Ad JS

Collapse

Leaderboard

Collapse

Leaderboard Tablet

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How are voter ID laws prejudicial?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How are voter ID laws prejudicial?

    I'd like some good reasons.

    Anybody?
    NRA Life Member

    The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

  • #2
    I don't know I have my theories best not share them though.

    What I don't understand though is I keep hearing how millions will not be able to vote if states like Texas requires a ID. So what is the problem here that millions can not simply go down and get a legal ID card? Is it because they simply are not legal them selfs?
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless - like water.

    Comment


    • #3
      I feel that this causes an unfair disadvantage to Barack Hussein (not yo mama) Obama supporters such as illegal aliens, felons, the illiterate and impoverished meth addicts.

      We could offer them a ride to the DMV, flip the bill for the id and yet, still, Holder the moron would find a way to call it unfair. Or, some other lib would.
      The All New
      2013
      BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
      Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
      - M1Garand

      (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



      Comment


      • #4
        Of American citizens, seniors and blacks have much higher rates of not having a state issued id of some form. In order to have such ids its not always a matter of simply applying for one, because you must supply a birth certificate, passport, military id, or some other government issued paperwork - for some this is a catch-22. Often these folks do not have them and the process costs time and money. I've been there myself having to replace a birth certificate and passport ruined in storage - it took months for one of them, and both cost me fees which where trivial to me, but wouldn't be to someone who is poor. I believe the estimates of the number of citizens without some form of state issued id is between 3-4 million.

        That most of these people probably don't vote conservative the way I do really doesn't matter since they have a constitutionally protected right to vote.
        The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

        Comment


        • #5
          Hey Troop;
          Is there a difference between meth addicts & oxy addicts?

          Just wondering....
          "You're never guaranteed the cards that life is going to deal you. But nothing says you can't play the hell out of them!"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by eyesopen View Post
            Of American citizens, seniors and blacks have much higher rates of not having a state issued id of some form. In order to have such ids its not always a matter of simply applying for one, because you must supply a birth certificate, passport, military id, or some other government issued paperwork - for some this is a catch-22. Often these folks do not have them and the process costs time and money. I've been there myself having to replace a birth certificate and passport ruined in storage - it took months for one of them, and both cost me fees which where trivial to me, but wouldn't be to someone who is poor. I believe the estimates of the number of citizens without some form of state issued id is between 3-4 million.

            That most of these people probably don't vote conservative the way I do really doesn't matter since they have a constitutionally protected right to vote.
            Good grief people. Accept responsibility please.

            EWO-this isn't a critique of you or your comment. Simply a statement regarding people too stupid, lazy, or incoherent to ensure they achieve a simple requirement akin to operating a motor vehicle or buying a six pack of beer. The libs thrive on stupid/lazy/incoherent people. It's their main base of support. Go figure.
            sigpic
            Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun.
            And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son.

            Comment


            • #7
              Revisiting the Supreme Court’s Rebuttal of Voter ID Detractors

              http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/28/...id-detractors/

              The Justice Department’s lawsuit against South Carolina has rekindled political war over state voter identification laws. While the merits of the suit will surely be hashed out in the political arena, the Supreme Court has in fact weighed in on the constitutional arguments offered by opponents of voter ID laws, and found them wanting.

              In light of the issue’s prevalence, it’s worth revisiting that decision to see what the nation’s highest court had to say about voter ID laws.

              Opponents of those laws usually make a pair of arguments against them: they claim the laws impose overly burdensome restrictions on voting, and that they are a solution in search of a problem, given the relatively low incidence of voter fraud. Neither of those arguments stands up to the Supreme Court’s thorough examination of the issue.

              In the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court upheld an Indiana voter ID law, which the National Conference of State Legislatures classifies as one of the strictest in the nation. The law requires voters to present a photo ID at polling places. Those who can’t may cast a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if the voter affirms the ballot in person – with a photo ID – within 10 days.

              The Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that “showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.” It’s also worth noting that prior to enacting the voter ID law, Indiana did charge for photo IDs. A provision in the law repealed that fee, presumably to rescind financial barriers to voting. Like Indiana, South Carolina offers free IDs to state residents.

