issue over 200,000 ID's by November.

Unless you are aware of such conditions, it is hard press for me to believe that you think getting a photo ID is hassle free for everyone.

Are you speaking as a 96 year old woman without a birth certificate?

Can I see the data on how many 96 year old women don't have a birth certificate, were never married, never traveled, and don't get social security? Hell, my own grandma was 92 when she died. She was born is Russia when there was no such thing as a birth certificate and shocker of all shockers...she (GASP!!!) managed to obtain US photo ID. Gosh. I wonder how she did that?

Or a disabled person who has to rely on public transportation or the kindness of family and well wishers?

Yes.

Try obtaining a drivers license in IA when you have epilepsy and Parkinsons. Especially when you've had a siezure in the last 18 months. But guess what? I still have a photo ID! What a miracle! And to make it even more of a miracle....I'm in a small town that has no public transportation and my nearest family member is 20 miles away. But that's not possible according to you, right?

Or a mother on welfare with kids and 2 jobs and no car?

Does when I was 24 and living in a shelter 7 month pregnant but decided to get a freakin' JOB while the other women were signing up for welfare count? Guess what? Both of us...me finding a job and them getting on welfare...needed PHOTO ID.

Do you live in one of the 3 counties in Wisconsin that have no DMV's?

How 'bout 1 in Iowa that doesn't have one? Does that count? Or does it have to be WI?

Unless you are aware of such conditions, it is hard press for me to believe that you think getting a photo ID is hassle free for everyone.

Who said anything about "hassle free"? This is the second time I've seen this theory that exercising our rights should be *convenient and free* for everyone. It's a wacky theory. If a person doesn't think the hassle is worth it, then don't vote.

The states that require ID are providing it free of charge. I can't believe people don't think that's "good enough". Do you want someone to pull the lever in the voting booth for you too? Afterall, it's a "hassle" to get off the couch and go do it. And god forbid that someone should have to pay for a stamp to mail in an absentee ballot.

Can I see the data on how many 96 year old women don't have a birth certificate, were never married, never traveled, and don't get social security? Hell, my own grandma was 92 when she died. She was born is Russia when there was no such thing as a birth certificate and shocker of all shockers...she (GASP!!!) managed to obtain US photo ID. Gosh. I wonder how she did that?

I was thinking about a report of a 96 year old woman who had a hard time getting her ID. Here

As for the data, I don't have much time to dig that information for you currently, but I did find a report in Wisconsin that found 177, 399 elderly people don't have ID's and considering how shady birth certificate records were in the early 1900's its fair to assume that having the necessary documentation isn't as hassle free as people suggest. Especially considering all those elderly people have to line up with the hundreds of thousands of other people in the few DMV's that will actually be open during regular business hours.

Try obtaining a drivers license in IA when you have epilepsy and Parkinsons. Especially when you've had a siezure in the last 18 months. But guess what? I still have a photo ID! What a miracle! And to make it even more of a miracle....I'm in a small town that has no public transportation and my nearest family member is 20 miles away. But that's not possible according to you, right?

I didn't say it was impossible, I said it wasn't as hassle free as you'd like people to believe. And you should understand that. And it will be a lot harder for disabled people to get one considering the fact that you'll see a much larger influx of people trying to get the ID and fewer DMV's actually open.

Does when I was 24 and living in a shelter 7 month pregnant but decided to get a freakin' JOB while the other women were signing up for welfare count? Guess what? Both of us...me finding a job and them getting on welfare...needed PHOTO ID.

Look, you have obviously had an impressive life. But you cannot assume that everybody's life can be just like yours. You know some people who prefer welfare to getting a job. Well I know a guy who has 2 jobs, was on welfare, goes to school and tries to raise his 2 daughters. I know that in a state of Wisconsin, it would be impossible for him to take time off to go to overcrowded DMV's to try and get an ID. Then to take time off yet to wait in longer lines than usual, since the voting process would now be longer because of the new complicated process that poll workers have to deal with. I understand that while its an easy process for me to get an ID, it may not be an easy process for say a group of nuns in Indiana.

So the crux of my original argument is that you cannot say that the process is easy for everyone unless you've been in everyone's shoes.

Who said anything about "hassle free"?

If people think that obtaining a photo ID is "too much of a hassle" to exercise their right to vote, then they don't take their right to vote very seriously.

Did I misinterpret that?

The states that require ID are providing it free of charge. I can't believe people don't think that's "good enough". Do you want someone to pull the lever in the voting booth for you too?

And as I said before. Free of charge will cost taxpayers millions. It could mean having to pay money for extra documentation like a birth certificate. Wisconsin has made it policy not to tell people that its free of charge. So its not as free and easy as you make it out to be. And also lets not forget the fact that there is no proof of rampant voter fraud that even justifies dealing and paying for all this problems the law creates.

