This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
Wow ... I don't know how to react. Common sense prevailed? This is great news. Bad news for the democrats.
Everyone contact your state legislators and request that such legislation be introduced in your own state.
Poor democrats. Let's see them cry voter fraud on this one.
Good Lord the votes in Chicago will drop by 75% since the dead vote twice and pets vote once.
LOL, WMD!
This has ALWAYS been a specious argument. Who is the one voter block out there that DOESN'T have ID? Illegals, of course - well, and maybe the homeless in NY that are bused in.
This is really gonna piss off Maryland!
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Up here in Alaska you can show your DL or Voter Reg. Card.
Nobody complains up here.
And why are Dems less likely to have ID?
"Democrats have focused on what they see as a need to curb intimidation of voters and combat efforts aimed at suppressing minority voting."
And since when is having ID a form of 'intimidation'?
Darwin got it right – this is bad news for the Democrats. His comment also shows the blatant partisan motivation for the law – shutting the democrat vote one punter at a time.
Never mind that the 'fraud' this statute protects an action that has never actually taken place in Indiana – the Freedom™ lovin' right have had their way and added another layer of paperwork hoops for the citizen to jump through in order to be granted their democratic right under the constitution. Well done! When are you going to introduce the Homeland Identification Card? Tattooed bar code anyone? Microchips at birth?
Of course, electronic voting, caging lists and any amount of other voter fraud skulduggery that carries the Republican vote continues unabated. Funny that.
Yet again, y'all have fallen into the trap set by your overlords which has you believing that the Republican Party is as pure as the driven snow while the Democrats are the epitome of evil, despite all evidence to the contrary.
That this decision impacts adversely on the poor, the elderly and the disabled matters not a jot to the right – in fact, that was the whole idea.
Cheers
Elroy
"That this decision impacts adversely on the poor, the elderly and the disabled matters not a jot to the right – in fact, that was the whole idea"
Please explain how it impacts the poor ... especially when the ID's are free. Also explain just what your definition of "poor" is. Here in the US, most of the so-called "poor" are fat, have cell phones, drive nice cars and have big flat screen TV's.
I have no idea why it should impact elderly and disabled. Everything requires some form of ID ... and, the elderly, disabled and "poor" are not all democrats, so the requirement applies to everyone. Where is your common sense?
I think the new law requiring ID is only for states that choose to enact it? Am I right about this?
I've never been asked for my ID at the polls. Just my name, and address, and then I get crossed off the list (that's so I can't vote twice or more, no matter how tempting it is.
The people who complain about needed ID's to vote are the welfare queens who need ID to get their taxpayer subsidies. They can produce ID to get welfare, but to vote? No way!
I thought Reagan did away with the Welfare Queens...oh, sorry, that was Clinton.
Actually, all the welfare queens these days are Mormons.
I thought Reagan did away with the Welfare Queens...oh, sorry, that was Clinton.
Clinton didn't do AWAY with the welfare queens...he DID the welfare queens.
Glad I could clear that up for you, Sybil.
Mind in the gutter as usual.
Once again Roid-boy, you have it wrong! Only illegals (and dead people - prime dem voters) don't have ID. EVERYBODY has ID. I get asked for my ID EVERY time I have voted. Then they hold my ID and ask me my name and address to prove I know it. I rather like that! It has in NO WAY impacted the dem hold in my lib-city.
Also, historically, only dems have EVER stolen elections. The last one I know of was in Washington state where they stole the governor's seat - by re-counting until they got it right - it ended when they "FOUND" 100,000 votes (incidently - 100,000 MORE voters than they had in residence - neat trick, that!) to tip the balance.
Also, only dems want that chip thing. That's your socialist trick. They are already using it in Mexico - a socialist state.
If you don't have id, you're considered a vagrant, by law. But I've never had to present id when I vote, where I've voted for 20 years now. You're name's on a voter-roll, they cross you off. That's it.
So what, MK? That's where YOU live - that's NOT how it is in ANY place I've live. You cares about how things are where YOU live? You act as though "well that's how it's SUPPOSED to be," simply because that's your experience. Different districts have different rules.
I think you just feel the need to have the last word. DO get over yourself.
If you read earlier, a wrote that the Supreme Court ruling leaves the discretion to the states.
As for desperately needing the last word - you're the queen of that, and I bow down to you.
The last word? Surely that's my job!
‘Please explain how it impacts the poor ... especially when the ID's are free.’
From Justice Stevens:
‘Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons.
They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed.
If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote.’
And from the dissenting view (Justices Ginsberg and Souter):
Indiana’s "Voter ID Law" threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens, and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting.
The statute is unconstitutional under the balancing standard of Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428 (1992): a State may not burden the right to vote merely by invoking abstract interests, be they legitimate, or even compelling, but must make a particular, factual showing that threats to its interests outweigh the particular impediments it has imposed. The State has made no such justification here, and as to some aspects of its law, it has hardly even tried.