              The majority opinion, written by then-Justice John Paul Stevens – no conservative stalwart – examined each of the objections offered to this day in opposition to voter ID laws. Let us review each in turn.

              Claim: Voter ID laws are excessively and prohibitively burdensome

              Indiana provides a free identification card to any resident who requests one from the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Traveling to the BMV and requesting one, therefore, is the extent of the restrictions on voting.

              Even voters who show up to the polls on election day without an ID, as mentioned above, can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the voter visits the election board within 10 days of the election, and produces a photo ID or a valid objection to having one (indigence or religious belief).

              The free IDs and provisional ballots mitigate any excessively burdensome voting restrictions, the court ruled. Voters who simply do not have an ID can easily obtain one: “the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph,” Stevens wrote, “surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”

              For certain classes of voters, however, those requirements may provide additional burdens. Those include the homeless, indigent, or elderly, and those with religious objections to being photographed. The law’s inclusion of provisional ballot exceptions, the court ruled, are ample to mitigate those restrictions. “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters,” Stevens added, “that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation” – namely, invalidation of the entire law.

              Key to the court’s decision was the fact that the petitioners had not disputed the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process. Rather, they claimed that the law was a partisan attempt to restrict voters, to the advantage of state Republicans.

              But “while the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable,” the court ruled, “the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.” If the impetus for the law were partisan in nature – i.e., were unrelated to the electoral process – even the minimal burdens placed on voters would render the law indefensible. But the law was spurred by a legitimate concern – one that even its opponents could not dispute – and “the ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State are therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge,” the court found.

              Claim: Voter ID laws are unnecessary due to the relatively low incidence of voter fraud

              The actual incidence of voter fraud in Indiana was only tangentially relevant to the validity of the law, the court ruled. While no evidence of fraud was included in the record by the respondents, “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,” including examples in Indiana itself.

              It was therefore unnecessary for Indiana to show that the law responded to documented cases of voter fraud that it would attempt to prevent or penalize. The very real possibility that fraud could occur – demonstrated by the fact that it had occurred elsewhere – was sufficient rationale for the law.

              A corollary to this line of objections from voter ID opponents is that the documented voter fraud cited by the laws’ proponents would not actually be prevented by a photo ID requirement – absentee ballot voting, for instance. But the court ruled that a 2003 instance of absentee ballot fraud in Indiana demonstrated that voter fraud of any kind “could affect the outcome of a close election,” and therefore supported the state’s case for the law.

              Also worthy of consideration, the court noted, is the state’s real interest in protecting the perception of fair elections and voter faith in the integrity of state elections. “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance,” the court ruled, “because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”

              That passage is key, since it establishes a rationale for voter ID laws that does not require that fraud be widespread. Efforts to avoid the perception of fraud or the belief that it could take place – both of which could discourage citizens from voting – are sufficient to merit the voter ID requirement.
              NRA Life Member

              The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

              Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

              Comment


              • #8
                Why New Photo ID Laws Mean Some Won't Vote

                http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006...some-wont-vote

                The argument over whether voters should have to present photo identification at the polls usually splits along party lines. Republicans who favor the requirement say it prevents ballot fraud. Democrats and election rights groups who oppose it say it is meant to suppress turnout.

                And people of all political stripes wonder what all the fuss is about.

                Most Americans are accustomed to whipping out photo IDs at work, the bank or even their own apartment buildings. And their driver's license — perhaps the most common form of government-issued photo ID — has become just as indispensable.

                "I get that all the time: 'What's the big deal? I just got my driver's license renewed, it took like five seconds,' " says Larry Norden, acting director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which opposes these laws. "Frankly, that's why these laws have been so successful, because 89 percent of the population does have photo IDs."

                That leaves another 3.2 million Americans who don't possess a government-issued picture ID, according to a recent study co-authored by Norden.

                In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-identification law in Indiana, saying that requiring voters to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and affirming that states have a "valid interest" in improving election procedures and deterring fraud.

                Four years later, 31 states require voters to show some form of identification at the polls. Fifteen of them require photo IDs. At least five of those states just recently passed tough new photo ID voting laws that could affect voters for the first time in 2012.