Did I misinterpret that?

Apparently so. I had mentioned that SC was offering FREE photo ID's and free transportation to get them. Trex responded with: "Yeah? We'll what kind of hoops do they make them jump through? If you make the process *too difficult* people will just give up." To which my response was: "If people think it's too much of a hassle, then they don't take their right to vote very seriously".

You DISAGREE with the fact that people weigh the pro's and con's of issues put in front of them and decide for themselves, whether or not the reward is worth the hassle?

It could mean having to pay money for extra documentation like a birth certificate.

Where did this idea come from that you shouldn't have to pay anything to exercise your rights? If you want to exercise your freedom of religion, you have to PAY FOR the nativity scene in your yard. If you want to carry a sign while you exercise your 1st amendment rights, you have to PAY FOR the supplies to make that sign. If you want to join the military, you have to PAY FOR photo ID. If you want to go to college, you have to PAY FOR tuition and college. If you want an elective surgery, you have to PAY FOR it and show photo ID.

Pat did I read, on this seed, that that free transportation was just for 1 day? I thought I did.

Where did this idea come from that you shouldn't have to pay anything to exercise your rights?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it came from the US Supreme Court when it ruled that laws that have the effect of placing a poll tax on a person when attempting to exercise his fundamental right to vote are unconstitutional.

If you want to exercise your freedom of religion, you have to PAY FOR the nativity scene in your yard. If you want to carry a sign while you exercise your 1st amendment rights, you have to PAY FOR the supplies to make that sign. If you want to join the military, you have to PAY FOR photo ID. If you want to go to college, you have to PAY FOR tuition and college. If you want an elective surgery, you have to PAY FOR it and show photo ID.

Nothing else needs be said about these specious, meaningless statements.

Apparently so. I had mentioned that SC was offering FREE photo ID's and free transportation to get them. Trex responded with: "Yeah? We'll what kind of hoops do they make them jump through? If you make the process *too difficult* people will just give up." To which my response was: "If people think it's too much of a hassle, then they don't take their right to vote very seriously".

Sorry, I didn't read the earlier threads. Though I still disagree with you. What makes a democracy work is to encourage more people to vote. The higher the voter turnouts the better the people can be represented. So for you to suggest that people who decide that their higher priority is to put food on the table by not taking a day off, rather than taking a day off to line up in a DMV and a polling station should not be allowed to vote because they prize food and shelter over voting is not the America I know of.

Where did this idea come from that you shouldn't have to pay anything to exercise your rights?

24th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Oh, I don't know, maybe it came from the US Supreme Court when it ruled that laws that have the effect of placing a poll tax on a person when attempting to exercise his fundamental right to vote are unconstitutional.

How precisely, is paying for a copy of your BC...NOT the required voter ID card...a "poll tax"? Are you claiming the only thing a person can use their BC for is obtaining a photo ID?

Though I still disagree with you. What makes a democracy work is to encourage more people to vote.

Incorrect. What makes a democracy work is encouraging more people to vote LEGALLY. To use your logic, we should be registering infants and illegals to vote because all it takes is "more people".

How precisely, is paying for a copy of your BC...NOT the required voter ID card...a "poll tax"? Are you claiming the only thing a person can use their BC for is obtaining a photo ID?

all IDs have fees with them, to get one you need to pay that fee.

How precisely, is paying for a copy of your BC...NOT the required voter ID card...a "poll tax"? Are you claiming the only thing a person can use their BC for is obtaining a photo ID?

If a person is required to have a certified copy of her birth certificate in order to get the so-called "free" voter ID, but she does not have a certified copy of her birth certificate, and the only way she can get a certified copy of her birth certificate is to pay a fee (e.g., $25), then a court can find the requirement to have a certified copy of her birth certificate in order to get the so-called "free" photo ID is an unconstitutional poll tax. It doesn't matter whether she can use the certified copy of her birth certificate for other purposes. What is relevant is that the voter ID law states that she cannot get the so-called "free" photo ID unless she has a certified copy of her birth certificate.

If a person is required to have a certified copy of her birth certificate in order to get the so-called "free" voter ID, but she does not have a certified copy of her birth certificate, and the only way she can get a certified copy of her birth certificate is to pay a fee (e.g., $25), then a court can find the requirement to have a certified copy of her birth certificate in order to get the so-called "free" photo ID is an unconstitutional poll tax.

I find that asinine logic. Why don't we take it one step further and say your parents having to pay the hospital bill for your birth is a "poll tax", too? Afterall, you had to have been born to vote.

IF people had to pay for the ID, that would be a poll tax. Having to pay for a copy of your birth certificate (which can be used for multiple things) in order to obtain a FREE photo ID (which can be used for multiple things) isn't a poll tax. And it appears that SCOTUS agrees with me. Not you.

