USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
They would be called a Liberal from Chicago.And if they use their picture with someone else's ID, such as a name lifted from an old tombstone, then what?
(by the way, you can't lift an ID from an old tombstone)
They would be called a Liberal from Chicago.And if they use their picture with someone else's ID, such as a name lifted from an old tombstone, then what?
So we should disenfranchise millions of people because of a virtually non-existent problem? That's really smart.
Seriously. I'm sure that the demographic groups most hardest hit by GOP voter suppression efforts, young, minority and poor voters, just so happen to be traditionally Democrats is an odd coincidence:
Here in Arizona, it costs $12.00 for a State issued photo ID and get this:
If you're over 65 and getting a Federal Disability check, the fee is waived.
$12.00 FREAKING DOLLARS = ????
12 cans of soda
2 1/2 packs of cigarettes
3 gallons of gas
1 six pack of beer
2/3 of a bottle of JD
??????
Because there are large numbers of people who don't carry ID cards. Why should I have to if I don't need one? I'm well over 21 so I don't need one to get booze and I don't use credit cards as I manage my cash well and I also live within walking distance from work, shoping and entertainment in an urban region so I don't need a car. I also live in a free nation where the government serves me and not the other way around and thus have no obligation to carry an ID card, unless driving a motor vehicle. Then when you consider that when I registered to vote I gave my name, signature, address and social security # as forms of identification and that when I vote I, again, give my signature to verify my identity. Now you may not be able to indentify a forged signature but most people with vision can so let me put the ball in your park. What purpose does adding a superflous level of identification serve other then to supress the vote of those who chose not to cary a State issued ID?
The Myth of Voter Fraud
Published: May 13, 2008
Missouri and at least 19 other states are considering passing laws that would force people to prove their citizenship before they can vote. These bills are not a sincere effort to prevent noncitizens from voting; that is a made-up problem. The real aim is to reduce turnout by eligible voters. Republicans seem to think that laws of this kind will help them win elections, but burdensome rules like these — and others cropping up around the country — pose a serious threat to democracy and should be stopped.
...There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens is a significant problem. Illegal immigrants do their best to remain in the shadows, to avoid attracting government attention and risking deportation. It is hard to imagine that many would walk into a polling place, in the presence of challengers and police, and try to cast a ballot.
There is, however, ample evidence that a requirement of proof of citizenship will keep many eligible voters from voting. Many people do not have birth certificates or other acceptable proof of citizenship, and for some people, that proof is not available. One Missouri voter, Lillie Lewis, said at a news conference last week that officials in Mississippi, where she was born, told her they had no record of her birth...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13tue1.html
When you get a job.... you need an ID
When you get a loan... you need an ID
When you cash a check... you need an ID
If state law states you need a photo ID at the registration, then the LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE.
Requiring a photo ID is not cumbersome, it is not some grave financial burden you are placing on anyone, it allows for an easy verification of identity.
Also... this isn't about YOU... this is about EVERYONE. Many people DO get carded when they buy alcohol. Most people in the nation drive. Most people use debit or credit cards.
So it is a problem, just not what the author of the study calls 'significant'. When elections can swing on a thousand votes or less... I would say .... EVERY VOTE counts.
So we should disenfranchise millions of people because of a virtually non-existent problem? That's really smart.
Yep, that's what we said back in 2000 when SCOTUS handed the election to bush.
Yep, that's what we said back in 2000 when SCOTUS handed the election to bush.
Yep, that's what we said back in 2000 when SCOTUS handed the election to bush.
yeah, they 'handed it to him'.... they upheld the Constitution. No matter how many times the left bitches about SCOTUS in 2000.... they did the right thing. The votes in FL gave Bush the victory in FL. period.
EVERY VOTE didn't count then, did it.
"On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold."
EVERY VOTE didn't count then, did it.
"On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and in a 5–4 vote that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold."