Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: The state of Pennsylvania is being sued by the NAACP, the ACLU on behalf of a 93-year-old woman who says her right to vote will be infringed because she has no way to get valid documentation before the election.
The state’s defense is…? Well, they have no defense. According to the linked the states position is this:
“In a stipulation agreement signed earlier this month, state officials conceded that they had no evidence of prior in-person voter fraud, or even any reason to believe that such crimes would occur with more frequency if a voter ID law wasn't in effect.”
Not enough? The state also signed an agreement that said this:
“According to the agreement, the state “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” nor will it "offer argument or evidence that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”
All-in-all the state, as are many other Republican-lead states, are trying to create a crime where there is no significant evidence of a crime in order to suppress the votes of some its citizens. To be clear, according to the above, no voter ID crimes have been investigated and voter fraud is not likely to occur in the November elections AND there is no evidence of voter fraud.
Okay, then why the voter ID laws? Oh, wait, Republicans want voter ID laws just in case a person tries to vote illegally. Makes as much sense as making a law that says you can’t wear purple shoes while driving a car while drunk just in case somebody wears purple shoes while driving drunk.
Hopefully, the case will be heard by someone other than a Republican judge.
I'm not an expert on how things work in PA, but I'm suspicious about this woman's claim. She claims that she can't get a valid ID before November...yet she managed to get in touch with the NAACP and the ACLU and had them file a lawsuit on her behalf. With less effort, time and expense, these same three entities probably could have worked together with the State of PA to secure this woman a valid ID. My mother lost here ID when she was 92 and needed one for a trip she was about to take. Granted this was MN not PA, but we were able to get her one in about two weeks. This woman has three months!
While the state isn't going to offer evidence that voter fraud actually took place in the past...they should not have to. It's sorta like a highway patrolman spending an entire night working speed traps on a certain highway and not giving out any tickets. Just because he was unable to find anyone speeding doesn't mean it didn't occur. Additionally, just because he didn't find anyone speeding doesn't mean that speed laws should be overturned.
Poll: Democrats and Republicans Support a Voter ID-Check Law
75 percent of likely U.S. voters “believe voters should be required to show photo identification, such as a driver’s license, before being allowed to vote.”
Look at the numbers: Rasmussen found 85 percent support for photo ID among Republicans, 77 percent support among non-affiliated voters, and even 63 percent support among Democrats.
"some form of identity". That's not very well defined.
In California you don't have to show any form of identity to register to vote, you can simply download the form and mail it in.
Not sure why you claim you have to prove your identity to register to vote...
This is from the california website on voter registration regarding the requirements for registering by mail:
"To use this form to register to vote, you will need:
--Acrobat PDF Free Document Reader to be able to open and complete the form.
--Your California driver license or identification number, if you have one, or the last four digits of your social security number, if you have one. If you do not have any of these numbers, the state will assign you a unique identification number."
So the state does ask for information about identity when the person registers. Additionally, this illustrates the point I've been making: you register and then the voting office has months or even a year to research you. They verify that the name matches the address and the phone number and the driver's license or social security #. They check the California penal system. They match you up against Federal data bases.
This is from the california website on voter registration regarding the requirements for registering by mail:
"To use this form to register to vote, you will need:
--Acrobat PDF Free Document Reader to be able to open and complete the form.
--Your California driver license or identification number, if you have one, or the last four digits of your social security number, if you have one. If you do not have any of these numbers, the state will assign you a unique identification number."
So the state does ask for information about identity when the person registers. Additionally, this illustrates the point I've been making: you register and then the voting office has months or even a year to research you. They verify that the name matches the address and the phone number and the driver's license or social security #. They check the California penal system. They match you up against Federal data bases.
Ed
Did you miss this sentence? "If you do not have any of these numbers, the state will assign you a unique identification number."
In other words, you don't have to any form of ID in order to register.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Instinct Images wrote: Okay so now we're down to some laws being "less bad".
What do you mean "down to"? Am I supposed to be picking a team and sticking to it?
Instinct Images wrote: Still doesn't explain why Democrats feel that photo IDs should be required to vote since opponents claim the laws are intended to disenfranchise minorities.
True, but lack of proof does not mean it is not true. No proof that Cigs cause cancer but it seems to be an established fact.
Smoking cigarettes increases the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. If you want proof that a particular cancer was caused by smoking, it isn't there. But only a very, very stupid person will smoke if he wants to avoid cancer.
At least some people who smoke will get cancer. But the population of people who have committed in-person voting fraud cannot be shown to be more than zero. So, why are Republicans passing laws to prevent something that they don't know exists?
