RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote

RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 1:07:31 PM)
Oh, I realise there are all matters of opinions on the political spectrum, but I also realise that when it comes to the crunch, people end up voting one way or another (if they're able to exercise their right, which is becoming more and more of a joke - "Get over it" indeed). It's inevitable, with bipartisan politics.

popeye1250 -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 1:19:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Oh, I realise there are all matters of opinions on the political spectrum, but I also realise that when it comes to the crunch, people end up voting one way or another (if they're able to exercise their right, which is becoming more and more of a joke - "Get over it" indeed). It's inevitable, with bipartisan politics. Well I totally disagree. I'm an Independant voter and a "moderate." I don't like either "end" of the political spectrum.

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 1:22:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol There are exceptions, of course; you can quote examples all you like, sappy left-wing thinkers are more intellectually honest, on average, than their more rabid right-wing counterparts. Can't be helped, it's just the way it is [:D] . Nothing wrong with saying it, you know. PS: are you consulting for your Ted Kennedy obsession? Kitten, you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that there are a lot more opinions than "left" and "Right." I don't see why anyonewould be against honest and fair elections. We certainly don't want "dead people" voting like they do in Chicago do we? And it's a federal felony for someone who's not allowed to vote to even try. And it's a federal felony to prevent a legally registered voter from casting a ballot but I seem to have missed the federal prosecutors going after Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush. Even the most conservative estimates I've ever seen means both are due for 2500 or so consecutive sentences. I want fair and honest elections and that includes stopping all the real shit the GOP pulls every election and once that is down to the sorts of numbers we're talking about here then I'm all for spending money stopping this particular problem. Until then maybe the states and feds should spend money and other resources putting an end to voter intimidation and harrassment as well as such well documented practices as county election boards intentionally sending fewer machines to minority or democratic leaning precincts. As to the ID requirement, if the ID card is free and some way is provided for those without transportation or who are home bound to get the ID then it's really no big deal. However if it is only issued at a driver's license facility at driver's license costs that is an unacceptable impediment to voting which is how its going to be done in both GA and IN.

popeye1250 -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 1:34:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol There are exceptions, of course; you can quote examples all you like, sappy left-wing thinkers are more intellectually honest, on average, than their more rabid right-wing counterparts. Can't be helped, it's just the way it is [:D] . Nothing wrong with saying it, you know. PS: are you consulting for your Ted Kennedy obsession? Kitten, you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that there are a lot more opinions than "left" and "Right." I don't see why anyonewould be against honest and fair elections. We certainly don't want "dead people" voting like they do in Chicago do we? And it's a federal felony for someone who's not allowed to vote to even try. And it's a federal felony to prevent a legally registered voter from casting a ballot but I seem to have missed the federal prosecutors going after Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush. Even the most conservative estimates I've ever seen means both are due for 2500 or so consecutive sentences. I want fair and honest elections and that includes stopping all the real shit the GOP pulls every election and once that is down to the sorts of numbers we're talking about here then I'm all for spending money stopping this particular problem. Until then maybe the states and feds should spend money and other resources putting an end to voter intimidation and harrassment as well as such well documented practices as county election boards intentionally sending fewer machines to minority or democratic leaning precincts. As to the ID requirement, if the ID card is free and some way is provided for those without transportation or who are home bound to get the ID then it's really no big deal. However if it is only issued at a driver's license facility at driver's license costs that is an unacceptable impediment to voting which is how its going to be done in both GA and IN. DomKen, what's the problem with Registry of Motor Vehicles Offices issuing state I.D. cards like they do now? Are we supposed to set up a whole new beauracracy just to issue non driver's lisense I.D. cards at a cost of millions of dollars? That doesn't make sense does it? Dept of Motor Vehicles offices are already set up to issue drivers lisenses and state I.D. cards. And the prices aren't outragious at all, it was $10 for a state I.D. card in New Hampshire for 4 years when I lived there. You simply bring in a copy of your birth certificate and one other picture I.D. card with you to the Dept of Motor Vehicles, pay your $10 and you're out of there in 10-15 minutes. What's the problem with that? Oh, I noticed that you're from Chicago, how many times will you be voting in the next election?

