(01-24-2019 12:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Considering you are asking for 'what societal good can come out of making it harder to vote', then no, I dont think I *am* blind there. Bro.

Let me paste your question here if you dont remember:

Quote:What is the societal good about creating a proposal that makes it harder for eligible voters to vote?

Asking for fing ID, and requiring ID actually 'mak[e] it harder to vote', which is the crux of *your* *explicit* question. Or do you just gloss over that?

You said I had a viewpoint that there be zero restrictions on voting.

When did I advocate for that?

(01-24-2019 12:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Intent does not need to be expressly stated

Agreed, and I did not say otherwise.

Quote:The Circuit opinion also has a curious ratchet theory:
"When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, 'politics as usual' does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers."

That statement isn't even fully logical, but leaving that aside, the gist seems to be "the legislative process can only be used to benefit the party that we agree with."

Potentially. Or on the flip side, it’s ok to expand the right and not ok to contract the right that was expanded.

(01-24-2019 12:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Intent does not need to be expressly stated

Agreed, and I did not say otherwise.

Quote:The Circuit opinion also has a curious ratchet theory:
"When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, 'politics as usual' does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers."

That statement isn't even fully logical, but leaving that aside, the gist seems to be "the legislative process can only be used to benefit the party that we agree with."

Actually, the "gist" is precisely what it says: resurrecting barriers to minority voting is unlawful, even if you do it because you suspect those voters will prefer your political opponents.

Anyway, I would chalk this up to some bad actors in the NC General Assembly, but since the theme of this thread is that all members of a political party are homogeneous, I guess I have to assume that this is just reflective of the entire Republican party. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(01-24-2019 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And as I've said numerous times, if Republicans want to couple a voter ID law with proposals that support facilitate people getting said ID, then it's a good proposal. It would, theoretically, strengthen the voting system and reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud, while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry that has been established for eligible voters.

IMO, any voter ID law must be coupled with efforts to reduce the barrier put up for eligible voters. Our government should not be increasing the barrier to entry with respect to voting - regardless of what party those potential voters support.

Democrats would still oppose it, as they are doing in Texas.

Characterized by the media as a "tough law", here are its requirements:
voter id law

Yet it is being vigorously opposed. Those on this board who are saying that Democrats want no barriers to voting whatsoever are not exaggerating.

(01-24-2019 01:08 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Intent does not need to be expressly stated

Agreed, and I did not say otherwise.

Quote:The Circuit opinion also has a curious ratchet theory:
"When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, 'politics as usual' does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers."

That statement isn't even fully logical, but leaving that aside, the gist seems to be "the legislative process can only be used to benefit the party that we agree with."

Actually, the "gist" is precisely what it says: resurrecting barriers to minority voting is unlawful, even if you do it because you suspect those voters will prefer your political opponents.

Anyway, I would chalk this up to some bad actors in the NC General Assembly, but since the theme of this thread is that all members of a political party are homogeneous, I guess I have to assume that this is just reflective of the entire Republican party. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Except "barriers to minority voting" are as defined by the court, not in the law. The court will decide which elements of the law constitute barriers, and then based on that subjective judgement will disallow for all time any laws that reverse course - the "ratchet" that George mentioned.

(01-24-2019 01:17 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And as I've said numerous times, if Republicans want to couple a voter ID law with proposals that support facilitate people getting said ID, then it's a good proposal. It would, theoretically, strengthen the voting system and reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud, while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry that has been established for eligible voters.

IMO, any voter ID law must be coupled with efforts to reduce the barrier put up for eligible voters. Our government should not be increasing the barrier to entry with respect to voting - regardless of what party those potential voters support.

Democrats would still oppose it, as they are doing in Texas.

Characterized by the media as a "tough law", here are its requirements:
voter id law

Yet it is being vigorously opposed. Those on this board who are saying that Democrats want no barriers to voting whatsoever are not exaggerating.

I think it’s a reasonable law because it allows for one to still vote without an ID. I’d still prefer it be coupled with legislation helping to expand one’s ability to get an ID, but this provides a sufficient out.

At some point someone on here tried to say something about all Democrats...

(01-24-2019 01:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:08 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Intent does not need to be expressly stated

Agreed, and I did not say otherwise.