T
Posts: 53,533
Washington, District of Columbia, US
sublime LightWorks wrote:
You have trouble reading compete sentences too huh? Read the full article then TRY to comprehend it. I doubt you will.
There is no voter fraud to prevent...it's bullshit. I realize you're used to women who are beneath you. I'm NOT the trash that you're accustomed to. Show some respect you bitter "man".
Hall Photo wrote: My bet is that many on both sides think -- wrongly -- that voter fraud is a significant problem that voter ID laws can address at a reasonable cost. But some on the Republican side also apparently see it as a way to gerrymander the vote. The stricter the law, it seems to me, the more likely the latter folks are setting the agenda.
The poll above shows that to be true: by a wide majority Americans support voter photo ID laws.
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: Smoking cigarettes increases the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. If you want proof that a particular cancer was caused by smoking, it isn't there. But only a very, very stupid person will smoke if he wants to avoid cancer.
At least some people who smoke will get cancer. But the population of people who have committed in-person voting fraud cannot be shown to be more than zero. So, why are Republicans passing laws to prevent something that they don't know exists?
And Democrats too. Maybe because the people they respresent believe it's a good idea?
Oh, according to your tortured thinking there need no be a reason for a law, people can just make laws because they feel like it with no justification for the law?
I am NOT ignoring the Supreme Court's decision. The SC has been wrong before (see the Taney Court's decisions) and our present SC majority is nothing more than a tool of the GOP and their decision in this case should be fought.
According to you and people like you once the SC makes a decision that is just fine and dandy even if they are trying to take away a peron's right to vote? The Court's tried that early on in the century but decent people kept fighting.
Same today.
Unless a law or Ammendment chages something the Court rulings are the law of the land, even though you may disagree with it. There are ones I disagree with too, Roe and Kilo being two but my opinion has not legal weight, same as yours. I recognize that, you seem not to.
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Instinct Images wrote: And Democrats too. Maybe because the people they respresent believe it's a good idea?
I would guess far fewer Democrats than Republicans, as evidenced by the fact that Democratic-led examples are so few and far between (and clearly less strict).
Anyone here notice that the OP has not commented on the Florida voter ID suit from the DOJ?
Why?
Because the DOJ got kicked in the nuts by the federal courts which sided with Florida that's why. TSI does not want you to know that. And as a result the DHS had to finally share the immigration database it as refusing to share with states. He does not want you to know that either.
Wonder why? Because its easier to lead you astray with his little pied-piper tune. It's quite likely that the Pennsylivania law will also stand, much to his dismay. Too bad huh? He and his merry band of followers will just have to cry in their cereal I suppose.
Meantime, people who actually care about fair elections can rest at might that liberal groups aren't going to be able to steal elections by signing up Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny like ACORN tried to do.
Nice try again TSI. But you have nothing as usual.
sublime LightWorks wrote: Anyone here notice that the OP has not commented on the Florida voter ID suit from the DOJ?
Why?
Because the DOJ got kicked in the nuts by the federal courts which sided with Florida that's why. TSI does not want you to know that. And as a result the DHS had to finally share the immigration database it as refusing to share with states. He does not want you to know that either.
Wonder why? Because its easier to lead you astray with his little pied-piper tune. It's quite likely that the Pennsylivania law will also stand, much to his dismay. Too bad huh? He and his merry band of followers will just have to cry in their cereal I suppose.
Meantime, people who actually care about fair elections can rest at might that liberal groups aren't going to be able to steal elections by signing up Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny like ACORN tried to do.
Nice try again TSI. But you have nothing as usual.
I'm not an expert on how things work in PA, but I'm suspicious about this woman's claim. She claims that she can't get a valid ID before November...yet she managed to get in touch with the NAACP and the ACLU and had them file a lawsuit on her behalf. With less effort, time and expense, these same three entities probably could have worked together with the State of PA to secure this woman a valid ID. My mother lost here ID when she was 92 and needed one for a trip she was about to take. Granted this was MN not PA, but we were able to get her one in about two weeks. This woman has three months!
While the state isn't going to offer evidence that voter fraud actually took place in the past...they should not have to. It's sorta like a highway patrolman spending an entire night working speed traps on a certain highway and not giving out any tickets. Just because he was unable to find anyone speeding doesn't mean it didn't occur. Additionally, just because he didn't find anyone speeding doesn't mean that speed laws should be overturned.
When a lawsuit of this type is filed the ACLU or like organization sues on behalf of one person with the outcome applied to all people.
I.e., Brown v. Board of Education. The court's decision that school segregation was not legal not only affected Brown but the rest of the people in the nation as well.