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 1:40:23 PM)
I'm curious, and I can't find a figure anywhere: does anybody know how many adults in the USA don't have a driving license?

hisannabelle -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 1:48:12 PM)
kittinsol, are you talking driving license or state identification, period? because i don't have a drivers license but i do have a state id.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 1:52:03 PM)
I was talking driving license.

hisannabelle -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 1:56:16 PM)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/pdf/dl20.pdf http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/2003HTMLTSF/cov2.htm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/dl22.htm in 2003 there were 196,165,667 licensed drivers. current us population is 303,868,496; adult population is approx 70% of that. have to run so i can't do the math right now.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 2:07:33 PM)
Thank you, annabelle. It's reassuring that so many American adults drive. I have to say that I find the timing of the bill a little odd: why didn't someone think of it before? Seems a bit rushed, doesn't it, so soon before the election? Sounds to me like this bill has for goal to disenfranchise certain voters even more than they already are, under the pretense that it's in the interest of fairness and justice. Can't argue against the latter, and you can't prove the former: yep, like I said... more rabid, more devious, more ready to do anything in their power to 'win'... kudos to the Republicans. They know how to grab it.

popeye1250 -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 2:14:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Thank you, annabelle. It's reassuring that so many American adults drive. I have to say that I find the timing of the bill a little odd: why didn't someone think of it before? Seems a bit rushed, doesn't it, so soon before the election? Sounds to me like this bill has for goal to disenfranchise certain voters even more than they already are, under the pretense that it's in the interest of fairness and justice. Can't argue against the latter, and you can't prove the former: yep, like I said... more rabid, more devious, more ready to do anything in their power to 'win'... kudos to the Republicans. They know how to grab it. KittenSol, now what are you on about? Who's being disenfranchised?

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 2:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 DomKen, what's the problem with Registry of Motor Vehicles Offices issuing state I.D. cards like they do now? Are we supposed to set up a whole new beauracracy just to issue non driver's lisense I.D. cards at a cost of millions of dollars? That doesn't make sense does it? Dept of Motor Vehicles offices are already set up to issue drivers lisenses and state I.D. cards. And the prices aren't outragious at all, it was $10 for a state I.D. card in New Hampshire for 4 years when I lived there. You simply bring in a copy of your birth certificate and one other picture I.D. card with you to the Dept of Motor Vehicles, pay your $10 and you're out of there in 10-15 minutes. What's the problem with that? In GA they're charging $20 for a 4 year state ID and that is only after a federal judge ordered the state not to charge more for the ID than they did for DL's. In addition to that of course is the cost of getting required documents, I just had to get a new copy of my birth certificate and it cost me $12 for the document and took almsot 3 months to arrive (expidited service was available for about $100). $30+ may not seem an unreasonable barrier but it clearly is a concern for those on limited or fixed incomes. Poll taxes of any sort, this is clearly a disguised poll tax, are intended to disenfranchise the poor and disadvantaged. As to the problem with the DMV issuing ID's, the problems are ones of access. If you don't have a car, no DL remember, then how hard is it going to be to go to the DMV just to get the ID. Will you have to spend the whole day there amongst the hordes dealing with driver's tests of various sorts? How will your transportation work around this? Furthermore is the DMV set up to accomodate a disabled person? Are you just SOL if you need a braille form or assitsance filling out paperwork? What allowances are made for paraplegics or others on repsirators? A DMV site setup strictly for the issueing of licenses is not going to be equipped or designed to accomodate these problems. Fundamentally forcing travel to someplace more distant than the polling place to become eligible to vote will disenfranchisement some percentage of the electorate.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 2:28:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Who's being disenfranchised? See Ken's reply as above [8\|] . As for your self-description as a 'moderate'... if this were the case, I doubt you would rant against 'liberals' and 'left-wingers' as often as you do on these boards. Unless, of course, you ranted against 'conservatives' and 'right-wingers' as much. All the more power to you, obviously... just don't kid yourself :-) .

popeye1250 -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 2:29:37 PM)
Well that's odd, they don't seem to have any problem finding $1,200 for a big screen t.v. set do they?