You people DO understand that this isn't just strictly a voter ID card and it's a regular, state issued photo ID that can be used for multiple things including getting a job, enrolling your kids in school, getting a library card and traveling by plane...right? I hope?

find that asinine logic. Why don't we take it one step further and say your parents having to pay the hospital bill for your birth is a "poll tax", too? Afterall, you had to have been born to vote.

because that is just nonsense. if you are required an ID to vote and that ID costs you that is a tax.

also you don't have to go to the hospital to give birth.

more importantly, why is this such a huge problem for you even evidence shows that voter fraud isn't a problem at all really.

because that is just nonsense. if you are required an ID to vote and that ID costs you that is a tax.

I'll type this really, really slow. Maybe that will help.

the....ID.....is.....free.

IF people had to pay for the ID, that would be a poll tax. Having to pay for a copy of your birth certificate (which can be used for multiple things) in order to obtain a FREE photo ID (which can be used for multiple things) isn't a poll tax. And it appears that SCOTUS agrees with me. Not you.

Actually the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on that issue. The recent case the US Supreme Court took on relating to the voter photo ID issue was a "facial challenge" to the law, not an "as applied" constitutional challenge to the law - BIG difference - so the Supreme Court did not specifically address the issue regarding whether such a law would be constitutional if applied against a person who doesn't have a birth certificate, but would be required to pay for a certified copy of her birth certificate in order to obtain a so-called "free" photo ID in order to vote. (The Supreme Court briefly mentioned the issue of some people possibly having difficulty getting the documents they needed in order to get the so-called "free" photo ID; however, since it was a "facial challenge" to the constitutionality of the law, the Court was not looking at the specific circumstances of individual voters, but rather was only concerned with whether the law could be constitutional under any given circumstances. The Court found that there were at least some instances where the law could be constitutional (e.g., a person who already has all of the needed documentation, like a birth certificate, was able to get a free photo ID, or could at least cast a provisional ballot if the person didn't have a photo ID where the provisional ballot would be counted if the person also executed an affidavit), and that was all the Court needed to find that law constitutional under a "facial challenge".) In December, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin's voter photo ID law with one of the plaintiffs being a woman who does not have a birth certificate, and this constitutional issue may now be decided in an "as applied" challenge to a voter photo ID requirement.

the....ID.....is.....free.

right it is free after you pay for it:

http://www.dot.state.wi.us/drivers/drivers/driver-fees.htm

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_8ced3e7e-f46f-11e0-a73e-001cc4c03286.html

right it is free after you pay for it:

You don't have to pay for it! What part of FREE is so hard to get? From the State of WI's own DMV website:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

Free Wisconsin ID cards for voting

A free ID card is available under Wisconsin law to anyone who:

• will be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election and;
• requests an ID card for the purpose of voting.

You pay for the drivers license infrared, the voter card is mailed to you free of charge. I have one, it was free.

and you lose your driver's license.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/aclu_sues_scott_walker_over_wisconsins_voter_id_law.php

You pay for the drivers license infrared, the voter card is mailed to you free of charge. I have one, it was free.

The so-called "free" photo ID is free so long as you already have all of the documentation you need in order to get one, and in some states, so long as you affirmatively demand that they give it to you for free. HOWEVER, if you don't have, e.g., a certified copy of your birth certificate, you'll have to spend money to get the certified copy of your birth certificate, before you can get the so-called "free" photo ID, and, in some places (e.g., Wisconsin) if you don't specifically tell the clerk you are getting it for voting purposes and it should be free, the clerk will charge you for it.

@Elaine-1503791 -

and you lose your driver's license.

Nope, still have my driver's license.

... so long as you are not a student in, for example, Wisconsin, who moved to Wisconsin from out of state to go to college, and have a driver's license from the state from which you moved. Even though the Supreme Court has held that students who move to another state to go to college in a current state have a right to vote in elections in the current state/community to which they moved to go to school, under the Wisconsin voter photo ID law, such student would have to either opt for forfeiting his current driver's license in order to obtain the so-called "free" photo ID that would allow the student to vote BUT would NOT allow that student to drive, or the student would have to PAY for a new driver's license in order to be able to vote and drive in Wisconsin, even though that student previously was allowed to drive under his out-of-state license.