There is no voter fraud to prevent...it's bullshit. I realize you're used to women who are beneath you. I'm NOT the trash that you're accustomed to. Show some respect you bitter "man".
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
sublime LightWorks wrote: Anyone here notice that the OP has not commented on the Florida voter ID suit from the DOJ?
Why?
Because it's not relevant?
sublime LightWorks wrote: It's quite likely that the Pennsylivania law will also stand, much to his dismay.
IIRC, the Florida legal challenge was not about the photo requirement per se, but an associated voter roll purge.
It is quite possible that the Pennsylvania law will stand -- it hasn't even been formally challenged yet. The question is whether it's a good idea. There are plenty of foolish laws that people can legally enact; it doesn't mean they should. But I guess when some people smell political advantage, good sense goes out the window.
Patchouli Nyx wrote: I call bullshit on this story just like your story of your "friend" on SS disability who is committing fraud.
I think you may have screwed the pooch on this one. I have run into the same thing. In fact, the last time I went to the drive-up to pick up some prescriptions I asked for some Sudafed (I think it was), I was told that I would have to come into the store, show ID, and sign a log-book. I passed (didn't really need it **that** bad).
sublime LightWorks wrote: Anyone here notice that the OP has not commented on the Florida voter ID suit from the DOJ?
Why?
Because the DOJ got kicked in the nuts by the federal courts which sided with Florida that's why. TSI does not want you to know that. And as a result the DHS had to finally share the immigration database it as refusing to share with states. He does not want you to know that either.
Wonder why? Because its easier to lead you astray with his little pied-piper tune. It's quite likely that the Pennsylivania law will also stand, much to his dismay. Too bad huh? He and his merry band of followers will just have to cry in their cereal I suppose.
Meantime, people who actually care about fair elections can rest at might that liberal groups aren't going to be able to steal elections by signing up Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny like ACORN tried to do.
Nice try again TSI. But you have nothing as usual.
The subject is the voter ID case in Pennsylvania. If you want to complain about something that happened in Florida go scribble your own thread.
Actually I do care about fair elections and that the reason voter ID laws are important and should be repealed.
Decent people agree that a citizen's right to vote should not be endangered and decent people remember history and the fact that Confederate states such as Georgia did just that -- denied people their right to vote based on nothing more than skin color.
Failing that Confederate states, such as Georgia, instituted "Poll Taxes" where people were charged a fee in order to do something that they were guaranteed by the Constitution -- vote.
Lawsuits by the ACLU and Justice Department, etc., are brought to ensure that the racist crackers are never allowed to supress the votes of American citizens -- ever.
The subject is the voter ID case in Pennsylvania. If you want to complain about something that happened in Florida go scribble your own thread.
Actually I do care about fair elections and that the reason voter ID laws are important and should be repealed.
Decent people agree that a citizen's right to vote should not be endangered and decent people remember history and the fact that Confederate states such as Georgia did just that -- denied people their right to vote based on nothing more than skin color.
Failing that Confederate states, such as Georgia, instituted "Poll Taxes" where people were charged a fee in order to do something that they were guaranteed by the Constitution -- vote.
Lawsuits by the ACLU and Justice Department, etc., are brought to ensure that the racist crackers are never allowed to supress the votes of American citizens -- ever.
These voter ID theads are getting like "Groundhog day". You want to link voter ID requirements to poll taxes. The Supreme Court decided that issue and held them to be fair. You had a thread about the FLA case when it was filed and praised the AG for bringing it. He lost , using your arguments BTW, so now in your view reference to similar cases that you previously called attention to are now OT.
I am a like history, majored in it in fact and even taught it for a while, but while I like to read about it, study about it I prefer to live in the present and somehow I think you would rather live in the post Civil War to MLK era so you could be a Civil Rights crusader when injustice was in fact widespread rather than the presence where such issues now have to be invented by clever lawyers. Anyone who wants to vote should be able to comply with the law given three months to do so.
These voter ID theads are getting like "Groundhog day". You want to link voter ID requirements to poll taxes. The Supreme Court decided that issue and held them to be fair. You had a thread about the FLA case when it was filed and praised the AG for bringing it. He lost , using your arguments BTW, so now in your view reference to similar cases that you previously called attention to are now OT.
I am a like history, majored in it in fact and even taught it for a while, but while I like to read about it, study about it I prefer to live in the present and somehow I think you would rather live in the post Civil War to MLK era so you could be a Civil Rights crusader when injustice was in fact widespread rather than the presence where such issues now have to be invented by clever lawyers. Anyone who wants to vote should be able to comply with the law given three months to do so.