The burden of traveling to a more distant BMV office rather than a conveniently located polling place is probably serious for many of the individuals who lack photo
identification. They almost certainly will not own cars, and public transportation in Indiana is fairly limited.
According to a report published by Indiana’s Department of Transportation in August 2007, 21 of Indiana’s 92 counties have no public transportation system at all, and as of 2000, nearly 1 in every 10 voters lived within 1 of these 21 counties.
Among the counties with some public system, 21 provide service only within certain cities, and 32 others restrict public transportation to regional county service, leaving only 18 that offer countywide public transportation....
For those voters who can afford the roundtrip, a second financial hurdle appears: in order to get photo identification for the first time, they need to present " ‘a birth certificate, a certificate of naturalization, U. S. veterans photo identification, U. S. military photo identification, or a U. S. passport.’"
As the lead opinion says, the two most common of these documents come at a price: Indiana counties charge anywhere from $3 to $12 for a birth certificate (and in some other States the fee is significantly higher), that same price must usually be paid for a first-time passport, since a birth certificate is required to prove U. S. citizenship by birth. The total fees for a passport, moreover, are up to about $100. So most voters must pay at least one fee to get the ID necessary to cast a regular ballot.
As with the travel costs, these fees are far from shocking on their face, but in the Burdick analysis it matters that both the travel costs and the fees are disproportionately heavy for, and thus disproportionately likely to deter, the poor, the old, and the immobile.
The upshot is this. Tens of thousands of voting-age residents lack the necessary photo identification. A large proportion of them are likely to be in bad shape economically. The Voter ID Law places hurdles in the way of either getting an ID or of voting provisionally, and they translate into nontrivial economic costs.
There is accordingly no reason to doubt that a significant number of state residents will be discouraged or disabled from voting.’
There. Get it now?
Let’s go through it step by step:
‘How to cast a ballot in Indiana, if you don't currently have a state-issued ID:
1. Find your birth certificate or passport. If you don't have either, you might be able to apply to the state to get a copy of your birth certificate, if you happened to have been born there, for just $12. A passport may cost you $100 (I can't help you get to the place where you'll need to get your photo taken for that.)
2. Get yourself to a Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Don't let the fact that you don't drive, or have a car, or have access to public transportation, as in many counties in Indiana, stop you from getting to the BMV before Election Day.
3. Do the above every four years, without fail, or risk not being able to vote like everyone else at the polls in Indiana on Election Day.
If you fail in any step above, don't have the money to afford the necessary documents, or have a religious objection to having your photo taken, do not to worry. Indiana has you covered...
4. Figure out how to get to the nearby polling place to vote. (Unlike the BMV, polling places in IN, for the moment, are many. If you're lucky, one will be close enough that you can walk there, presuming the weather in Indiana, say, in November, allows it. Though many will help you get to the polls on Election Day, even if they're not always available to drive you to the BMV at other times of the year.)
5. When you get to the polls, and are told you can't vote like everyone else, because you have no state-issued ID, you'll get to vote on a provisional ballot (hopefully, at least that's the law).
6. Don't forget to sign the affidavit on the ballot, stating that you are who you say you are, before dropping it into the box, so officials can match your polling place Election Day signature with your voter registration form signature.
But it's not over yet, if you want to get that vote counted somehow! (Having it counted accurately and/or transparently, due to the voting systems used in IN, is largely out of any citizen's hands, at this point.)
7. Before 10 days have elapsed after you've voted, you must now figure out how to get a ride to the county seat, however far that may be from where you live. Get to the Courthouse there, and then sign yet another affidavit, similar to the one you signed on Election Day at the polling place on your provisional ballot, attesting again to the fact that you are you. And then maybe, just maybe, if that signature is also judged to match your registration, then your vote might be counted.
No, it's not onerous at all. As Scalia and friends noted in their decision yesterday, "the burden at issue is minimal," as he sees it. (Though we're guessing he probably owns a state-issued ID already.)
So what could those losers on the Supreme Court have been thinking, just 42 years ago, when they struck down a simple $1.50 poll-tax on the grounds that it might keep some voters from being able to cast their legal vote? Silly them.’ [http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5934]
Oh, and to get your birth certificate in Indiana you need a photo ID.
‘Also explain just what your definition of "poor" is.’
Oh no! Not the ‘poverty is relative’ argument again!
‘Here in the US, most of the so-called "poor" are fat,’
Because they are poor. This is not rocket science. Fat is a capitalist issue. Poor people are fat because they eat cheap processed food, and eat sporadically. Read this:
Fresh food is more expensive in terms of both money and time.
‘have cell phones, drive nice cars and have big flat screen TV's.’