In another scenario, a lifelong resident of, e.g., Wisconsin, who has his driver's license suspended due to, for example, a relatively serious traffic infraction, or a number of minor traffic infractions, or a failure to maintain auto insurance (where that resident has been required to submit his suspended driver's license to the state (which happens to A LOT of people)), may now, at voting time, be faced with the undesirable situation of either not being allowed to go to the polling place and vote because he doesn't have a photo ID, or canceling his current driver's license (which is suspended and is being held by the court or the state - in some circumstances, EVEN IF THAT PERSON HAS NOT YET BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING ANY LAW YET) in order for that person to be able to obtain the so-called "free" photo ID just so that this person can exercise his FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote, with that person then later being required to re-take a driver's test so he can get a new driver's license when eligible to get a new driver's license (because, under state law, the person cannot have both the so-called "free" photo ID and a driver's license (even if his driver's license is only suspended and held by the court or the state, and is just not in the physical possession of that person)).

why add additional regulation where it is not needed?

The right-wing aim to disenfranchise those who are most likely not to vote Republican

And Holder's suing states that wish to ensure those that vote are legally entitled to vote is a left-wing tactict to disenfranchise legal voters of their candidate choice and illegally achieve a democratic majority.

HUH?!?!???? Holder does not seek to deny anybody a vote, or to make it more difficult to vote. What the hell are you talking about? Wow, you've some major disconnect there, 'grain.

I really hope Sally eliminates the "report" comment rights of the people that collapsed the top 2 comments

Agreed.

Collapsing is a tactic used to inhibit free speech of both parties instead of merely participating in a fair debate. This is similar to suing states to prevent them from ensuring a fair election. And, the White House is even doing this with its Rapid Response Team....to deal with news from media it doesn't like and banning journalists/media that have published opposing news.

And works on people who are too damn stupid to simply click the little "+," although it falls way short of "inhibiting free speech." For that, you have to look at the number of posts that get deleted, especially in the seeds of folks like Elaine.

IF you want to report various seeders for excessive deletion, you can (but you need a pretty strong case to make it stick) I don't LIKE "censorship" that only happens because I push someone's buttons

If you have to go through more than one process, like just getting to the article, clicking the "+" button is more than "Inhibiting" it's suppressing. I call "Disenfranchisement, because I have to go through more than one motion to see a comment.

If someone is too lazy to pick up a free ID, then to be honest, perhaps we've be better off not having them vote.

I certainly don't think finances should prevent someone from voting, but uf someone is too slovenly to turn off "America's top model" and wander over and get a free ID, then I have to question how informed their vote will be, anyway.

So you want to pass a voter ID bill in order to stop lazy people who watch America's next top model from voting?

No, I want to pass a voter ID bill that prevents everybody but me from voting.

However the logic of "the more people who vote the better it is" fails to make an impression on me. Thus a country like Australia, where you are required by law to vote (even if your vote doesn't count) seems the height of absurdity.

As I said before, I'd rather have 50% turnout with people having some familiarity with the issues than 75% turnout with 25% of the people just voting for the D/R because there parents did, or because the woman next door wore a bikini when she put up a political yard sign.

If they're too @!$%#ing lazy to get to their ID they don't deserve to vote.

Do they expect people to just HAND them out on the street corner or go door to door giving them away?

No, I want to pass a voter ID bill that prevents everybody but me from voting.

Are you being sarcastic?

If they're too @!$%#ing lazy to get to their ID they don't deserve to vote.

If you are suggesting that we should pass laws to deny people their right to vote simply because they are deemed lazy by the government or people such as yourself, then we do not leave in the same country.

Do they expect people to just HAND them out on the street corner or go door to door giving them away?

Of course they do, Robyn. ACORN set that precedent when they took to the streets and registered imaginary people to vote. The lazy believe: "If my imaginary friend can be registered...why can't I"?

Of course they do, Robyn. ACORN set that precedent when they took to the streets and registered imaginary people to vote. The lazy believe: "If my imaginary friend can be registered...why can't I"?

but you believe in imaginary problems, you believe in imaginary things that organizations do.

but you believe in imaginary problems, you believe in imaginary things that organizations do.

Is this another case of a liberal not being able to use Google themselves and needing the proof spoonfed to them?

earlier a user brought up all the cases where republicans were committing voter fraud but in those cases more restrictive voting rules wouldn't have solved any of the problems and yet you believed that the link proved your point.

no i don't want to search for things to backup your claims, if you make them you back them up.

no i don't want to search for things to backup your claims, if you make them you back them up.

Yep. You just want to refute them with nothing to back up your stance.

(sigh)...

OK. Here ya go. CONVICTIONS of ACORN workers registering imaginary people:

http://factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/

Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated.

Let me guess. It's "Bush's Fault".

oh how cute you edited just like fox news does to convey some idea well here is what you left out:

Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes. What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn't do, not to stuff ballot boxes.

oops.

