quote:

ORIGINAL: tammystarm

FR.

If one need not prove who you say you are when voting then I suggest the voting process is not longer a credible governing process and we need to leave the country and find one that requires voter I.D.s.

That would be the European Union. Ironic that, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
How would one establish citizenship when they go vote? Perhaps, a valid Government ID?

Actually, no. You don't have to be a US citizen to get a driver's license or state ID, only a legal resident. And not even that, in some states. I've known loads of foreign citizens on student or work visas that had driver's licenses, and I also know a couple of illegal immigrants with driver's licenses. So how does showing a photo ID prevent non-citizens from voting?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The question is and always has been, if the goal is to stop a very small number of fraudulent votes being cast why is the disenfranchisement of, nationally, millions of voters necessary?
For instance in all of these states that are trying to suppress Democratic voters under guise of a voter ID law a college ID is no longer acceptable as proof of identity. No attempt was made to give the affected institutions a way to bring their ID up to some acceptable standard despite the fact that the public institutions, being controlled by the same legislators, would certainly have complied and unless the requirements were ridiculously onerous the private institutions would have as well.
Now Republicans in North Carolina have taken it a step further and are laying the groundwork to not recognize the residency of any college student who lives in a dorm.

I think that's standard operating procedure, Ken. That is, it's not a new thing. Dormitory residence is still considered "temporary" residence. It's not like it's difficult to get an absentee ballot, is it? Didn't the NC law say something that it wouldn't be going into full effect until 2015? If you can't figure out how to obtain an absentee ballot in 2+ years...

It's unconstitutional. Convenient how you ignored that fact.

Proof that it's un-Constitutional? Your claim is biased without SCOTUS proof, so, I'm not ignoring a "fact." At best, I'm ignoring your claim that it's un-Constitutional. But, we'll likely see what the SCOTUS thinks eventually.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/08/14/county-board-to-student-candidate-you-can-vote-for-now-but-you-cant-run-for-city-council/
Now this is of course blatantly unconstitutional and will eventually cost the people of North Carolina a lot of money when the federal courts slap these fools down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symm_v._United_States
Then we can move on to the complete lack of any attempt to accommodate people who are elderly, disabled or unable to reach a driver's license facility. Texas is the worst example of this. There is not a DL facility in every county and there are places where it is a 100 mile trip to get to one. If the goal is to increase the integrity of elections and not suppress the vote of Democratic leaning demographics why not allow county governments to issue acceptable ID's and why not include provisions for getting ID's to those people physically or financially unable to reach a DL facility?
In short, the evidence shows that these laws are not about election integrity but are about suppressing the vote of groups that do not support Republicans.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html

Every State has their own set of "difficulties" they have to deal with. Why should NC be limited by difficulties in TX? Why not let Texans decide how best to navigate through their own issues? Isn't that the point of State/County/local levels of government, and elections of those officials at the local level?

Did you not read what I wrote? Why respond with these non sequiturs?

You wrote about how some Texans have long drives to get to an ID facility. That matters to NC.. how?

quote:

quote:

quote:

NC elected their officials. If you think the elections were fraudulent (meaning those who are now creating the legislation are their fraudulently), then make that claim and show your proof. Governance by consent of the governed certainly does mean that NC legislators elected by NC constituents, have their consent to govern NC. They were elected to legislate and govern to the best of NC and their constituents. As I said before, if this isn't desired by NC residents, they will elect new legislators to replace the current ones and repeal this legislation. The SCOTUS could rule that the law isn't Constitutional, also invalidating the law.

I never claimed the elections were fraudulent that is the Republicans claim. Another at best non sequitur.

I doubt the Republicans legislators in NC are claiming that the elections they won were fraudulent. I never claimed you did claim it, either (thus the whole "if you think" bit). Nice of you to ignore the rest of the paragraph, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

2. Why should a person's constitutional rights be abridged over a problem that has never been actually shown to exist.

for the SAME REASON, I have to PROVE I am who I say I am to access my satelite TV service and cell phone account, or telephone account, or gas or elect, etc etc etc...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The question is and always has been, if the goal is to stop a very small number of fraudulent votes being cast why is the disenfranchisement of, nationally, millions of voters necessary?
For instance in all of these states that are trying to suppress Democratic voters under guise of a voter ID law a college ID is no longer acceptable as proof of identity. No attempt was made to give the affected institutions a way to bring their ID up to some acceptable standard despite the fact that the public institutions, being controlled by the same legislators, would certainly have complied and unless the requirements were ridiculously onerous the private institutions would have as well.
Now Republicans in North Carolina have taken it a step further and are laying the groundwork to not recognize the residency of any college student who lives in a dorm.

I think that's standard operating procedure, Ken. That is, it's not a new thing. Dormitory residence is still considered "temporary" residence. It's not like it's difficult to get an absentee ballot, is it? Didn't the NC law say something that it wouldn't be going into full effect until 2015? If you can't figure out how to obtain an absentee ballot in 2+ years...

It's unconstitutional. Convenient how you ignored that fact.

