Reply With Quote
How many of those people have been used to cast fraudulent votes?
Some people made this argument in 2006 - when the Voting Rights Act was overwhelmingly renewed by both houses of Congress and signed off on by President Bush, including the preclearance provisions. The Supreme Court had a chance to declare them uncons utional in 2009, but passed it up by ruling on narrower grounds. Until someone brings another legal challenge that makes its way to the Supreme Court, it's the federal government's business.
How many of those people have been used to cast fraudulent votes?
That has to do with the federal govt abusing their powers how???
But they know they're dead.
The system works!
How is it "abusing their powers"? The "powers" were granted by law through Congress...
Are all people with a driver's license eligible to vote?
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03...-goldberg-1-2/
The concerns of liberals over voter-I.D. laws are political posturing
Right now, millions of adult Americans cannot legally fly on an airplane or rent a car. They’re not allowed to drive one, either. And if they really need to get somewhere fast, they can’t use Amtrak. When they (somehow) get there, they can’t stay at a hotel. If they don’t have a social security card, they cannot get one without considerable time and effort. In most cases they cannot rent an apartment, take the SAT or enroll in college. They can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol, even though they are of legal age. They might be able to get credit cards, but in many instances they will not be able to use them. And they almost certainly won’t be able to get a bank account or a business license or even cash a check.
Virtually 100 percent of these outcasts from mainstream society fit into one or more of the following categories: very old, very young, very poor, minorities or the disabled.
And yet the Democratic Party wants to do next to do nothing to fix that.
I’m talking, of course, about people without proper identification.
Republicans across the country are pushing for voter I.D. laws. They want to limit the frequency and opportunities for voter fraud. Democrats claim, reasonably perhaps, that Republicans are making a bigger deal out of voter fraud than the evidence supports. Attorney General Eric Holder, who recently blocked Texas’ voter I.D. reforms, calls the movement a “solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”
Right or wrong, that’s a claim worth investigating and debating. But unfortunately, for whatever reason, that argument isn’t working as a political tool. So he and others ascribe racism to those who want to add voting to the long list of things that require a photo I.D. Everywhere you look or listen, you hear about the return of Jim Crow these days. Left-wing activist groups have started using the twitter hashtag #waronvoting. Al Sharpton has gotten all riled up. The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee has said that Republicans “want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.” Neo-segregation, it seems, is bursting out all over the place.
Never mind that there’s little evidence that photo I.D. requirements suppress turnout. Indeed, turnout in states has increased after requirements have been implemented (though I’m not one of those people who thinks turnout in and of itself is a good thing). In Indiana and Georgia, as the Wall Street Journal recently noted, lawsuits from the usual liberal legal chop shops were thrown out when they couldn’t produce a single person who’d actually been denied the right to vote by the I.D. rules. The upshot being that this bears no resemblance whatsoever to Jim Crow, which was about far more than just voting anyway. Oh, and don’t forget that the accusation of racism is a disgusting, gutter-level, smear designed to bully people where persuasion hasn’t even been tried.
What astounds me is the almost entirely unremarked-upon complacency of liberals who seem to think it’s OK that millions of Americans (by their own reckoning) remain locked out of the modern economy, but who are horrified by the idea that states might actually give these same people new forms of identification — for free. All of the laws passed and under consideration offer ample opportunities to get a voter-I.D. card for those lacking a driver’s license, passport or other approved identification.
In the 1990s, there was a horrendous, general caterwauling about the “digital divide.” How can we move together as a society without getting poor minorities on the Internet as quickly as possible? They need to download porn, too! Will the have-nots be left out of the Web revolution? It was a really, really, silly debate, but the activists largely won it with the passage of the so-called (and arguably uncons utional) “Gore tax.” This taxes phone customers to pay for wiring schools and libraries to the Internet. (It quickly turned into a bureaucratic boondoggle.)
But let’s say the “Gore tax” was, in fact, the GI Bill of our digital age. All the same, having trouble getting online pales in comparison to the leper status that comes without having a valid photo I.D. With all due respect to the platform on which this column is being read, it remains the case that Internet access is less important than having proper identification. Without the Web, assimilating into the modern economy is more difficult. Without I.D., it’s near impossible.
So even if you believe the numbers MSNBC hosts shout themselves hoarse about — indeed, especially if you believe them! — you have to wonder why they’re not launching a serious crusade to fix the real problem: the lack of photo I.D. among America’s most vulnerable populations. The crisis is not that these people will be asked to prove who they are when they vote. The crisis is that there are — by their reckoning — millions upon millions of Americans who can’t prove who they are at all. And all the people screaming “Jim Crow” just don’t care.
Then why didn't the author investigate or debate it?Right or wrong, that’s a claim worth investigating and debating.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-...s-2238744.htmlBut another state could beat Texas to a cons utional challenge. Alabama's Shelby County is already challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but that case was argued in January in the federal appeals court system and a decision has yet to be reached.
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...surcharge.htmlWhy do so many adult Texans lack ID? In part because 2 million drivers have had their drivers licenses revoked because of nonpayment of the Driver Responsibility Surcharge, which readers will recall is a stiff civil penalty tacked on top of any fines, punishments or court costs stemming from certain traffic offenses, including driving without a license, driving without insurance, "point" ac ulation, and DWI. Of those, around 1.2 million have not had their licenses reinstated, which would explain why so many voters may have had a DL number when they registered to vote but don't now. If 2.4 million Texas voters lack state ID, and all but 800,000 had IDs when they registered, then the Driver Responsibility Surcharge could account for as much as three-quarters (1.2 out of 1.6 million) of those who had ID when they registered to vote but do not today.
dp
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-19-2012 at 06:23 PM.
It isn't free if you have to pay $11 to get the do entation required to obtain it... but Jonah still managed to make it a political piece. Props.
Ok... So riddle me this... A person cannot get a drivers license, but what keeps them from getting a state ID card instead?
Here in Oregon, if you don't drive, you can get a valid ID card anyway. I'm pretty damn sure all 50 states do it.
Try rereading the short quote. It refers to state ID.
I think they are mixing ID and drivers licenses.
are you saying the surcharge applies to ID's that don't allow driving privileges?
Regardless. I think it's ridiculous that some standard level if ID requirements aren't enforce.
The article seems to say so.
I think it's intentional ambiguous to imply that. It wouldn't be the first stupid law, but the surcharge is designed for making it harder to get a drivers license for driving citations. It isn't reasonable that it keeps people from getting a regular ID.
The founders didn't need state issued ID, nor did they insist it was needed for anything.
I quite agree.
Texas loses in court, again:
https://www.texastribune.org/2014/10...w-uncons ut/Less than two weeks before the start of early voting, a federal judge ruled the state’s photo voter ID law uncons utional late Thursday and ordered state officials to drop the new requirements.
“The Court holds that SB 14 creates an uncons utional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an uncons utional discriminatory purpose,” U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christi wrote in a 147-page opinion. “The Court further holds that SB 14 cons utes an uncons utional poll tax.”
just went through this whole thread... a lot of lols
prediction is a fool's game if you're not the house. court decisions are notoriously hard to predict.
I'm not sorry my hunch was wrong, but I doubt this is the very end of it.
not that hard when precedent is strong. poll taxes are no-no
data on the impact of voter ID laws on voting in other states is in:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-100000-votes/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
