Supreme Court upholds Arizona's photo ID law for elections

Admittedly, neither do I. It's just, like I said before, if it's important enough to me, I usually make the sacrifice and save for whatever it is. Even $15 for an ID.

 

I would like to see state id's issued for free. I think we gain more than $15 value by having each american able to prove their identity.

 

What, no cheese? Someone poison your wheaties tonight or did you eat raw meat for dinner?

 

Nothing is free. Somebody is gonna pay for it. I say, if it is important enoughfor you to vote, you can hold off from that six pack of beer and spend $15 bucks for an ID.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Actually, it is a privilege to vote. The Constitutino and courts have upheld that view by marking out people who have given up their privilege through criminal behavior. It is a privilege afforded to all citizens who abide by the laws of the country. It is not a privilege given to anyone else.

Since you are so adamantly against voter identification, how do you propose to keep illegal votes from being cast? It seems you have yet to offer a solution?

Does it only matter if there are "bunches"? How many does it take before we caer about it.

 

Voting is a right. Felons give up their rights. Suffrage is the civil right to vote.

 

Q: Why is voter ID needed?
A: In Greene County, AL a recent election was nearly 40% absentee ballots (the average is 2-3%). 102% of all eligible voters voted.

I'm firmly convinced that any politician against voter ID gained his/her office by fraudulent means. Why else would they be against it?

 

As I said, it is also a privilege. It is not afforded to everyone.

So what is your solution to the problem of illegal voters?

And why are you guys so hesitant to offer any suggestions?

 

You just have to put up with Joseph's demeanor. He is bitter to the core and it shows in most of his postings.

As far as this voter identification is concerned, what stops an illegal alien from getting some type of fake identification with their photograph on it, like a fake drivers license and then voting?

 

We already have processes in place to get passports that require certain identification. Use a similar process for voting. Require proof of citizenship and verify it.

Nothing will be 100% effective, but we can do better with some simple common sense steps.

 

No, it is a right, a constitutional right that the courts have upheld over the years.

By your logic, living is a privilege that can be taken away from people who have given up that "privilege" through criminal behavior. By your logic, there are no rights.

I am not so adamantly against voter identification if it can be done without placing an onerous burden on the most fragile citizens.

Yes, it does matter when the proposed solution costs millions of dollars and gives the Feds even more central power that belongs to the States.

 

This card, unless it is provided without a fee, is merely a disguised poll tax. People who want to commit voting fraud, know that the smaller the turnout, the easier it is to rig an election.

And they know that people who are poor will perhaps not want to spend the price of a couple of meals for their families so Mom and Dad can vote.

One more step in the process.

 

so we should let anyone come up, impersonate anyone on the voter rolls, and vote 'early and often?'

I've seen too many rigged elections in Alabama. Allowing someone to vote without showing some form of ID is a terrible idea.

 

someone get me some smellin' salts. Daisy just argued for states rights! :tongue3: :laugh:

 

The Supremes got one right for a change. In some jurisdictions, the DL or photo ID is free for senior citizens. In 20 years we won't recognize "the good 'ole USA." The "melting pot" is over. We are being split up into factions, with everyone having an equal share of the pie, even if they are here illegally. I said everyone, but I should have said "everyone except Christians," who are daily being suppressed.

We're rapidly becoming a secular society based on judges law: an oligarchy. With democrats sweeping both houses of Congress and winning in 2008, it can only get worse. We'll simply move more rapidly to a nation that outlaws the Christian viewpoint, with liberal make-law judges in courts across the land and a clear majority in the Supreme Court. Christianity's objection to abortion, same-sex marriages, condums and morning-after pills for kids, will become a laughing matter. We'll be called dumb, anti-progress, anti-tolerance.

I'm looking over, and I'm seeing the Promised Land! I can't wait!

 

So what's stopping the current administrations from passing legislation to assure this doesn't happen? The ball is in their court, is all they're looking at is the next game on the court?

 

Voting is going backwards....the people need encouragement not discouragement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-keyssar/disenfranchised-when-_b_32241.html

"Disenfranchised"? When Words Lose Meaning



On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona's new voter ID laws -- requiring photo IDs and proof of citizenshiop -- will remain in place for the November 7 elections. Although the Supremes took no position on the legal issues that will ultimately determine whether Arizona's law is constitutional, they overturnied an injunction issued by a lower court that would have suspended the law for the current election.


Arizona's Proposition 200, of course, is one of many new Republican-sponsored state laws designed to stiffen the ID requirements for voting. (The House of Representatives also passed a similar, federal law.) The rationale for such laws is that they are needed to prevent fraud -- although almost nowhere have the laws' sponsors been able to document the existence of significant fraud occurring because non-legal voters have pretended to be, or impersonated, legal voters. (A Minnesota study found that there were 32 non-citizens registered to vote, out of more than 3 million.) Critics of the laws have claimed that they are partisan efforts designed to suppress the votes of poor, young, and minority voters who are least likely to possess drivers' licenses or other required documents.


Keeping legal voters from registering or voting has a name in American politics: disenfranchisement. It is a practice and a word with a long history, much of it ugly and tied to patterns of racism and ethnic discrimination. "Disenfranchisement" is a word that, in post 1960s America, carries some serious moral freight: no politician or pundit is going to speak out in favor of "disenfranchisement." Not overtly at least.

What's happening here is an effort to give strict (and perhaps unnecessarily strict) procedural regulations the same moral authority as laws -- such as the Voting Rights Act -- that support a fundamental democratic value: the right to vote. It's a clever rhetorical move -- and one that should make our democratic alarm bells go off.

 

To quote myself, As I said, it is also a privilege. It is not afforded to everyone. The word "also" means "in addition" to being a right ...

Were you just misrepresenting what I said to be cantankerous?

You obviously don’t understand “my logic.”

Is twenty-five cents a month too onerous?

What is your proposed solution?

We could take some of the millions spent on failed social programs and pork barrel spending and do something useful with it.

Interesting though to hear your comment about Feds taking state power. Will you be consistent and argue that the Feds should state out of state power with respect to voter ID legislation? I think there you want the Feds involved, which seems to me like you want the Feds involved when it suits your case, but not when it doesn’t.

But I ask again, What is your proposed solution? How do you prevent illegal voters?

 

That is simply false. It is not more a poll tax than requiring people to pay for gas to get to a polling place. It is such a minute amount, it is negligible.

Probably not. It is probably easier to rig the bigger the turnout, since abnormalities will not stand out so much.

This is a sappy liberal argument. It would cost less than one meal over a four year period. It would cost less than two packs of cigarettes over a four year period. It would cost less than a movie over a four year period. It would cost about twenty-five cents a month, which is less than you could find in grocery store parking lots.

Can't help but notice you continue to complain and have yet to offer one solution.

What is your solution to the problem? How you propose to keep ineligible voters from voting?