Archer -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 2:53:55 PM)
Kittensol #1 this is not something they have tried to push through in a short term. Hell it's been in the news since at least the 2000 election cycle they've been pushing for it in different states for the past 8 years. The fact that you have just heard about it now does not speak well to you having a well researched opinion (not that it's required to be). DomKen Lets see you only have 10 years (see documented proof below) to make the trip one time DomKen wow what a horridly ionconvienent thing to require. BTW how were they supposed to get registered without a trip to the county registrars office. Oh yeah those door to door drives that have been used by both sides to institute fraud. Where the registration drivers toss registrations of the party they don't happen to agree with, or forging names. http://www.komotv.com/news/8729967.html ( a liberal Fraud) http://mamamusings.net/archives/2004/10/13/voter_registration_fraud_in_nevada.php ( a conservative one) Taken directly from the Drivers services website at http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/dldata.aspx?con=1749371755&ty=dl "Georgia law provides for the issuance of a free identification card to citizens eighteen (18) and over who are registered voters. In order to be eligible for a free identification card, the voter must have no acceptable proof of identity to use when voting. These free identification cards are issued at all Customer Service Centers and are valid for ten (10) years." (locations http://www.dds.ga.gov/locations/LocationList.aspx ) Making the trip to get the free ID once every 10 years is hardly a hardship for most people. BTW these voter ID cards provide for alot of things where a State issued ID is required. Check cashing, writting a check at a store, Airline travel, soon to be required for AMTRAC etc. As to the costs of REPLACING paperwork constituting a polltax, poppycock. If you don't lose the original Birth Certificate you don't have to pay to replace it and to get a replacement you have to have acouple of the same acceptable forms of ID you would need to get the voter ID card. Lose them all in a fire or something and it gets to be a real problem.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 3:22:57 PM)
Sorry, but I'm not convinced this episode isn't linked to the forthcoming election. It's a little too timely to be a coincidence. And we know how grabby some people are when it comes to votes: they'll do just about anything to help secure a win. What are rules, if not to keep the people down, and the power-hungry in power?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 3:43:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Sorry, but I'm not convinced this episode isn't linked to the forthcoming election. It's a little too timely to be a coincidence. And we know how grabby some people are when it comes to votes: they'll do just about anything to help secure a win. What are rules, if not to keep the people down, and the power-hungry in power? The 'conspiracy' started on appeal to the Supreme Court from the 7th District filed January 4, 2007 quote: Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit (January 4, 2007) Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/04/supreme-court-allows-indiana-voter.php As a result of this decision: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/01/indiana-voter-photo-id-law-upheld-on.php Upholding a lower court decision dating from April 2006 : http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/opinions/AO6340O1.pdf Yup - GREAT planning for all these Courts and Judges appointed throughout the years by various Administrations to make the ultimate decision be decided just in time by the Supreme Court in April 2008, to affect the 2008 November elections. A 'conspiracy' to generate a result of insuring that you only get to vote once per election and that you have to show an ID. There is more scrutiny applied to being allowed to enter and shop at COSTCO. However fear not, it seems the Democrats, apparently they more than Republicans need people to vote early and often, have pledged to fight against this foolish concept of verifying your ID and only voting once. Per this source, they will fight against any attempt of the one vote per election per person everywhere the insidious idea tries to spread. quote: Democrats in Congress and various state legislatures will try to fight off attempts by those various states to enact laws similar to Indiana's. Supposedly, those laws won't be passed in time to affect this November's vote, but don't count on it. Source: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/bushbeat/archives/2008/04/supreme_court_t.php

popeye1250 -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 3:55:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Who's being disenfranchised? See Ken's reply as above [8\|] . As for your self-description as a 'moderate'... if this were the case, I doubt you would rant against 'liberals' and 'left-wingers' as often as you do on these boards. Unless, of course, you ranted against 'conservatives' and 'right-wingers' as much. All the more power to you, obviously... just don't kid yourself :-) . [sm=abducted.gif]

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 4:00:31 PM)
Not to fret, my opinion desn't count: they can't steal my vote, I don't have one to begin with [8D] . I'll just stay in the shade, making annoying comments. Believe what you like if it makes you happy. Me, I'd rather stay awake. Each to their own :-) . Sous le soleil de Satan... now, there's a conspiracy!

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 4:04:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol See Ken's reply as above [8\|] . As for your self-description as a 'moderate'... if this were the case, I doubt you would rant against 'liberals' and 'left-wingers' as often as you do on these boards. Unless, of course, you ranted against 'conservatives' and 'right-wingers' as much. All the more power to you, obviously... just don't kid yourself :-) . [sm=abducted.gif] Well, I read here a lot, and I consider popeye to be an equal opportunity ranter. Her rants equally against both parties. In fact, he has been heard loudly and often regarding his third party preferences. It seems perceptions often differ. [8D]

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court says states CAN require ID to vote (4/29/2008 4:09:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold It seems perceptions often differ. [8D] Especially his own self-perception [sm=biggrin.gif] . I think that's part of his charm.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875