(12-29-2011 11:30 AM)Max Power Wrote:  That's why its proponents can only find a handful of cases to demonstrate the need for this law.

Which is funny considering the people on this thread against the laws keep posting the same three story about an old woman who would have to pay to fix her birth certificate in order to vote.

(12-29-2011 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

It starts with the notion that every American over 18 years old should be able to vote. If you don't believe that, then there's further reason for discussion. Most right-wingers don't really believe that.

(12-29-2011 11:43 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

It starts with the notion that every American over 18 years old should be able to vote.

Exactly. Now, what's your proposal to determine that?

Funny, Dims are the only ones opposed to trying to prevent voter fraud. Very telling.

(12-29-2011 11:43 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

It starts with the notion that every American over 18 years old should be able to vote. If you don't believe that, then there's further reason for discussion. Most right-wingers don't really believe that.

Article I, section 2, which says that electors for the House of Representatives—and, by extension, for all federal elections—“shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

This give states the rights to set rules for voting e.g. Felons..

The exceptions are, of course, in the Constitution. The law itself forbids the exclusion of voters on specific grounds, such as race and sex. It also bans the poll tax or other tax and sets the age.

United States v. Lopez (1995) held that “The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.” And no power exists for Congress to pass a law banning felon disenfranchisement by the states.

There are NO disenfranchised voters due to ID requirements. Zero, zip, nada. Stop lying otherwise. ID is extremely easy to obtain.

You righties don't remember this one?

(AP) About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,"' Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

Nonetheless, she said, the convent will make a "very concerted effort" to get proper identification for the nuns in time for the general election. "We're going to take from now until November to get them out and get this done. You can't do this like school kids on a bus," she said. "I wish we could."

Turning away elderly nuns in the name of preventing voter fraud. By the way, the story goes on to point out that this state has NEVER prosecuted a single case of voter fraud. Yet GOPers are willing to disenfranchise people to stop this non-existent threat. Strike that, GOPers are willing to disenfranchise traditionally Democratic voters to stop this non-existent threat.

Dims, always willing to play the emotion card; logic be damned.

How long did they know they needed an ID? How were the poll workers supposed to know they weren't visiting nuns from abroad?

(12-29-2011 12:13 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  You righties don't remember this one?

(AP) About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,"' Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

Nonetheless, she said, the convent will make a "very concerted effort" to get proper identification for the nuns in time for the general election. "We're going to take from now until November to get them out and get this done. You can't do this like school kids on a bus," she said. "I wish we could."

Turning away elderly nuns in the name of preventing voter fraud. By the way, the story goes on to point out that this state has NEVER prosecuted a single case of voter fraud. Yet GOPers are willing to disenfranchise people to stop this non-existent threat. Strike that, GOPers are willing to disenfranchise traditionally Democratic voters to stop this non-existent threat.

See bolded text. Why did they go? There isn't any evidence that voting fraud doesn't exist. I've said this before...if I didn't vote and a vote was cast in my name I would never know. We have no idea how severe the problem really is and won't until the sanctity is restored.

(12-29-2011 12:13 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  (AP) About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,"' Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

Nonetheless, she said, the convent will make a "very concerted effort" to get proper identification for the nuns in time for the general election. "We're going to take from now until November to get them out and get this done. You can't do this like school kids on a bus," she said. "I wish we could."

Turning away elderly nuns in the name of preventing voter fraud. By the way, the story goes on to point out that this state has NEVER prosecuted a single case of voter fraud. Yet GOPers are willing to disenfranchise people to stop this non-existent threat. Strike that, GOPers are willing to disenfranchise traditionally Democratic voters to stop this non-existent threat.

One more time.

They can get to a polling place on ONE SPECIFIC DAY but they can't get an ID on ANY DAY OF THEIR CHOOSING OF THEIR LIFE. Zero disenfranchising here.

(12-29-2011 12:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 11:43 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

It starts with the notion that every American over 18 years old should be able to vote. If you don't believe that, then there's further reason for discussion. Most right-wingers don't really believe that.

Article I, section 2, which says that electors for the House of Representatives—and, by extension, for all federal elections—“shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

This give states the rights to set rules for voting e.g. Felons..

The exceptions are, of course, in the Constitution. The law itself forbids the exclusion of voters on specific grounds, such as race and sex. It also bans the poll tax or other tax and sets the age.

United States v. Lopez (1995) held that “The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.” And no power exists for Congress to pass a law banning felon disenfranchisement by the states.

No it doesn't. It just says that federal voting requirements shall be the same as state voting requirements. It doesn't give states carte blanche to come up with whatever requirement they can think of.

Article 1 Section 4 provides:

Quote:The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

So the states can deal with voter fraud, but the Congress can make or alter their laws. This is what Congress did with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- preventing the states from passing voting laws that have a disparate impact on minorities. If Congress so chose, they could protect felons too, and it would be constitutional.