Proof that it's un-Constitutional? Your claim is biased without SCOTUS proof, so, I'm not ignoring a "fact." At best, I'm ignoring your claim that it's un-Constitutional. But, we'll likely see what the SCOTUS thinks eventually.

Try following the bolded link below. It's been unconstitutional since the 70's.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/08/14/county-board-to-student-candidate-you-can-vote-for-now-but-you-cant-run-for-city-council/
Now this is of course blatantly unconstitutional and will eventually cost the people of North Carolina a lot of money when the federal courts slap these fools down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symm_v._United_States
Then we can move on to the complete lack of any attempt to accommodate people who are elderly, disabled or unable to reach a driver's license facility. Texas is the worst example of this. There is not a DL facility in every county and there are places where it is a 100 mile trip to get to one. If the goal is to increase the integrity of elections and not suppress the vote of Democratic leaning demographics why not allow county governments to issue acceptable ID's and why not include provisions for getting ID's to those people physically or financially unable to reach a DL facility?
In short, the evidence shows that these laws are not about election integrity but are about suppressing the vote of groups that do not support Republicans.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html

Every State has their own set of "difficulties" they have to deal with. Why should NC be limited by difficulties in TX? Why not let Texans decide how best to navigate through their own issues? Isn't that the point of State/County/local levels of government, and elections of those officials at the local level?

Did you not read what I wrote? Why respond with these non sequiturs?

You wrote about how some Texans have long drives to get to an ID facility. That matters to NC.. how?

It is one example. I'm not strictly discussing NC but all these laws.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

NC elected their officials. If you think the elections were fraudulent (meaning those who are now creating the legislation are their fraudulently), then make that claim and show your proof. Governance by consent of the governed certainly does mean that NC legislators elected by NC constituents, have their consent to govern NC. They were elected to legislate and govern to the best of NC and their constituents. As I said before, if this isn't desired by NC residents, they will elect new legislators to replace the current ones and repeal this legislation. The SCOTUS could rule that the law isn't Constitutional, also invalidating the law.

I never claimed the elections were fraudulent that is the Republicans claim. Another at best non sequitur.

I doubt the Republicans legislators in NC are claiming that the elections they won were fraudulent. I never claimed you did claim it, either (thus the whole "if you think" bit). Nice of you to ignore the rest of the paragraph, though.

Either the Republicans are claiming vote fraud is so common that it is creating doubt as to the integrity of elections or the reason for these laws are even more clearly partisan disenfranchisement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Well, if you don't have a driver's lisense you can't drive, no-one complains about it being "difficult" to get a D.L.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Well, if you don't have a driver's lisense you can't drive, no-one complains about it being "difficult" to get a D.L.

Nobody? I do. It takes a long time, it's expensive, unnecessary, and you have to give up a lot of privacy in doing so. There, you can't say the above anymore.

quote:

Thank God we don't want to make sure we prevent something, or lower the risk of something happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Thank God we don't want to make sure we prevent something, or lower the risk of something happening.

But we do want to prevent something: Democratic voters getting to the polls.

quote:

hope that's not sugar-sweetened Kool-Aid, DC. Not good for your teeth.

Come to think of it, the non-sugar sweetened Kool-Aid isn't all that good for you, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

hope that's not sugar-sweetened Kool-Aid, DC. Not good for your teeth.
Come to think of it, the non-sugar sweetened Kool-Aid isn't all that good for you, either.

LOL!
Speaking of sugar and saccharine, it's sweetly entertaining to see the Kool-Aid image invoked by someone attempting to convince others that the GOP's "voter fraud prevention" laws represent a good-faith effort to protect the nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Sorry, I missed the link.

How are college kids not eligible to vote because of this law? Perhaps you can show how that is accomplished?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The Democratic poll workers in Ohio who voted as many as 8 times definitely debunked the concept of voter fraud didn't it.

in this case critical thinking clearly means leftist viewpoint

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Sorry, I missed the link.
How are college kids not eligible to vote because of this law? Perhaps you can show how that is accomplished?

Another link you ignored. Read it this time
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/08/14/county-board-to-student-candidate-you-can-vote-for-now-but-you-cant-run-for-city-council/

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


The Kool Aid is that this is only going to impact Democrat supporters, and that it's going to negatively impact a significant number of voters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Kool Aid is that this is only going to impact Democrat supporters, and that it's going to negatively impact a significant number of voters.

It's been my point all along.
It's a law that increases the size of Government
It costs a good amount of money
It doesn't do a damn thing except make a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers feel all warm and fuzzy inside because there wasn't a verifiable problem to be addressed in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, if you don't have a driver's lisense you can't drive, no-one complains about it being "difficult" to get a D.L. and driving isn't even a right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The Kool Aid is that this is only going to impact Democrat supporters, and that it's going to negatively impact a significant number of voters.

It's been my point all along.
It's a law that increases the size of Government
It costs a good amount of money
It doesn't do a damn thing except make a bunch of Kool Aid drinkers feel all warm and fuzzy inside because there wasn't a verifiable problem to be addressed in the first place.

You should stop drinking it up, Hill.

quote:

Bitching about the pain in the ass DMV is so common it's become an art form.