                The Justice Department is now involved (so far, rejecting a South Carolina law), and the courts are soon to follow due to the growing number of lawsuits challenging these laws.

                As the battle intensifies, some basic questions are being raised: How many Americans don't have government-issued picture identification? And how, in this era of post-9/11 security and digital commerce, could anyone function without it?

                Who Are They?

                By all estimates, those least likely to have a government-issued photo ID fall into one of four categories: the elderly, minorities, the poor and young adults aged 18 to 24. The Brennan Center estimates that 18 percent of all seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have picture IDs.

                Seniors traditionally have been the most consistent voting group, particularly in absentee balloting. Turnout among minorities has steadily risen over the years and reached a record in 2008 (when the rate of black turnout virtually equaled that of whites for the first time). Also in 2008, turnout of under-24-year-olds reached its highest rate since 1992.

                Why Don't They Have Photo IDs?

                Many people have multiple forms of identification, including those that display their pictures — like employee badges or credit and debit cards. But states with strict voter ID laws require people to have certain photo IDs issued by governments.

                That typically means driver's licenses. But many seniors and many poor people don't drive. In big cities, many minorities rely on public transit. And many young adults, especially those in college, don't yet have licenses.

                Voter ID Laws Across The Nation

                Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
                A good number of these people, particularly seniors, function well with the IDs they have long had — such as Medicaid cards, Social Security cards or bank cards. Among the elderly, many of them have banked at the same branch for so long that tellers recognize them without needing to see their IDs. They also may rarely need to cash or deposit checks, relying instead on the direct depositing of Social Security and pension payments.

                "The people we're finding are very poor people, people who never drove — and it's surprising how many people are like that," says Larry Dupuis of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, which has filed suit to overturn that state's voter ID law. "They tend to be older people, often women. They also never had a need for a state ID card. There are many things you don't need an ID card for that people think you actually need one for."

                Among minorities in poor and rural communities, it's common to bypass banks with their paychecks and rely on cash-checking stores, which will accept most forms of photo ID.

                Many states offer non-driver IDs that can be displayed when voting, often provided by motor vehicle agencies.

                But that can create a host of problems for some. Rural residents can live great distances from state motor vehicle offices. And some state motor vehicle agencies have chronically long wait times for customers. In Tennessee, which has a new voter ID law, the governor has raised concerns about whether offices are prepared to handle an increased volume of ID seekers.

                To Get An ID, You Need An ID

                In most states with voter ID laws, citizens must present birth certificates to obtain new photo IDs. Seniors and those born in rural areas, in particular, face a difficult time meeting the requirement because birth certificates weren't regularly generated in the 1930s and earlier. And many of these people were delivered by midwives, who often improperly spelled babies' and parents' names on birth documents.


                People are caught in a Catch-22: You need a birth certificate to get this ID, but to get a birth certificate you have to have an ID.


                - Elisabeth MacNamara, League of Women Voters.
                If a state does have a person's birth certificate, they often must present a photo ID to obtain a copy. That can put an individual back at square one.

                "People are caught in a Catch-22: You need a birth certificate to get this ID, but to get a birth certificate you have to have an ID," says Elisabeth MacNamara, who heads the League of Women Voters.

                MacNamara also notes that a birth certificate may not be sufficient documentation for women who changed their names after marrying. States require them to present their marriage licenses or divorce decrees.

                Here are three longtime voters and their stories in trying to comply with new voter ID laws.

                Thelma Mitchell, Nashville, Tenn.

                When Thelma Mitchell, a retired state employee, learned that her old employee ID (which was issued by the state and included her photo) wouldn't meet Tennessee's new voter ID law, she went to a motor vehicle office to obtain a valid photo ID. The agency asked her for a birth certificate, but she didn't have one and was denied her request for a new ID.

                Mitchell, 93, has never had a birth certificate. She wasn't born in a hospital and was delivered by a midwife, in Alabama in 1918. Birth certificates, particularly for African-Americans in the South, weren't regularly generated at the time. As a result, Mitchell may not be able to vote this year for the first time in decades.