Got caught again didn't ya Pat. :)

http://www.urlsinternetcafe.com/chainyank0400/images/yankaward2.gif

you are in a seed about voter fraud not voter registration fraud, unless you realistically think someone is going to show claiming they are "Donald Duck" and try to vote, this is a pointless thing to say.

you are in a seed about voter fraud not voter registration fraud

This seriously made me laugh out loud. You thought you had a "gotchya", failed to read my posts, actually RESPONDED to said posts, and when you were proven to be in error, decided it's "off topic" even though you aren't the moderator of this article.

voter fraud includes registration fraud

No two different things under the law.

infared, voter fraud includes registration fraud. It's all fraud having to do with voting.! Sheesh!

no its not, the general term is election fraud. we are talking about actual problems not fears that Mickey Mouse would vote.

This seriously made me laugh out loud. You thought you had a "gotchya", failed to read my posts, actually RESPONDED to said posts, and when you were proven to be in error, decided it's "off topic" even though you aren't the moderator of this article.

As I said, requiring voter ID's to vote is the subject of this seed, you made a post about registration fraud which your own seed pointed out that the outcome wasn't to skew elections at all.

so your points are moot.

b-b-b-b-but they both have the letters V-O-T-E in them, so they are the same, right?

@!$%#ing pathetic.

I'm just saying that it's not possible to have enough fraudulent votes to suddenly turn SC blue.

Here's the thing...

I don't care what the effects of the law are in regards to results.

I just want a voting process that is more difficult to cheat in.

Ok, I can get behind that...how about some proof that fraud is a widespread problem??

Ok, I can get behind that...how about some proof that fraud is a widespread problem??

Easy, the 2000 elections.

Angry Left-532262

.how about some proof that fraud is a widespread problem??

In post 2.9 I gave an example of just that to trex-138069, but since you missed it, here we go again.

I lived in Miami from 1996 through 1999. In November 1997, Xavier Suarez (Democrat) was elected Mayor by a little over 1000 votes, but in March 1998, it was ruled that there would be new elections and Joe Carollo (Republican) would hold office until the new elections (He won the new election). Why would a Judge do that?

It turned out that there was widespread voter fraud going on in Miami. In checking the Absentee ballots alone, over 50% of them had been sent in by residents of the Woodland Park, Lincoln Memorial, and Funeraria Memorial "Subdivisions" (Miami Cemeteries). On further investigation, 0ver 200 "deceased residents" of Miami had actually come into the polling offices in Suarez's home district and cast votes during the election. Some had been doing so since 1988 and had never missed an election since their interment.

This was just the city of Miami; how many more areas do the same thing? Have you ever been to Chicago? I lived there while the "Daley Democrats" ran the city and were notorious for their ownership by the "Mob" and their fraud of all types while in office. Do you deny that is the case in "Chicago Politics"? If so, I give you Blogo and rest my case. And then, on a national level I give you JFK and LBJ. "Uncle Lyndon" was notorious for "questionable" election results throughout his tenure in Texas.

Is that widespread enough for you or do we need to discuss Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey, or New York?

Not about red or blue Angry Left......get over your party's rhetoric........this is about fair, truthful elections.

Funny, I was just joking. Looks like it made Elaine's head explode. I forgot it's never happened before Obama.

your decision to delete comments merely because YOU consider them insulting can lead to a less than desirable response from the REAL moderators. unless things are attacks or trolling, it's NOT YOUR CALL

Looks like it made Elaine's head explode.

How is that insulting?

Delete away.

your decision to delete comments merely because YOU consider them insultingunless things are attacks or trolling, it's NOT YOUR CALL

Just like people who collapse comments because they don't agree with them

this is about fair, truthful elections.

lol.. riiiight... neither party has been all that wanton for fair and truthful elections from the get go... never have been... both parties are lying, deceitful, dishonest and fraught with greed and abuses.... to say that the current republican initiatives are for fair & truthfull elections is laughable.... republican of current would disenfranchise you or anybody else they thought won't vote for them in a freaking heartbeat if they could... this country is not great bastion of integrity when it comes to pretty much anything....

I lived in Miami from 1996 through 1999. In November 1997, Xavier Suarez (Democrat) was elected Mayor by a little over 1000 votes, but in March 1998, it was ruled that there would be new elections and Joe Carollo (Republican) would hold office until the new elections (He won the new election). Why would a Judge do that?

AGAIN, Suarez was a republican (NOT a Democrat) running as an independent.

Further, photo ID laws would NOT have prevented the type of voter fraud alleged in that mayoral election. That alleged fraud related to absentee ballots, and the photo ID laws relate to requiring a person to show photo ID when voting in person.

then you better plan on massively increasing the costs associated with election. The machines take out the errors and depend on the integrity of the VOTE REPORTERS (not the ability of the MACHINE) Increasing scrutiny and returning to hand ballots will cost LOTS of $$$

Oh come on....doesn't anyone notice the only time righties get their panties in a wad about voter fraud is right before an election they are probably going to lose.

