• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ohio Republicans want voters to pay to get special ID cards

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have a right to own property.

Yes, so long as it conforms to "due process of law". (Fifth amendment.)



The gov't requires me to have insurance that costs FAR more than $8 to exercise that right.... and I must prove to the state that I have it.

Yes, that's part of the "due process of law" part. So far, there is no law requiring a photo voter ID. I'm not in favor of it. Therefore, let's not have that law.

Would you feel better if a private company issued state accepted ID's?

non sequitur.

Along with that, I had to produce a SS card and another form of ID to purchase the property because the gov't requires it.

Yes, that's part of the "due process of law" part. So far, there is no law requiring a photo voter ID. I'm not in favor of it. Therefore, let's not have that law.

Repeat this phrase for everything else on your list. Then remember, there is no law requiring a photo voter ID.
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
After her identity was stolen my mom DID NOT NEED to replace her social security card to continue to receive social security benefits. She DID NOT NEED to replace her driver's license to get a new checking account. She DID NOT NEED to get a new health insurance card to continue to get health care.

But, under Ohio's voting scheme, she would need to replace her driver's license or else get their special voter ID card. That would require two people to get her into a vehicle, a wheelchair once she got to the DMV, waiting in line at the DMV for who knows how long, then two people to get her back into a vehicle, and two to unload her back at her house. All of this would depend on whether or not she felt she had enough energy to actually go to the DMV on any given day. So, yes, it would be burdensome for her to get a photo ID.

Contrast that with requesting an absentee ballot, filling it out and mailing it in. Which is more burdensome?

Not to mention I've described the same very burdensome task in Georgia. If a person has to go through all of that just to get an ID to vote, they aren't gonna do it especially if you're on a limited income and don't drive.

Scott and the GOP know this. They just don't care if it's difficult for the elderly and the poor to do.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Exactly where in the Constitution is voting a right

For heaven's sake, I've posted this at least three times in the past year.

15th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So once the law is passed then it will meet your "as it conforms to 'due process of law' " standard

Yes. So long as its ruled constitutional, and a lot of them have been of late. Keep in mind that states control the voter registration process.
 

just-want-peace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For heaven's sake, I've posted this at least three times in the past year.

15th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Seems that PROOF of who you are, IE: CITIZEN of the US of A, conforms pretty well with IDs! So where is the problem??

(As an aside, if you have to take a cab to the polling spot, is that considered "paying to vote"? According to some of the fuzzy logic on this thread, I would have to say YES! :confused:)
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Seems that PROOF of who you are, IE: CITIZEN of the US of A, conforms pretty well with IDs! So where is the problem??

The problem is that they want to require a photo ID and they want you to pay for it. Millions of people that had previously been legally voting will now be unable to do so without taking action and paying money.

(As an aside, if you have to take a cab to the polling spot, is that considered "paying to vote"? According to some of the fuzzy logic on this thread, I would have to say YES! :confused:)

No. Because there are alternative ways to get to the polling place. The voter chose to use that cab. If this new law were to be passed the voter would have no choice but to obtain one of these ID's.
 

Zaac

Well-Known Member
(As an aside, if you have to take a cab to the polling spot, is that considered "paying to vote"? According to some of the fuzzy logic on this thread, I would have to say YES! :confused:)

If you don't pay to take a cab, will they stop you from voting when you get to the polls?

NOPE.

You can walk, ride a bike, carpool, get a ride from church and still vote when you get to the polls.

Show up without paying for this ID, and they won't let you vote

More fuzzy logic

rejected.jpg
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
For heaven's sake, I've posted this at least three times in the past year. ...

You are missing my whole point!
Each example you gave me was "on account of ...gender, race, age..."

Where does the Constitution give a general right to vote?

And to add fuel to the fire, A State/Commonwealth could pass a law allowing non-citizen Asian males over the age of 25 to vote!

Those amendments you gave only prohibit the States/Commonwealths from discriminating against the groups you mentioned in post # 85
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are missing my whole point!
Each example you gave me was "on account of ...gender, race, age..."

Where does the Constitution give a general right to vote?

And to add fuel to the fire, A State/Commonwealth could pass a law allowing non-citizen Asian males over the age of 25 to vote!

Those amendments you gave only prohibit the States/Commonwealths from discriminating against the groups you mentioned in post # 85

Don't be obtuse. The only discrimination is age. The U.S. government must allow citizens above the age of 18 to vote. States must allow a man or a woman citizen, of any race, that is over the age of 18 the right to vote.

And no, a state could not allow a non-citizen to vote based on Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
Don't be obtuse. The only discrimination is age. The U.S. government must allow citizens above the age of 18 to vote. States must allow a man or a woman citizen, of any race, that is over the age of 18 the right to vote.

No a state does not have to as evidenced by states not allowing felons to vote.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No a state does not have to as evidenced by states not allowing felons to vote.

OK, but the supremacy clause of the US Constitution would prevail in the hypothetical case of Salty whereby non-citizen Asian would be allowed to vote.
 

matt wade

Well-Known Member
OK, but the supremacy clause of the US Constitution would prevail in the hypothetical case of Salty whereby non-citizen Asian would be allowed to vote.

I don't disagree with that. My point is that states certainly can place limitations on who can vote and who can't. The only restrictions to that are clearly defined. Anything else is fair game.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
The U.S. government must allow citizens above the age of 18 to vote. States must allow a man or a woman citizen, of any race, that is over the age of 18 the right to vote..
and on the other hand, a State or Commonwealth could allow citizens younger than 18 to vote


And no, a state could not allow a non-citizen to vote based on Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Article 6, Clause 2 does not address voting.
So, where does the US Constitution require a person to be a US citizen to be able to vote?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
and on the other hand, a State or Commonwealth could allow citizens younger than 18 to vote



Article 6, Clause 2 does not address voting.

It's the Supremacy Clause that states the Constitution and federal law supersedes state law.


So, where does the US Constitution require a person to be a US citizen to be able to vote?

For heaven's sake, I've posted this at least three times in the past year.

15th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't disagree with that. My point is that states certainly can place limitations on who can vote and who can't. The only restrictions to that are clearly defined. Anything else is fair game.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th amendment, sec. 2 covers the exclusion of felons to voting. Therefore, states have an ability to bar felons from voting, and rebels or criminals are the only type of person that may be barred from voting, the penalty being a reapportionment of representation (loss of members of US Congress).

But when the right to vote [...] is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

matt wade

Well-Known Member
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th amendment, sec. 2 covers the exclusion of felons to voting. Therefore, states have an ability to bar felons from voting, and rebels or criminals are the only type of person that may be barred from voting, the penalty being a reapportionment of representation (loss of members of US Congress).

But when the right to vote [...] is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

I don't think sec 2 says what you think it says. What it actually says is that if a state denies someone from voting that their congressional representation can be reduced. It then states that the representation can't be reduced if those citizens were disenfranchised because they were criminals or involved in a rebellion.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't think sec 2 says what you think it says. What it actually says is that if a state denies someone from voting that their congressional representation can be reduced. It then states that the representation can't be reduced if those citizens were disenfranchised because they were criminals or involved in a rebellion.

Clearly says every male of age has the right to vote and the state cannot exclude anyone except for rebels or criminals. The Supreme Court has affirmed this viewpoint.
 
Top