Here we go – the ‘poverty is relative’ argument. Yes, people have cell phones, cars and TVs, but this does not make them rich. Cell phones and cars are not luxuries in the 21st century, they are disposable items thrown out every day and they are cheap because the
industries that make them understand a) planned obsolescence; b) economies of scale; c) Chinese labor costs; d) that cheap hardware generates demand for expensive software and consumables; e) that message delivery requires accessible platforms.
A poor American might be rich in Somalia, but poor Americans are not in Somalia, they are in America, but even so some poor Americans are approaching Somalian like levels of poverty. I know the Right like to pretend that homelessness is a lifestyle choice, but millions of families are only ever six paychecks away from destitution.
And what about the working poor? People who work full-time but who still cannot afford a roof over their heads? Whose fault is that?
And don’t start with the ‘social mobility’ argument – even the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute agree that this is a myth – have a look around here: www.economicmobility.org
‘...and, the elderly, disabled and "poor" are not all democrats, so the requirement applies to everyone.’
True, but as they are statistically more likely to be the net gain is for the Republicans.
‘Only illegals (and dead people - prime dem voters) don't have ID.’
And they do not vote. Yes, contrary to the disinformation spread by the utterly partisan American Center for Voting Rights which so eagerly lapped up by the true believers, the US Election Assistance Commission found that there is little, if any, evidence of dead citizens and/or non-citizens committing vote fraud. http://www.BradBlog.com/Docs/
EAC...port_051706.pdf
The big problem is roll purging, dodgy electronic machines, voter intimidation etc, all tactics of the Republicans.
EVERYBODY has ID. I get asked for my ID EVERY time I have voted. Then they hold my ID and ask me my name and address to prove I know it. I rather like that!
It is not a legal requirement.
‘It has in NO WAY impacted the dem hold in my lib-city.’
It is obviously not going to work everywhere. The GOP are involved in a long-term strategic battle, of which Indiana is merely a skirmish. It is a foothold, a bridgehead, a precedent upon which the can build.
‘Also, historically, only dems have EVER stolen elections.’
Which ones? Where? And what about the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections? Were they straight-up? How can you ignore the mountain of evidence that points to malfeasance on behalf of the GOP.
The last one I know of was in Washington state where they stole the governor's seat - by re-counting until they got it right - it ended when they "FOUND" 100,000 votes (incidently - 100,000 MORE voters than they had in residence - neat trick, that!) to tip the balance.
If you are referring to the 2004 Gubernatorial race, as far as I can tell you are in error. It was very close, but the Republicans lost; however, if you have evidence of then please, bring it on.
‘Also, only dems want that chip thing.’
Whoa there, Tiger! Whatever gives you that idea?
‘That's your socialist trick. They are already using it in Mexico - a socialist state.
’
Mexico is a socialist state? Oh, you’re just being silly now! The ruling party in Mexico is Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), or National Action Party. They are the Mexican GOP, all for free enterprise, privatization, smaller government against same-sex unions and abortion. That’s why Caderon was allowed to steal the 2006 election.
Sorry this has taken a while but these things are not simple, much as you might like them to be. Nothing ever is.
Anything else?
Cheers
Elroy
Mexico is the end product of Capitalism. And endless source of cheap labor.
Roid - seriously - you need to be a little more concise. It's not like these misguide folks are actually going to read, take in, nor consider what you write.
I know, Mud, but sometimes I just don't have the time to trim it all down to soundbite chunks. All I have done is to put the information on the table and hope that the enquiring minds here will take it on board. After all, information is power.
What sayest thou, Righties?
Cheers
Elroy
"Poor people are fat because they eat cheap processed food, and eat sporadically."
Yeah? That's why in every other nation around the globe "poor" people are stick thin? Idiot.
The ID's are free moron ... it has no impact on "poor" people.
You are very tiresome. You have no valid arguments except the constant regurgitation of the same old leftist tripe.
"I know, Mud, but sometimes I just don't have the time to trim it all down to soundbite chunks"
That's because you're so enamored with yourself. You actually think you write well. Try thinking about these two words ... "effective writing".
Contemplate how you can get your point across ... effectively.
Don't come back until you can.
I thought you didn't presume to tell people what to do or not, or what to say, or not. Or does that only apply to Nam?
Twisting like a leaf in the wind.
That's not what I said ... and you know that. Or maybe not, since you appear to twist everyone's words so easily it must be second nature.
I didn't dictate his content ... I told him to present it effectively.
This is the old kitty - very tiresome. Very PC, makes judgements then twist other peoples responses to suit her world view - nevermind content. Very libish. Now she and roid-boy are best buds. Birds of a socialist feather.
'Yeah? That's why in every other nation around the globe "poor" people are stick thin? Idiot.'