You didn't hear a single rightie bitching about "voter fraud" in 2000 or even in 2004.

Voter fraud??? The last republican president we had got elected through fraud.

....doesn't anyone notice the only time righties lefties get their panties in a wad about voter fraud ID is right before an election they are probably going to lose.

There, fixed it for ya!

....doesn't anyone notice the only time righties lefties get their panties in a wad about voter fraud ID is right before an election they are probably going to lose.

or perhaps it disenfranchises voters, probably that.

made hard for the little old GOP ladies to vote

So are you saying by the time one reaches old ladyhood you've wised up so that you only vote GOP, or that the Democratic lifestyle prevents women from reaching that age?

Don't read too much into that one.....rotflmao

Coffee thru sinus.

Sorry about your sinuses. Hopefully a good coffee sinus enema will be good for what ails ya...

As a Democrat would say "Since there is no proof of widespread fraud there is no need to do anything to prevent it."

@Philboo-

"Since there is no proof of widespread fraud there is no need to do anything to prevent it."

I didn't know I was a Democrat thanks for the thoughtful insight, as an idiot you should know better than to label people. But that's what you people like to do, by the way I think people should have to show an ID, but come on man it's just as hard to get some college ID's as it is to get state ID's and college ID's should be accepted. Period!!!

@Elaine-Did I touch a nerve or something? Why the deletion????

YourMomSaidItWon'tFit

Just challenge it by replying to the notification you get.

YourMomSaidItWon'tFit

if i remember correctly you were calling someone an idiot. if that's how it was you were in violation of the CoH.

You know as well as I do that Republicans only site the Constitution when it suits their argument.

I forgot to mention that voter fraud is extremely rare. The highest rate I've ever seen was something in the ballpark of 0.0000007%

Care to elaborate.

Yes but what part do you disagree with.

The part, where you tried to show voter fraud in Troy as an example of rampant voter fraud that this voter ID law is required to prevent?

The part where Chris tried to do the same?

Or the part where Philboo falsely claims that voterID bills are completely free and easy to get.

About what adventurous? It's fairly simple....we disagree. I agree with Voter ID's, you don't.

About what adventurous? This is my thread and I never have to back up my claims, but you do. I can't give you any specific area of disagreement but I disagree with your well sourced, logical, fantastic response. (I added the fantastic in, I know she wouldn't have)

Here, I will falsely claim it again.

In every state that requires a ID to vote, the state has included a means of getting an ID at no cost.

Jeffinva,

It took me a while to realize you were being sarcastic. Thanks for the compliment though.

Philboo,

Thats very bold of you. However I've already stated whats wrong with that argument. The ID's do come at a pretty high cost. Need further proof?

• N. Carolina faces a budget gap of over $2 billion. And despite the state making cuts in every area like education, youth services etc. The new voter ID program there will cost taxpayers approx. $20 million.
• Missouri estimates it would cost them $16.9 million for TV, radio and newspaper announcmemnts and other outreach programs
• Free ID's in Missouri will cost an addition $3.4 million
• Free ID's in Wisconsin (which makes it a habit not to mention the free part) costs the state $2.4 million
• In Maryland it was estimated that it would cost 1 county $95,000 a year just to hire and train precinct judges to examine ID's of voters

All these states have had to make major budget cuts to important sectors in order to make up their budget shortfalls. Yet they all seem to have millions of dollars to stop rampant voter fraud that occurs at the rate of about 0.0000007%.

The ID's do come at a pretty high cost. Need further proof?

Ever seen how government expenses are figured? Fuzzy math at it best!

And why are judges being trained for to examine IDs of voters. Or do you mean people hired to make sure the IDs is legit? MAybe they should try what we use. That being a hologram and a few other things that's easy to check even for the novice.

Not sure were you got the 0000007% from . Must of come out of the hat.

I love the logic I'm seeing here:

"I don't wanna spend the $6 dollars on an ID and to exercise my right to vote. That's too much money. But we need to raise taxes on middle class people by the thousands of dollars so they can keep paying for entitlements they don't use. Yeah! That's the ticket!"

Pat please point to the specific comment # that says to raise taxes on the middle class people specifically.

Ever seen how government expenses are figured? Fuzzy math at it best!

So you don't trust the governments math, yet you trust the Republican government that rampant voter fraud is real (even though there is no math to support it) and you trust that the government can issue millions of ID's in about 10 months without any problems or risk of disenfranchisement, suppression or discouragement.

And why are judges being trained for to examine IDs of voters. Or do you mean people hired to make sure the IDs is legit? MAybe they should try what we use. That being a hologram and a few other things that's easy to check even for the novice.