Quote:The Circuit opinion also has a curious ratchet theory:
"When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, 'politics as usual' does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers."

That statement isn't even fully logical, but leaving that aside, the gist seems to be "the legislative process can only be used to benefit the party that we agree with."

Actually, the "gist" is precisely what it says: resurrecting barriers to minority voting is unlawful, even if you do it because you suspect those voters will prefer your political opponents.

Anyway, I would chalk this up to some bad actors in the NC General Assembly, but since the theme of this thread is that all members of a political party are homogeneous, I guess I have to assume that this is just reflective of the entire Republican party. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Except "barriers to minority voting" are as defined by the court, not in the law. The court will decide which elements of the law constitute barriers, and then based on that subjective judgement will disallow for all time any laws that reverse course - the "ratchet" that George mentioned.

Ah, yes, the ol' "Courts are stacked against us" refrain. I knew we'd get here eventually.

(01-24-2019 02:49 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:08 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Intent does not need to be expressly stated

Agreed, and I did not say otherwise.

Quote:The Circuit opinion also has a curious ratchet theory:
"When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, 'politics as usual' does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers."

That statement isn't even fully logical, but leaving that aside, the gist seems to be "the legislative process can only be used to benefit the party that we agree with."

Actually, the "gist" is precisely what it says: resurrecting barriers to minority voting is unlawful, even if you do it because you suspect those voters will prefer your political opponents.

Anyway, I would chalk this up to some bad actors in the NC General Assembly, but since the theme of this thread is that all members of a political party are homogeneous, I guess I have to assume that this is just reflective of the entire Republican party. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Except "barriers to minority voting" are as defined by the court, not in the law. The court will decide which elements of the law constitute barriers, and then based on that subjective judgement will disallow for all time any laws that reverse course - the "ratchet" that George mentioned.

Ah, yes, the ol' "Courts are stacked against us" refrain. I knew we'd get here eventually.

I said the court read the NC law as creating barriers to minority voting, and in their summation said that any law which they interpret as such is unlawful, whatever the plain wording might be. Nothing about the courts being stacked against "us", whoever "us" is in your imagination.

Of course, if you just make sh!t up about what I said, you can imagine anything you want about me and my position. Easier that way.

(01-24-2019 02:49 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:08 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Intent does not need to be expressly stated

Agreed, and I did not say otherwise.

Quote:The Circuit opinion also has a curious ratchet theory:
"When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, 'politics as usual' does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers."

That statement isn't even fully logical, but leaving that aside, the gist seems to be "the legislative process can only be used to benefit the party that we agree with."

Actually, the "gist" is precisely what it says: resurrecting barriers to minority voting is unlawful, even if you do it because you suspect those voters will prefer your political opponents.

Anyway, I would chalk this up to some bad actors in the NC General Assembly, but since the theme of this thread is that all members of a political party are homogeneous, I guess I have to assume that this is just reflective of the entire Republican party. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Except "barriers to minority voting" are as defined by the court, not in the law. The court will decide which elements of the law constitute barriers, and then based on that subjective judgement will disallow for all time any laws that reverse course - the "ratchet" that George mentioned.

Ah, yes, the ol' "Courts are stacked against us" refrain. I knew we'd get here eventually.

Funny you dont even acknowledge the explicit ratchet there.

(01-24-2019 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:17 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And as I've said numerous times, if Republicans want to couple a voter ID law with proposals that support facilitate people getting said ID, then it's a good proposal. It would, theoretically, strengthen the voting system and reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud, while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry that has been established for eligible voters.

IMO, any voter ID law must be coupled with efforts to reduce the barrier put up for eligible voters. Our government should not be increasing the barrier to entry with respect to voting - regardless of what party those potential voters support.

Democrats would still oppose it, as they are doing in Texas.

Characterized by the media as a "tough law", here are its requirements:
voter id law

Yet it is being vigorously opposed. Those on this board who are saying that Democrats want no barriers to voting whatsoever are not exaggerating.

I think it’s a reasonable law because it allows for one to still vote without an ID. I’d still prefer it be coupled with legislation helping to expand one’s ability to get an ID, but this provides a sufficient out.

