(12-27-2011 12:34 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 12:09 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Why is it assumed that it's because of their race that they don't have an ID?

Youd be surprised as to the instances of deliberate misidentification. Cop makes a stop. They don't have ID, so they "toss" a name, usually fake. You can't verify it unless you take them in and run prints, so Cop just writes a ticket for a moving violation plus "no driver's license" both of which are ignored.

So you're saying that, putting aside that silly little voting thing that they'll probably never do (felons can't anyway), there's a practical upside to not having ID? Sweet.

(12-27-2011 11:59 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  In 2007 SCOTUS ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that requiring an ID to vote did not impair voting rights.

There really isn't much difference from the Indiana Statute previously considered and the South Carolina Law. Holder is just posturing.

Nope. Crawford held that a voter ID requirement was not unconstitutional as it pertains to all voters on Due Process grounds because states have a "legitimate state interest" (the lowest threshold applied to non-protected classes and non-fundamental rights) in preventing voter fraud.

Holder isn't challenging the constitutionality of the South Carolina ID law. He's proceeding under the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits changes to the voting process that have a disparate impact on minorities (whether or not that is the intent). Because South Carolina has a history of discrimination the Justice Department has the authority under the Act to block it before it goes into effect. South Carolina had evidence of its own to show the disparate impact; this was an open and shut case for Holder. And he could probably challenge other states and win under the Act.

(12-27-2011 12:09 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Why is it assumed that it's because of their race that they don't have an ID?

It isn't. This is about disparate impact. The reason why there's a disparate impact doesn't matter.

I'd be more okay with voter ID laws if people could call an 800 number, make an appointment, and have a state worker come to their house or place of work to issue them a free ID. Plus, the state would have to run ads on TV and make direct mailings letting people know they can get the free IDs through appointments; and the state workers would be able to register a person to vote and issue the ID at the same time. If preventing voter fraud is really important to righties, then the additional cost shouldn't be a deterrent. Of course the intent of the laws is to suppress voter participation, so there is no way righties would go for a plan that might actually get more people to vote.

(12-23-2011 06:00 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 05:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 04:51 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters.

Dems want/need voter fraud. QED.

Everybody stand back, the pseudo-scientist is reaching for his unsubstantiated conspirary theories.

It's quite amusing that with all this voter fraud, the lack of evidence of it is staggering.

And these fools are too dumb to realize they are just being duped by the annual Fox News meme.

(12-27-2011 02:02 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Of course the intent of the laws is to suppress voter participation, so there is no way righties would go for a plan that might actually get more people to vote.

And you have proof of that, right? If a person has ID then how is voter participation surpressed?

I've said this before, many of the millions of people in New York City don't have driver's licenses because they many never get behind the wheel of a car during their entire lives - yet they some how manage to vote, even the people in the projects.

(12-27-2011 02:02 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I'd be more okay with voter ID laws if people could call an 800 number, make an appointment, and have a state worker come to their house or place of work to issue them a free ID. Plus, the state would have to run ads on TV and make direct mailings letting people know they can get the free IDs through appointments; and the state workers would be able to register a person to vote and issue the ID at the same time. If preventing voter fraud is really important to righties, then the additional cost shouldn't be a deterrent. Of course the intent of the laws is to suppress voter participation, so there is no way righties would go for a plan that might actually get more people to vote.

Wow... A special van to run around and have home appointments to give ID's what could go wrong with that...

I'd like an ID please ok be at your home from 12pm to 3pm on Tuesday...

A far better solution is to allow provisional votes and have the state body who issues ID's to come out to the polls and take the photo and relevant proof of ID *at the poll* and then, if everything checks out for that voter make their provisional vote official.

(12-27-2011 03:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Wow... A special van to run around and have home appointments to give ID's what could go wrong with that...

Nothing can go wrong, just like when the DMV came to my house to give me my driving tests. And then there's the time the library came to my house to give me a book. The government came to my house so I could sign up for the do not call registry. I couldn't make it to the last city council meeting so they held it on my lawn. The government works for me, dammit, so I deserve special attention!!!!!!!!!!!

(12-27-2011 03:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 02:02 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I'd be more okay with voter ID laws if people could call an 800 number, make an appointment, and have a state worker come to their house or place of work to issue them a free ID. Plus, the state would have to run ads on TV and make direct mailings letting people know they can get the free IDs through appointments; and the state workers would be able to register a person to vote and issue the ID at the same time. If preventing voter fraud is really important to righties, then the additional cost shouldn't be a deterrent. Of course the intent of the laws is to suppress voter participation, so there is no way righties would go for a plan that might actually get more people to vote.

A far better solution is to allow provisional votes and have the state body who issues ID's to come out to the polls and take the photo and relevant proof of ID *at the poll* and then, if everything checks out for that voter make their provisional vote official.

Thats the situation in Crawford. If you dont have an ID with you at time of voting, you get a provisional ballot. You can come back after the Election, show your ID, and your ballot gets counted.