No, the laws governing voting should not be made difficult by people such as yourself, Robert.
Based on your very flawed logic the majority could make laws that make it near impossible for the minority to vote, and that would be fine with you because a law, no matter how vile, no matter how un-Constitutional, should be honored because the majority says so.
Got news for you. The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority.
Actually I was, and am, a crusader for civil rights. I remain so because there will always be the Usual Suspects, the Tea Party and the GOP who will try and return America to the 1950s.
I think you may have screwed the pooch on this one. I have run into the same thing. In fact, the last time I went to the drive-up to pick up some prescriptions I asked for some Sudafed (I think it was), I was told that I would have to come into the store, show ID, and sign a log-book. I passed (didn't really need it **that** bad).
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: When a lawsuit of this type is filed the ACLU or like organization sues on behalf of one person with the outcome applied to all people.
I.e., Brown v. Board of Education. The court's decision that school segregation was not legal not only affected Brown but the rest of the people in the nation as well.
The fact that you do not know this is telling.
It's not that I don't know this, you totally missed my point. In the matter of Brown vs. the Board of Education, Brown actually testified. Therefore, he had to have put out some "time and effort". That's also most likely true in this case involving the 93 year old woman and she had toinvest "time and effort" to get things to the point they are. With less time and effort she could have had an ID.
Everyone puts in some time and effort in the process of exercising their right to vote. I have to drive there, find a parking place and wait in line. If I happen to be out of town, I have to go to the courthouse and get an absentee ballot. None of tis is fun or easy...it takes time and effort. My point is...that this 93 year old woman could have a valid ID, and vote, with a little time and effort.
It's not that I don't know this, you totally missed my point. In the matter of Brown vs. the Board of Education, Brown actually testified. Therefore, he had to have put out some "time and effort". That's also most likely true in this case involving the 93 year old woman and she had toinvest "time and effort" to get things to the point they are. With less time and effort she could have had an ID.
Everyone puts in some time and effort in the process of exercising their right to vote. I have to drive there, find a parking place and wait in line. If I happen to be out of town, I have to go to the courthouse and get an absentee ballot. None of tis is fun or easy...it takes time and effort. My point is...that this 93 year old woman could have a valid ID, and vote, with a little time and effort.
The fact that I put time and effort into driving to the station to get gas has nothing to do with the issue.
You cannot judge a person's right to vote by how much "effort" is put into the process. However, you assert that any law that requires exceptional effort in order to vote is okay because we all have to put effort into anything we do?
Your argument falls apart when a person who has been voting for any number of years is forced to spend unnecessary time and effort to excercise a right that, as a citizen, he has enjoyed for most of his life.
Your opinion is that if I choose not to drive and choose not to have an ID then I should not be allowed to vote? In order to get a state-issued photo ID I must present an original birth certificate? I hate to break this to you, but there are many, many people (especially ladies as old as the plantiff) who never had a birth certificate or whose birth certificate has been long lost -- as was the case with a woman who lost her birth certificate when the town hall burned down.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Nobody ever promised anybody that the right to vote could be easily exercised. The cost of even having that right is buried in the ground near Boston. The majority original signers of the Declaration of Independence (where the right to vote actually began), paid for that right by being brutally murdered. Early colonists had to ride horses long distances through rain, sleet, and snow to vote. Yet some people today bitch because they have to obtain an ID. Humbug!
However, nevermind all that because it's about to get even easier to get the required ID. Deputy Attorney General Patrick Cawley announced today that the state is making plans to create new ways of getting the required identification. He said the Stete has removed a great number of barriers for people who want to vote. "On Election Day, anyone who wants to vote will be able to get an ID card that allows them to do so."
Mike Kelcher wrote: Nobody ever promised anybody that the right to vote could be easily exercised. The cost of even having that right is buried in the ground near Boston. The majority original signers of the Declaration of Independence (where the right to vote actually began), paid for that right by being brutally murdered. Early colonists had to ride horses long distances through rain, sleet, and snow to vote. Yet some people today bitch because they have to obtain an ID. Humbug!
However, nevermind all that because it's about to get even easier to get the required ID. Deputy Attorney General Patrick Cawley announced today that the state is making plans to create new ways of getting the required identification. He said the Stete has removed a great number of barriers for people who want to vote. "On Election Day, anyone who wants to vote will be able to get an ID card that allows them to do so."
No, that's not what the issue is about. You're playing dumb, right?
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: No, that's not what the issue is about. You're playing dumb, right?
If ..."On Election Day, anyone who wants to vote will be able to get an ID card that allows them to do so", I'm not sure that there is, or should be, an "issue".