At some point someone on here tried to say something about all Democrats...

I think the gist is more of a "Democrats as a whole" or "Democrats as a group" or "the leadership of the Democrats" instead of "all Democrats". Significant difference. But please feel to interpret to your specific liking.

(01-24-2019 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:17 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And as I've said numerous times, if Republicans want to couple a voter ID law with proposals that support facilitate people getting said ID, then it's a good proposal. It would, theoretically, strengthen the voting system and reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud, while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry that has been established for eligible voters.

IMO, any voter ID law must be coupled with efforts to reduce the barrier put up for eligible voters. Our government should not be increasing the barrier to entry with respect to voting - regardless of what party those potential voters support.

Democrats would still oppose it, as they are doing in Texas.

Characterized by the media as a "tough law", here are its requirements:
voter id law

Yet it is being vigorously opposed. Those on this board who are saying that Democrats want no barriers to voting whatsoever are not exaggerating.

I think it’s a reasonable law because it allows for one to still vote without an ID. I’d still prefer it be coupled with legislation helping to expand one’s ability to get an ID, but this provides a sufficient out.

At some point someone on here tried to say something about all Democrats...

I think the gist is more of a "Democrats as a whole" or "Democrats as a group" or "the leadership of the Democrats" instead of "all Democrats". Significant difference. But please feel to interpret to your specific liking.

Oh, so then why do y'all get made about comments about deplorables or racists if it's so easy to see the distinction????

(01-24-2019 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:17 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And as I've said numerous times, if Republicans want to couple a voter ID law with proposals that support facilitate people getting said ID, then it's a good proposal. It would, theoretically, strengthen the voting system and reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud, while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry that has been established for eligible voters.

IMO, any voter ID law must be coupled with efforts to reduce the barrier put up for eligible voters. Our government should not be increasing the barrier to entry with respect to voting - regardless of what party those potential voters support.

Democrats would still oppose it, as they are doing in Texas.

Characterized by the media as a "tough law", here are its requirements:
voter id law

Yet it is being vigorously opposed. Those on this board who are saying that Democrats want no barriers to voting whatsoever are not exaggerating.

I think it’s a reasonable law because it allows for one to still vote without an ID. I’d still prefer it be coupled with legislation helping to expand one’s ability to get an ID, but this provides a sufficient out.

At some point someone on here tried to say something about all Democrats...

I think the gist is more of a "Democrats as a whole" or "Democrats as a group" or "the leadership of the Democrats" instead of "all Democrats". Significant difference. But please feel to interpret to your specific liking.

Oh, so then why do y'all get made about comments about deplorables or racists if it's so easy to see the distinction????

Well the fing witch did expressly say half of those of us who were so unenlightened to support her were 'deplorable'. In fact the witch expanded it to racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it.

I guess that if you dont see the issue between saying "A good number of Democrats want new votes" and "A good number of anyone who supports the other dude are literally 'racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it'", that is your problem, not mine.

If you do see the difference there, good for you.

If you dont, then I would suggest that you 'cipher on it a spell, son' <takes hay straw out of mouth, and rearranges the remaining three teeth>

(01-24-2019 05:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:17 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And as I've said numerous times, if Republicans want to couple a voter ID law with proposals that support facilitate people getting said ID, then it's a good proposal. It would, theoretically, strengthen the voting system and reduce the risk of in-person voter fraud, while simultaneously reducing the barrier to entry that has been established for eligible voters.

IMO, any voter ID law must be coupled with efforts to reduce the barrier put up for eligible voters. Our government should not be increasing the barrier to entry with respect to voting - regardless of what party those potential voters support.

Democrats would still oppose it, as they are doing in Texas.

Characterized by the media as a "tough law", here are its requirements:
voter id law

Yet it is being vigorously opposed. Those on this board who are saying that Democrats want no barriers to voting whatsoever are not exaggerating.

I think it’s a reasonable law because it allows for one to still vote without an ID. I’d still prefer it be coupled with legislation helping to expand one’s ability to get an ID, but this provides a sufficient out.

At some point someone on here tried to say something about all Democrats...

I think the gist is more of a "Democrats as a whole" or "Democrats as a group" or "the leadership of the Democrats" instead of "all Democrats". Significant difference. But please feel to interpret to your specific liking.

