Teabagging Republicans find New Voting ID Loophole

Dantès

New member
After Court Ruling, 2 States Plan 2-Tier Voting System

By FERNANDA SANTOS and JOHN ELIGON
Barred by the Supreme Court from requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, Arizona and Kansas are planning to use a separate set of ballots for state and local races, which could decrease turnout.

PHOENIX — Barred by the Supreme Court from requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, Arizona is complying — but setting up a separate registration system for local and state elections that will demand such proof.

The state this week joined Kansas in planning for such a two-tiered voting system, which could keep thousands of people from participating in state and local elections, including next year’s critical cycle, when top posts in both states will be on the ballot.

The states are using an opening left in June by the United States Supreme Court when it said that the power of Congress over federal elections was paramount but did not rule on proof of citizenship in state elections. Such proof was required under Arizona’s Proposition 200, which passed in 2004 and is one of the weapons in the border state’s arsenal of laws enacted in its battle against illegal immigration.

The two states are also jointly suing the federal Election Assistance Commission, arguing that it should change the federal voter registration form for their states to include state citizenship requirements. While the agency has previously denied such requests, the justices said the states could try again and seek judicial review of those decisions.

“If you require evidence of citizenship, it helps prevent people who are not citizens from voting, and I simply don’t see a problem with that,” said Tom Horne, the Arizona attorney general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/u...m-for-balloting.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=print


Who says Teabaggers don't have a better way to do things. They are always thinking about how to reduce the voters rolls and disenfranchise more voters who just might make that mistake of trying to vote for Democrats. In the olden days the good people of Kansas and Arizona would have just dressed up in bedsheets and run though certain neighborhoods burning down the houses of people who dared to vote for Democrats, or in those days Republicans, but now they can't do that so, since terror has been at least partially removed as a way to control behavior, they will have to stick with these kinds of obviously convoluted measures. You've got to give them credit though, these moronic bastards are nothing if not persistent and so obvious no one can miss what is going on here.
 
they are hoping the people think its for all elections

I bet the information they send out will be pretty shoddy in that resepct
 
dang, how stupid can people from Arizona be.....why shouldn't they let snowbirds vote in their state elections just because they're from Iowa......
 
After Court Ruling, 2 States Plan 2-Tier Voting System

By FERNANDA SANTOS and JOHN ELIGON
Barred by the Supreme Court from requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, Arizona and Kansas are planning to use a separate set of ballots for state and local races, which could decrease turnout.

PHOENIX — Barred by the Supreme Court from requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, Arizona is complying — but setting up a separate registration system for local and state elections that will demand such proof.

The state this week joined Kansas in planning for such a two-tiered voting system, which could keep thousands of people from participating in state and local elections, including next year’s critical cycle, when top posts in both states will be on the ballot.

The states are using an opening left in June by the United States Supreme Court when it said that the power of Congress over federal elections was paramount but did not rule on proof of citizenship in state elections. Such proof was required under Arizona’s Proposition 200, which passed in 2004 and is one of the weapons in the border state’s arsenal of laws enacted in its battle against illegal immigration.

The two states are also jointly suing the federal Election Assistance Commission, arguing that it should change the federal voter registration form for their states to include state citizenship requirements. While the agency has previously denied such requests, the justices said the states could try again and seek judicial review of those decisions.

“If you require evidence of citizenship, it helps prevent people who are not citizens from voting, and I simply don’t see a problem with that,” said Tom Horne, the Arizona attorney general.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/u...m-for-balloting.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=print


Who says Teabaggers don't have a better way to do things. They are always thinking about how to reduce the voters rolls and disenfranchise more voters who just might make that mistake of trying to vote for Democrats. In the olden days the good people of Kansas and Arizona would have just dressed up in bedsheets and run though certain neighborhoods burning down the houses of people who dared to vote for Democrats, or in those days Republicans, but now they can't do that so, since terror has been at least partially removed as a way to control behavior, they will have to stick with these kinds of obviously convoluted measures. You've got to give them credit though, these moronic bastards are nothing if not persistent and so obvious no one can miss what is going on here.


Great idea...I hope it catches on in other states....

Don't get the SC ruling though. If you MUST be a citizen, proof should be required, its common sense.
 
Great idea...I hope it catches on in other states....

Don't get the SC ruling though. If you MUST be a citizen, proof should be required, its common sense.

It would fail in my state. It is against our state Constitution.
 
Great idea...I hope it catches on in other states....

Don't get the SC ruling though. If you MUST be a citizen, proof should be required, its common sense.


More evidence that the teabagger faction is anti-democracy and anti-voting rights!
 
More evidence that the teabagger faction is anti-democracy and anti-voting rights!

Whatsa matter pinhead, don't you believe in obeying the country's laws....?

No one is trying to deny any citizens the constitutional right to vote....do you need it explained to you in another language, perhaps.
 
seems logical to me to require an ID to vote. When I was young, we needed that AND a voters card.

I ge thte idea voting is a right, and disenfrachiement is always possible, but there should be a way to accomodate both.
 
It would fail in my state. It is against our state Constitution.

really?....its against your constitution to prevent non-Alaskans from voting in state elections?..sweet, send me a ballot....no, send me a couple million of them........I want a referendum on whether Alaskan oil revenues should be shared with Michigan.......
 
Can anyone find what the Frog was referring to?



http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http://wwwjnu01.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/acontxt/query=*/doc/{t1}?
 
really?....its against your constitution to prevent non-Alaskans from voting in state elections?..sweet, send me a ballot....no, send me a couple million of them........I want a referendum on whether Alaskan oil revenues should be shared with Michigan.......


I wonder if Rana can prove that ?.....Non citizens can vote in Alaska huh....?

Seems their state constitution don't agree with our countrys Constitution that says you MUST be a citizen.
 
I wonder if Rana can prove that ?.....Non citizens can vote in Alaska huh....? Seems their state constitution don't agree with our countrys Constitution that says you MUST be a citizen.

I posted a link to the Alaskan constitution if she wants to croak about it some more.

So far the Frog hasn't jumped.
 
Whatsa matter pinhead, don't you believe in obeying the country's laws....?

No one is trying to deny any citizens the constitutional right to vote....do you need it explained to you in another language, perhaps.

The story paints a different picture entirely. They are trying to pass laws that are more stringent than those for a national election. What is that all about if is isn't about restricting the right to vote in local elections. If you can vote in a national election that should be good enough for a local election. But Arizona was stopping people for their clothing too. And they got their hands slapped for that. Let's face facts, this is a law that is designed to make it harder for a specific constituency to vote.
 
Undocumented immigrants have a message for America.


illegal_immigrants.jpg
 
Whatsa matter pinhead, don't you believe in obeying the country's laws....?

No one is trying to deny any citizens the constitutional right to vote....do you need it explained to you in another language, perhaps.


Actually the country's, that is the federal laws, say the people can vote, it is the state's laws that are going to attempt to remove that right by infringing on the voter's federal rights!

Further and unfortunately, the founders in their wisdom didn't want people voting--Madison was absolutely against Democracy--so that right to vote isn't guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution. You have an absolute right to a gun but a ballot, not exactly! But thanks for showing once again that you like most teabaggers haven't read the Constitution. Or if you did read it, you saw things that weren't there!
 
Back
Top