I meant election judges in voting precincts. Also I don't know what the Maryland ID looks like, but if it requires changing all ID's to have holograms simply to make these new laws more palatable, that would mean a huge cost to Maryland taxpayers.

Not sure were you got the 0000007% from . Must of come out of the hat.

You are absolutely right. I did pull that out of a hat. I was attempting to recall something I read last year and didn't bother to double check the numbers. My apologies. The correct number is 0.0007%. That was after a 4 year investigation in Wisconsin where only 5 people were convicted of voting multiple times and 86 people of improperly voting out of 196 million votes. Most of those cases would not be stopped with the new voter ID laws.

In Ohio a survey found 4 cases of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004 out of 9,078,728 votes cast - a rate of 0.00004%.

Source

I don't wanna spend the $6 dollars on an ID and to exercise my right to vote. That's too much money.

Its not just a matter of not wanting to get an ID or paying higher taxes to make them free. Its a matter of legality. That $6 required to get an ID to vote is a poll tax. True states have gotten around this by making the ID's free. But then comes another problem, what about seniors who don't have birth certificates to get those ID's, they would have to pay money to get the birth certificate. And that's yet another poll tax.

But we need to raise taxes on middle class people by the thousands of dollars so they can keep paying for entitlements they don't use.

States have cut their education funding, thats an entitlement everybody uses. I remember reading stories of some places making such drastic cuts as to turn off street lights after dark, or cut bus schedules and bus routes or stop all bus services entirely just to make ends meet. Those are services that everybody uses. Yet apparently passing voter ID bills to resolve a problem that doesn't exist is more important than teaching our kids.

Republicans are using data about the former and presenting as the latter in order to justify their attempts to make it more difficult for elderly and socio-economically disadvantaged citizens to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote.

Hmm...so let me see, they're too old, feeble and some are too poor to get proper ID, but not when it comes to voting?

Once again, feeble-minded and self-serving conservatives fail to understand the fundamental distinction between "voter registration fraud" and "voter fraud".

Oh boo-hoo!! ANY type of fraud should be eradicated, PERIOD.

robynlewisTX.

Yes any type of fraud should be stopped my problem with seeds like elaine seeded and like drummerboy seeds is that you try and fixate only on Acorn when it's much more rampart among a group of others yet you blatantly ignore it.

It's been shown time and again there is very little voter fraud and the right tries to play it up and make something it's not

Start talking reality about the problem and then things will change but going after all those, something like 5 million, that don't have the necessary IDs and expecting them to get it in time for current elections is bull@!$%#.

Do I expect you to agree nope but boo hoo you will not admit what I've said.

Oh boo-hoo!! ANY type of fraud should be eradicated, PERIOD.

well one the biggest cases of voter fraud or anything unethical regarding voting or voter suppression is done from the inside. if you want that to be eliminated, acting as if there is a huge voter fraud problem were we need to create such strict rule where thousands of people would be kicked out should be the first thing to go.

.

"Hmm...so let me see, they're too old, feeble and some are too poor to get proper ID, but not when it comes to voting?"

Someone apparently has never heard of the absentee ballot, and those who cannot afford to buy or rent a home, drive a car, or travel by air have little need to get a state ID. Many elderly people do not own original birth certificates or other required forms of identification. Some cannot afford to take off a day from work to stand in line at a state office to fill out the required forms.

But since none of these scenarios affect YOU, it's all good ...

Many elderly people do not own original birth certificates or other required forms of identification. Some cannot afford to take off a day from work

You're contradicting yourself. If they have a job that they have to "take a day off work" from, they need photo ID. Unless of course, they are working illegally.

You're contradicting yourself. If they have a job that they have to "take a day off work" from, they need photo ID. Unless of course, they are working illegally.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Pat!

Uh, ScienceGuy-356641, if they have a job then they OBVIOUSLY had to have SOME kind of PICTURE ID. Hello?!

Holy @!$%#, the excuses are getting weaker and stupider!

Uh, ScienceGuy-356641, if they have a job then they OBVIOUSLY had to have SOME kind of PICTURE ID. Hello?!

Holy @!$%#, the excuses are getting weaker and stupider!

As are your comments.

Unfortunately there are quite a number of people that work "under the table" in order to have the funds to live. Often times they don't have IDs. It is common among native Americans in some areas and some Hispanic communicates even though they are citizens. Correct or not I think people would be amazed at the numbers. Also included in that are large percentages of High School students.

Unfortunately there are quite a number of people that work "under the table" in order to have the funds to live. Often times they don't have IDs.

Yep. They're called illegal immigrants. Finally, we get to the REAL reason some on the left don't want photo ID laws.

Yep. They're called illegal immigrants

Nope you are wrong again. Getting to be a habit with you Pat.