Oh, so then why do y'all get made about comments about deplorables or racists if it's so easy to see the distinction????

Well lad, the issue at hand is you get all wound up and spastic on a 'all of them, every single one of them' fit.

Did Hillary say every single person on the other side was 'deplorable"? No, Im not going to get spastic on a 'every single one of them' tangent. I am sure that at least one person who did not vote for Madame 'Really should be in the pokey' is such a deplorable. I'd bet my savings account on that.

You are getting all worked up on 'every single one of them'.

Oh, and in addition, she called 'half of them' fing racists and bigots rather explicitly, mind you.

If the purpose of voter ID is to suppress minority voting, it is a colossal failure, not even approaching the bottom limits of efficiency. How many votes did it suppress?

A dozen? Less? Half a dozen? Less?

First, there has to exist some person who does not have an ID. Since IDs are required for everything from buying alcohol and tobacco, to buying guns, to filing insurance with a doctor, to getting food stamps, to getting EBT, to getting anything from the government, to filing an income tax return, to boarding an airplane, to ...well, everything. Try leaving your ID at home and going on vacation, or just going to work. nearly everybody in the US has ID. IN THE US. Important caveat. The few who don't are mostly people who live deep in the backwoods or homeless, I would think Hardly a bunch of people ravenous to vote, but afraid of...well, afraid of what?

Now take that tiny number and subtract the ones who don't want an ID.

Now take that tinier number and subtract those who don't want to vote.

Now take that remaining teensy-weensy, tiny infinitesimal number and subtract those who cannot get somebody to give them them a ride to get a free ID. Ever.

Now take that number and subtract the ones that are white. (this is about minority suppression, remember?)

Now, how many do you think are left that are minorities who have no ID, want one, want to vote and cannot find a friend or agency to give them a ride to get ID any time in the whole year. Can't these people even call the local Democratic headquarters and get a ride? I thought the Democrats were protecting these people - all 6 or 8 of them.

Not a problem. If you know where to find these 6 or 8 people, give them a ride to the DMV to get their free ID. Then take them to vote.

Anecdote: In 2016, my son was a provisional voter because of a problem with his ID. Probably his vote did not count. As we all know, Trump won Texas by one vote, and without Texas, would have lost the election. So without the minority suppression of this white male, Hillary would have won. Ironic, huh. here we are, all racists trying to suppress blacks, and somehow a white male gets nicked.

As a result, my white male son didn't vote in the 2018 election(discouraged, you see), and by damn, Cruz beats Beto.

As obvious as 2+2=4.

(01-24-2019 03:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 02:49 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 01:08 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 12:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Agreed, and I did not say otherwise.


That statement isn't even fully logical, but leaving that aside, the gist seems to be "the legislative process can only be used to benefit the party that we agree with."

Actually, the "gist" is precisely what it says: resurrecting barriers to minority voting is unlawful, even if you do it because you suspect those voters will prefer your political opponents.

Anyway, I would chalk this up to some bad actors in the NC General Assembly, but since the theme of this thread is that all members of a political party are homogeneous, I guess I have to assume that this is just reflective of the entire Republican party. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Except "barriers to minority voting" are as defined by the court, not in the law. The court will decide which elements of the law constitute barriers, and then based on that subjective judgement will disallow for all time any laws that reverse course - the "ratchet" that George mentioned.

Ah, yes, the ol' "Courts are stacked against us" refrain. I knew we'd get here eventually.

I said the court read the NC law as creating barriers to minority voting, and in their summation said that any law which they interpret as such is unlawful, whatever the plain wording might be. Nothing about the courts being stacked against "us", whoever "us" is in your imagination.

Of course, if you just make sh!t up about what I said, you can imagine anything you want about me and my position. Easier that way.

Yeah, nobody's been making anything up or generalizing about positions on this thread - that's for sure.

I'm not sure what your point is, other than to imply that the courts are somehow acting improperly by determining that certain laws are being promulgated and enforced with an intent to diminish minority votes. I guess this is "subjective" in the sense that every judge everywhere has to decide what he thinks the evidence shows. Your prior point was that this was somehow politically motivated. Regardless, the point still stands:

FO: Republicans would never attempt to disenfranchise anyone.
4th COA: Here's some remarkably compelling evidence that the Republican legislature intended to disenfranchise minority voters.
FO: Well that's just their opinion.