If ..."On Election Day, anyone who wants to vote will be able to get an ID card that allows them to do so", I'm not sure that there is, or should be, an "issue".
I'll explain:
The issue is that some of the photo ID laws, while facially neutral, place a greater de facto burden statistically on likely Dem voters than on likely GOP voters. Such laws are "equal" but unjust.
There are many examples, but here's just one: a law that accepts gun carry permits as acceptable photo ID for voting but rejects college ID's, even ID's of state colleges. Do I have to explain the demographics to you of how gun-carriers are likely to vote in Nov., vs. how students are likely to vote? Or are you already familiar with the demographics?
Beyond Vanilla wrote: If ..."On Election Day, anyone who wants to vote will be able to get an ID card that allows them to do so", I'm not sure that there is, or should be, an "issue".
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: I'll explain:
The issue is that some of the photo ID laws, while facially neutral, place a greater de facto burden statistically on likely Dem voters than on likely GOP voters. Such laws are "equal" but unjust.
There are many examples, but here's just one: a law that accepts gun carry permits as acceptable photo ID for voting but rejects college ID's, even ID's of state colleges. Do I have to explain the demographics to you of how gun-carriers are likely to vote in Nov., vs. how students are likely to vote? Or are you already familiar with the demographics?
I understand the example and the demographics. However, the states want the ID's to be "state-issued" such as a gun-permit, drivers' license, etc. They can't really verify the validity of college-issued ID's.
However, this thread is about the issues or non-issues in PA. The assistant Attorney General has stated that "On Election Day, anyone who wants to vote will be able to get an ID card that allows them to do so." So...it's really a non-issue with regard to PA and this thread. Anyone who wants to vote, can. ID or not. Gun-toting rednecks without an ID can vote, 93 year-old women without ID's can vote, people without birth certificates can vote and all they have to do is show up on election day. That being the case, what's the problem in PA?
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: and in other news...you have to have an id to dive a car, to cash a check, to do almost ANYTHING nowadays...except VOTE. It's sad that the Democrats can't get live people or legal people to vote for the candidates.
It's bizarre that a Republican would be foolish enough to even bring up the topic of election-related misconduct.
Beyond Vanilla wrote: If ..."On Election Day, anyone who wants to vote will be able to get an ID card that allows them to do so", I'm not sure that there is, or should be, an "issue".
I understand the example and the demographics. However, the states want the ID's to be "state-issued" such as a gun-permit, drivers' license, etc. They can't really verify the validity of college-issued ID's.
However, this thread is about the issues or non-issues in PA. The assistant Attorney General has stated that "On Election Day, anyone who wants to vote will be able to get an ID card that allows them to do so." So...it's really a non-issue with regard to PA and this thread. Anyone who wants to vote, can. ID or not. Gun-toting rednecks without an ID can vote, 93 year-old women without ID's can vote, people without birth certificates can vote and all they have to do is show up on election day. That being the case, what's the problem in PA?
First, think through what you just posted. State Universities ARE state organizations. People who work at Penn State and other state schools are employees of the state. They're in the state government system.
Second, if the state doesn't want to deal with ID's from outside the side, than that discriminates against US military. Or people using a US passport. And PA does take some types of US military IDs and passports so it's not reasonable to argue that they're trying to limit it to state IDs that they can verify. In fact, there are a lot of IDs that come out in the state of PA that are no longer accepted.
Third, already there are problems with the so-called "free voter ID's". Here's just one example of someone who tried to apply for a supposedly free voter ID and was denied it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/1 … nnsylvania
Fourth, if you read through the details of the "free voter ID" it's a complete joke. Someone shows up and signs an affifidavit that they don't have any photo IDs. You're then issued an official free voter ID card which you can use to vote. What did you have to show in order to get that ID? How did you have to prove your identity? According to what I read at the PA Votes site, you just have to sign the document that you swear you're who you say you are and that you don't have ID. Isn't this one of the best ways to PROMOTE voter fraud you've ever heard of? Incredible!
the only case of voter fraud I know of is a guy who was reportedly living in CA but claimed to be living in Massachusetts in his son's basement in order to vote in an election.
by mail. But he won't release a tax return showing what state he lived in.
Does he look like the kinda guy who would live in a basement?
figurativearts wrote: the only case of voter fraud I know of is a guy who was reportedly living in CA but claimed to be living in Massachusetts in his son's basement in order to vote in an election.
by mail. But he won't release a tax return showing what state he lived in.
Does he look like the kinda guy who would live in a basement?
Huh, so you didn't hear about the NAACP official in Mississippi that was convicted of 10 counts of voter fraud?
| 
| 
| edu