. Often times they don't have IDs. It is common among native Americans in some areas and some Hispanic communicates(sic) even though they are citizens

Read what I said again. It's you and the rest of the right that have a hangup about everyone being an Illegal if you mention Hispanic.

Unfortunately there are quite a number of people that work "under the table" in order to have the funds to live. Often times they don't have IDs. It is common among native Americans in some areas and some Hispanic communicates even though they are citizens. Correct or not I think people would be amazed at the numbers. Also included in that are large percentages of High School students.

Show some proof Don and stop making lame ass excuses for people who don't get picture ID.

As are your comments.

Ohh, can't come up with a good reason why people should have an ID so you resort to kindergarten retorts. tsk tsk

It's you and the rest of the right that have a hangup about everyone being an Illegal if you mention Hispanic.

Uh right Don, because Hispanics are the only illegals in our country. /s

And just for the record, working "under the table" is also illegal. But I'm sure you're ok with this too.

Go back and read what I said about your comments robyn. Then try reading what I said.

Correct or not I think people would be amazed at the numbers.

Show some proof Don and stop making lame ass excuses for people who don't get picture ID.

Do you really want to challenge something as simple as what I said or are you just be obtuse. I think it's probably the latter.

kindergarten retorts

The only kindergarten remarks have been yours.

Don -

You've made your point perfectly clear. You think people who break the law via working under the table and not paying taxes...a federal offense...should have the right to vote.

Damm right I do they let right wingers vote. The problem with you Pat is that you don't want all citizens of the United States of America to vote. You want to limit the voting to just certain groups. It don't work that way Lady.

LOL, really? Big stretch there, Don...then again you lefties "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel".

When you don't like it Vol I know I'm correct. Thanks for proving it.

The problem with you Pat is that you don't want all citizens of the United States of America to vote. You want to limit the voting to just certain groups. It don't work that way Lady.

Bull@!$%#. Felons can't vote. Minors can't vote. Illegals can't vote.

YOU are advocating for federal criminals (people working under the table) to vote...as long as they haven't been convicted.... yet. In fact, not only do you want them to vote, you want them to get free voter ID and free transportation to get it.

It doesn't work like that "dude".

Oh so now anyone that hasn't been convicted of a crime is a criminal on your say so. Yes I want them to vote. They have as much right to vote as you do. BTW your comment only reinforces my comment about who you feel should vote and those you don't think are fitting to vote.

Oh so now anyone that hasn't been convicted of a crime is a criminal on your say so.

No Don. Not on my say so. Are you saying it's NOT a federal crime to work under the table and not pay taxes? I love that you're only criteria for whether or not someone has committed a crime is whether or not they get caught. Are you also one of those people that thinks it's fine if those same people collect UI benefits while they are "working under the table" as long as they don't get caught?

BTW your comment only reinforces my comment about who you feel should vote and those you don't think are fitting to vote.

Your earlier comment stated...and I quote: "You want to limit the voting to just certain groups. It doesn't work that way, lady"

I find it hilarious that you disagree with the federal government and think ANY group should be able to vote. Are you going to petition for infants to get a voter registration card too, Don? How about illegals? Convicted felons? After all, according to you...no group should be denied the right to vote.

Oh dang, don. And just when I thought we were "getting along"....

Gee Pat N you take a closer look at things I've said and quit putting you snarky spin on them in trying to wiggle out of the truth. I love taking to you because you continually try and spin everything and then when caught, which is all the time any more, you try your snarkyness bit. Tell you what I'll save then all up and show them to you at some point.

But then to refresh you lagging memory I've never laid down any criteria for voting, you've been the one to do that. You believe people should be convicted without any proof and that they shouldn't vote because they are doing something illegal. That kind of goes along with the last ticket you got. Since you broke the law you should have any right to vote.

Now you can try again. Although I don't see you changing anything in your spin machine.

But then to refresh you lagging memory I've never laid down any criteria for voting, you've been the one to do that.

Yeah, I know. You're the one who acted like it was appalling that certain groups shouldn't be able to vote and even tried to drive your point home with a sexist..."lady". You ARE aware that certain groups aren't allowed to vote, right?

You believe people should be convicted without any proof and that they shouldn't vote because they are doing something illegal

Where are you getting "without any proof" from? The scenario that was laid out was that these people "shouldn't have to wait in line to get an ID"....especially if they're "working at a job where they get paid under the table".

You see nothing wrong with someone working under the table and not paying taxes, but DO see something wrong with the poor dears standing in line to get an ID. That's rich.

That kind of goes along with the last ticket you got. Since you broke the law you should have any right to vote.

Ah. I see the problem we have here. You don't have a clue what the difference is between a speeding ticket and committing a FEDERAL OFFENSE