                "I got so mad" about being turned away, Mitchell said in an interview. "I was holding my peace to keep from telling him off. So I didn't get to vote."

                Another obstacle for Tennessee seniors: The state doesn't put photos on the licenses of drivers over age 65. This practice affects some 30,000 people, according to voting rights advocates in the state.

                Florence Hessing, Bayfield, Wis.

                At age 96, Florence Hessing is disabled, rarely leaves her home and votes by absentee ballot. She has a driver's license that expired a few years ago. She wrote to the state asking the requirements for obtaining a new photo ID under the state's recently enacted voter ID law. The response she received outlined the requirements and included a $28 fee — which angered Hessing because she expected the ID to be free.

                Hessing first had to come up with a birth certificate. She wrote to Iowa, where she was born, but the state had no official record.

                "I think that's a shift if I can't vote," Hessing said in an interview. "It'd feel like I was thrown out."

                Ruthelle Frank, Brokaw, Wis.

                Like Hessing and Mitchell, Frank, 84, was denied in her application for a new voter ID because she lacked a birth certificate. She was born in Wisconsin, has lived in the same home for 83 years and never had need of the document.

                "After I was married, we made several trips into Canada. I used my baptismal certificate to cross all the time," Frank said. "That's all I ever needed."

                She called her county's registrar of deeds, to no avail. The state's vital records office managed to find her birth certificate, but there were other problems — both her parents' names were misspelled, rendering the document invalid.

                "In order to get it corrected, I'd have to amend it. And it would cost $200," Frank said. "I decided I didn't want to spend $200 for the right to vote because I've always thought the right to vote was free. I don't think it's fair."
                So there's money for campaigns to "get out the vote" or "Rock the Vote", but no money/assistance to help people get photo IDs?
                NRA Life Member

                The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

                Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

                Comment


                • #9
                  What's this pole-axe business Holder's yakking about? I mean, those are a nasty weapon, but they're ancient. And I haven't seen anyone waving one around, so I think he's hallucinating.





                  Never mind.
                  --
                  Capital Punishment means never having to say "you again?"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Pogue Mahone View Post
                    Hey Troop;
                    Is there a difference between meth addicts & oxy addicts?

                    Just wondering....
                    There is zero difference.
                    "The deepest human defeat suffered by human beings is constituted by the difference between what one was capable of becoming and what one has in fact become."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pogue Mahone View Post
                      Hey Troop;
                      Is there a difference between meth addicts & oxy addicts?

                      Just wondering....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mjhoyt27 View Post
                        There is zero difference.
                        Says someone thats never been a LEO.....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bearcat357 View Post
                          Says someone thats never been a LEO.....
                          Because Oxy is legal to use (when prescribed for a certain use), that makes it an ok drug to abuse? Addiction is addiction, no matter if it's to drugs,alcohol, gambing, etc.
                          "The deepest human defeat suffered by human beings is constituted by the difference between what one was capable of becoming and what one has in fact become."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Better teeth.
                            Originally posted by Pogue Mahone View Post
                            Hey Troop;
                            Is there a difference between meth addicts & oxy addicts?

                            Just wondering....
                            The All New
                            2013
                            BBQ and Goldfish Pond Club
                            Sully - IAM Rand - JasperST - L1 - The Tick - EmmaPeel - Columbus - LA Dep - SgtSlaughter - OneAdam12 - Retired96 - Iowa #1603
                            - M1Garand

                            (any BBQ and Goldfish Pond member may nominate another user for membership but just remember ..... this ain't no weenie roast!)



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mjhoyt27 View Post
                              Because Oxy is legal to use (when prescribed for a certain use), that makes it an ok drug to abuse? Addiction is addiction, no matter if it's to drugs,alcohol, gambing, etc.
                              A. Oxy is legal when prescribed....meth isn't....

                              B. Oxy users tend to be more white collar folks.....meth-heads aren't.....not even close.

                              C. Only reason you are making a comment is because it refers to Rush.....ONLY REASON......and that makes you and all the other Libs on here laugh and gigle like little school kids when you can try to zing folks....

                              Shouldn't you be studying your flight manual....? Oh wait.....

                              Comment

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 10711 users online. 525 members and 10186 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X