(12-29-2011 12:37 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 12:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 11:43 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

It starts with the notion that every American over 18 years old should be able to vote. If you don't believe that, then there's further reason for discussion. Most right-wingers don't really believe that.

Article I, section 2, which says that electors for the House of Representatives—and, by extension, for all federal elections—“shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

This give states the rights to set rules for voting e.g. Felons..

The exceptions are, of course, in the Constitution. The law itself forbids the exclusion of voters on specific grounds, such as race and sex. It also bans the poll tax or other tax and sets the age.

United States v. Lopez (1995) held that “The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.” And no power exists for Congress to pass a law banning felon disenfranchisement by the states.

No it doesn't. It just says that federal voting requirements shall be the same as state voting requirements. It doesn't give states carte blanche to come up with whatever requirement they can think of.

Article 1 Section 4 provides:

Quote:The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

So the states can deal with voter fraud, but the Congress can make or alter their laws. This is what Congress did with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- preventing the states from passing voting laws that have a disparate impact on minorities. If Congress so chose, they could protect felons too, and it would be constitutional.

We solve this problem by giving everyone a federal id card or better yet, implant a chip or tattoo a number on everyone. I am sure the righties will agree to that(especially the fundamentalist Christian ones like Torchy and Bull).

You do understand that the Bill or rights is a list of the things that the government *CANT* do right?

Hell the founders had no issue banning race or gender. That was not ok to do so it was rectified with specific modification to the constitutions... Where is the one for felons?

Please read this again:

Quote:The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

Congress can change *1* the day of national elections *2* where those elections can be held and *3* in what manner counting will be done (e.g. electoral college)...

Nowhere in there does it give congress the right to determine *who* can vote in those elections..

Of course I realize that. And you realize that Article I is separate from the Bill of Rights (which are the first 10 amendments), and Article I lists the things the government *CAN* do?

It gives Congress the right to regulate the "manner," which is more than "counting." The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean "matters like notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns." So if Congress wanted to protect a certain segment of voters in my opinion they could, and if a state tried a similar "voting fraud" law Congress could override it under this section. Admittedly, I can't say for sure. The Voting Rights Act avoided this question because the 15th Amendment protects against discrimination of minorities, so it was plainly constitutional.

(12-29-2011 01:16 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Of course I realize that. And you realize that Article I is separate from the Bill of Rights (which are the first 10 amendments), and Article I lists the things the government *CAN* do?

Does Article I say they *CAN* certify who is eligible to vote in an election

"matters like notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns." So if Congress wanted to protect a certain segment of voters in my opinion they could, and if a state tried a similar "voting fraud" law Congress could override it under this section. Admittedly, I can't say for sure. The Voting Rights Act avoided this question because the 15th Amendment protects against discrimination of minorities, so it was plainly constitutional.

Nope.... Even your highlighted parts..

"protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices"

Don't say who can or can't be a voter.... Just that they need to be protected and not defrauded. Only the states, within the parameters of the Bill of Rights, get to determine who can or can not vote *in that state*

It says Congress can regulate the "manner of holding elections." "Manner" is a very broad word, and I think it encompasses voting eligibility.

By saying someone can be a voter I think Congress plainly protects them.

Again, I can't say how SCOTUS would rule on this. To my knowledge Congress has never tried to step in on its own to protect a class other than minorities, so the issue hasn't come up. I just think it could survive a challenge.

(12-29-2011 02:57 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It says Congress can regulate the "manner of holding elections." "Manner" is a very broad word, and I think it encompasses voting eligibility.

By saying someone can be a voter I think Congress plainly protects them.

Again, I can't say how SCOTUS would rule on this. To my knowledge Congress has never tried to step in on its own to protect a class other than minorities, so the issue hasn't come up. I just think it could survive a challenge.

SCOTUS already has ruled on it. There is no right to vote in a Presidential election.

(12-29-2011 02:57 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It says Congress can regulate the "manner of holding elections." "Manner" is a very broad word, and I think it encompasses voting eligibility.

By saying someone can be a voter I think Congress plainly protects them.

Again, I can't say how SCOTUS would rule on this. To my knowledge Congress has never tried to step in on its own to protect a class other than minorities, so the issue hasn't come up. I just think it could survive a challenge.

No, it really would not. Else we would not have needed to amend the constitution to protect voting rights for Women, Minorities, and 18 year olds.

Another example of where 'manner' was not a high enough bar was the election of senators..

From Article II

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Did congress pass a law making senators elected rather than appoints or did they have to amend the constitution!

You are looking for congressional powers where they simply don't exist..

???? I'm not discussing an individual's constitutional right to vote in an election. I'm discussing Congress' constitutional power to regulate who can vote.

(12-29-2011 03:08 PM)Max Power Wrote:  ???? I'm not discussing an individual's constitutional right to vote in an election. I'm discussing Congress' constitutional power to regulate who can vote.

which is *NOT* in the constitution *anywhere*... But a states right to regulate who can vote is *explicitly mentioned* and only restricted *where the constitution has been amended*