Poor people in rich countries are fat because they eat bad food – poor people in poor countries are thin because they eat no food.
'The ID's are free moron ... it has no impact on "poor" people.'
You obviously did not read my post. Here's some edited Justice Stevens highlights from the lead opinion:
'...a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons...elderly persons born out-of-state who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate...persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification...homeless person...persons with a religious objection to being photographed...the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote.’
There. I don't know how that could be clearer. The lead justices (that's your guys) admit that the laws create a barrier to voting, but that it doesn't matter.
'You are very tiresome.'
I prefer 'comprehensive'.
' You have no valid arguments except the constant regurgitation of the same old leftist tripe.'
So the 'same old leftist tripe' contains valid arguments? Good. In that case, could you please address them? Thank you.
And it's not a matter of 'regurgitation' – I am merely presenting the alternative point of view. I could just as easily say that you are constantly regurgitating the same old rightist tripe, but I am interested in debating the issues and not taking petty ad hominem pot shots – unfortunately, you seem to think that doing this IS debate.
'That's because you're so enamored with yourself.'
And you are so humble?
'You actually think you write well.'
Not particularly, but at least I can spel and am having a working knowledge of grammar, not to mention an effective grasp of punctuation
'Try thinking about these two words ... "effective writing".'
Life is not a bumper sticker. Try thinking about these two words...'complicated issues'.
'Contemplate how you can get your point across ... effectively.'
Contemplate how you can objectively read and comprehend information that challenges your point of view.
I find that that righties like to throw out all manner of erroneous accusations and falsehoods – clearing them all up takes up a lot more time than making them, but I'm trying. Or would you rather just labour under whatever misconceptions suit your agenda?
Cheers
Elroy
Can you NOT ramble on for 25 paragraphs? You don't know what the f@ck you're talking about - you don't LIVE here. You have no RIGHT to talk about what you know nothing about. Sitting back in another country making smug judgements about another country does NOT make you informed nor does it make you enlightened. It makes you look like an ass.
Would you please get a f-ing clue?
I can understand why you think that the statute is logical, but some things are counter-intuitive and not as they seem. This is a tricky issue and it takes a bit of explaining – it cannot be dealt with on a bumper sticker.
If you are not willing to listen to and consider the facts and the counter arguments then I suggest that it is not me without a f@#%ing clue.
Anhoo, care to address the content of my post and not just attack the form? Or can you only shoot the messenger? ? If I'm not mistaken the righties on this site have made a great deal about how they don't censor, so how about commenting on my points instead of my right to make them, Hmm?
Cheers
Elroy
No, Elroy, they don't want to deal with your points, they just want to attack you personally for disagreeing with them.
But here I agree with Witness, do please, PLEASE, try to be more concise.
Darwin - I've never dictated Nam's content either. It's you who are twisting my words.
He has no point kitty, except that the left's victim classes must be treated like zoo animals. The left deems they can do nothing for themselves and are so helpless the government must cater to their every whim and desire.
"It's you who are twisting my words"
Please ... stop. I told you to stop playing by the left's rules. I didn't tell you what and what not to say.
If I'm not mistaken the righties on this site have made a great deal about how they don't censor, roid-boy
No one is censoring you, dork. But if you INSIST on writing manifestos I'm going to INSIST on ignoring them. Who the f@ck wants to come home for some "downtime" and deal with some egotistical windbag who is so full of himself that he has to drone on and on? Make your point, then chill.
I still don't feel like reading your rant - but I noticed you quoted one of our lib supremes. Everything this guy says is wrong. Everybody has ID. His point was moot. The only people who don't have it are illegals. The voting block they're trying to enfranchise illegally. Get it?
Oh my ... keep up. I told you that when you were "a" and hammering Nam with your "racist" accusations.
The only contradiction is you.
Actually Darwin, you just did tell me what not to say. Read your own comments.
Very funny Kris.
OK ... we'll play your way. Don't say anymore.
"Don't say anymore?" If that's not telling me what to do, than I don't know what is.
What if I told you, Social Darwin, "Don't say anymore?" I don't think you'd find that much to your liking.
Ahhh, mud - obtuse as usual.
Wanna wager how long before I get banned?
Who cares? You contribute nothing anyway. If you did, it'd be a different story.
Go run to your herd and tell them more lies kitty.
You care, because you keep responding with personal insults rather than addressing the issue/issues.
Issues? You gatta be kidding me. Darwin has done the least to insult you! You have not responded to a single issue we have posed to you - you just ignore the quesion and prose on as usual. Or change the question. Or change the subject. Anything but stick to an issue or answer a question.
What's your question witless?
Aren't I the one who asks questions around here, anyway? You know, the questions that upset your apple carts.
Redirection and projection.......
Non-responsive.
^
|
|
shitkitty
Commenting by HaloScan