What are we supposed to do with that?

(01-25-2019 04:29 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  FO: Republicans would never attempt to disenfranchise anyone.

I didn't say that. You are deliberately misquoting me to make it appear I'm arguing the position you wish to vilify. Have you ever considered journalism? You'd be good at it.

Still no comment on the ratchet?

(01-25-2019 04:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 04:29 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  FO: Republicans would never attempt to disenfranchise anyone.

I didn't say that. You are deliberately misquoting me to make it appear I'm arguing the position you wish to vilify. Have you ever considered journalism? You'd be good at it.

Still no comment on the ratchet?

Sorry, let me rephrase:

FO: Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man.
4th COA: Here's some remarkably compelling evidence that the Republican legislature intended to disenfranchise minority voters by taking advantage of their socioeconomic disadvantages.
FO: Well that's just their opinion.

I never got the ratchet thing, which is why I didn't reply.

(01-25-2019 05:53 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  FO: Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man.

Actually, I said "minorities" not "poor people", but yeah.

Quote:4th COA: Here's some remarkably compelling evidence that the Republican legislature intended to disenfranchise minority voters by taking advantage of their socioeconomic disadvantages.

No argument with that

Quote:FO: Well that's just their opinion.

Their opinion was that the law itself should be struck down, not because of its wording, but because of its intent. They didn't rule the application unconstitutional, but the law itself. I hate it when the courts do that. Yes, I know that horse left the stable a long time ago, but I still don't like it. It's like when gun rights activists oppose legislation that sets forth a reasonable restriction or requirement, with the argument that the intent of those proposing the law is curtailing 2nd amendment rights and the law will create a slippery slope toward that. There's what the law says, and then there's the way it could potentially be applied, and the 4th COA made no distinction and struck it down on the basis of conceivable future consequences.

Quote:I never got the ratchet thing, which is why I didn't reply.

The court went on to say that they didn't care how any future law was worded or how it could be applied, if they gauged the intent or possible application to be contrary to their opinion of what the law ought to do, they would strike it down.

I don't like judicial activism, especially when the judges are ranging so far beyond the wording of the law that they claim godlike ability to see and control the future.

(01-25-2019 06:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-25-2019 05:53 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  FO: Republicans are not expressly attempting to disenfranchise poor people. That is a straw man.

Actually, I said "minorities" not "poor people", but yeah.

Quote:4th COA: Here's some remarkably compelling evidence that the Republican legislature intended to disenfranchise minority voters by taking advantage of their socioeconomic disadvantages.

No argument with that

Quote:FO: Well that's just their opinion.

Their opinion was that the law itself should be struck down, not because of its wording, but because of its intent. They didn't rule the application unconstitutional, but the law itself. I hate it when the courts do that. Yes, I know that horse left the stable a long time ago, but I still don't like it. It's like when gun rights activists oppose legislation that sets forth a reasonable restriction or requirement, with the argument that the intent of those proposing the law is curtailing 2nd amendment rights and the law will create a slippery slope toward that. There's what the law says, and then there's the way it could potentially be applied, and the 4th COA made no distinction and struck it down on the basis of conceivable future consequences.

Quote:I never got the ratchet thing, which is why I didn't reply.

The court went on to say that they didn't care how any future law was worded or how it could be applied, if they gauged the intent or possible application to be contrary to their opinion of what the law ought to do, they would strike it down.

I don't like judicial activism, especially when the judges are ranging so far beyond the wording of the law that they claim godlike ability to see and control the future.

To the latter point, without the ability to use evidence to show that a law was racially discriminatory, how would one be found unconstitutional if it was written without explicitly stating that it was going to discriminate by race, but was obviously intended to?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

First, some people need to be "disenfranchised." Those who should not legally or properly be voting need to be stopped from doing so.

Second, allowing people to vote improperly "disenfranchises" the rest of us who voted legally and properly, if they offset our votes.

Third, why would anyone fight so hard against requiring voters to be provide proper identification, unless they intended to have people cast fraudulent votes?