(12-27-2011 04:55 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 03:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 02:02 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I'd be more okay with voter ID laws if people could call an 800 number, make an appointment, and have a state worker come to their house or place of work to issue them a free ID. Plus, the state would have to run ads on TV and make direct mailings letting people know they can get the free IDs through appointments; and the state workers would be able to register a person to vote and issue the ID at the same time. If preventing voter fraud is really important to righties, then the additional cost shouldn't be a deterrent. Of course the intent of the laws is to suppress voter participation, so there is no way righties would go for a plan that might actually get more people to vote.

A far better solution is to allow provisional votes and have the state body who issues ID's to come out to the polls and take the photo and relevant proof of ID *at the poll* and then, if everything checks out for that voter make their provisional vote official.

Thats the situation in Crawford. If you dont have an ID with you at time of voting, you get a provisional ballot. You can come back after the Election, show your ID, and your ballot gets counted.

That's very open minded of them. I can't get away with coming back with my ID when I go to a liquer store, bank, airport, etc.

(12-27-2011 02:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 06:00 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 05:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-23-2011 04:51 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The DOJ announced today that they are blocking South Carolina's voter ID law based on its disproportionate impact on minority voters.

Dems want/need voter fraud. QED.

Everybody stand back, the pseudo-scientist is reaching for his unsubstantiated conspirary theories.

It's quite amusing that with all this voter fraud, the lack of evidence of it is staggering.

And these fools are too dumb to realize they are just being duped by the annual Fox News meme.

They're not being duped. They know exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

, in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary,
[/quote]

Exactly how would a voter id law have prevented this?

(12-27-2011 05:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  , in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary,

Exactly how would a voter id law have prevented this?
[/quote]

So doing nothing about other types of fraud is OK? Why are you against an ID card?

(12-27-2011 06:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 05:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  , in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary,

Exactly how would a voter id law have prevented this?

So doing nothing about other types of fraud is OK? Why are you against an ID card?

We're not against the card...at least I don't think we are...we are against the fees and hoops the Republicans are setting up trying to suppress minority and low income voters which historically vote Democrat. It's the same thing all the new Republican governors did with the union busting initiatives to try and thwart union money which historically goes to Democrats.

And the same thing was behind the witch hunt of ACORN, which registered mostly low income voters.

It's as clear as the nose on your face.

I have to give it to ACORN. They know how to gum up the system. Submitting an incorrect registration for a nonexistent person say "Mickey Mouse" is not illegal. You submit a registration on a real person giving their DOB etc at an incorrect address-- that is criminal registration fraud.

The Mickey Mouse registrations are just smoke to allow the frauds to get through.

(12-27-2011 06:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 06:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 05:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  , in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary,

Exactly how would a voter id law have prevented this?

So doing nothing about other types of fraud is OK? Why are you against an ID card?

We're not against the card...at least I don't think we are...we are against the fees and hoops the Republicans are setting up trying to suppress minority and low income voters which historically vote Democrat. It's the same thing all the new Republican governors did with the union busting initiatives to try and thwart union money which historically goes to Democrats.

And the same thing was behind the witch hunt of ACORN, which registered mostly low income voters.

It's as clear as the nose on your face.

Say it slowly with me... in states like Wisconsin *there are no fees* and the only hoop is that DMV employees are not telling people..

(12-28-2011 10:07 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 06:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 06:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 05:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  , in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary,

Exactly how would a voter id law have prevented this?

So doing nothing about other types of fraud is OK? Why are you against an ID card?

We're not against the card...at least I don't think we are...we are against the fees and hoops the Republicans are setting up trying to suppress minority and low income voters which historically vote Democrat. It's the same thing all the new Republican governors did with the union busting initiatives to try and thwart union money which historically goes to Democrats.

And the same thing was behind the witch hunt of ACORN, which registered mostly low income voters.

It's as clear as the nose on your face.

Say it slowly with me... in states like Wisconsin *there are no fees* and the only hoop is that DMV employees are not telling people..

And Wisconsin is not the only state implementing these laws. And no, there are other hoops and fees in Wisconsin: http://www.peoplesworld.org/84-year-old-...-poll-tax/

I always find it funny when I see liberals expose their blatant racism, I.e. thinking blacks are too stupid to obtain an ID.

(12-28-2011 12:04 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I always find it funny when I see liberals expose their blatant racism, I.e. thinking blacks are too stupid to obtain an ID.

About as funny as you stupid cons making **** up that nobody said or inferred.

(12-27-2011 06:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 06:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 05:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  , in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary,

Exactly how would a voter id law have prevented this?

So doing nothing about other types of fraud is OK? Why are you against an ID card?

We're not against the card...at least I don't think we are...we are against the fees and hoops the Republicans are setting up trying to suppress minority and low income voters which historically vote Democrat. It's the same thing all the new Republican governors did with the union busting initiatives to try and thwart union money which historically goes to Democrats.

And the same thing was behind the witch hunt of ACORN, which registered mostly low income voters.

It's as clear as the nose on your face.

1. There are poor conservatives
2. There are minorities who are conservatives
3. Union busting or trying to save money?
4. "All the new Republican governors"???? All of them?
5. Bringing up ACORN doesn't help your argument. That's like the Oakland Raiders bringing up Todd Marinovich. Both are better off just quietly fading away.