Reasonable North Carolina voting ID law

“Every voter can get a free identification card. Part 3 waives fees for the legally blind, those over 70 years old, anyone whose driver’s license has been canceled because of a disability, the homeless — and everyone else. Sections 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 allow anyone, whether they’re registered to vote already (3.1.5) or showing up to register (3.1.6) to get a free identity card without paying a fee simply by signing a declaration that they are eligible to vote. Once their declaration and registration are verified, the state won’t be allowed to charge them a fee.” Link.

In other words, anybody who can find the polling place or figure out how to register can get a free ID. It is possible that an extremely stupid person might not be able to figure this out, and we stipulate that such a person is more likely to vote Democratic, but there cannot be very many of such people who want to and can vote.

"And even in 2016, voters without an identification will still be able to cast a ballot. They'll have to cast a provisional ballot, which doesn't include every local race, but at least it includes top-of-the-ticket contests common to voters across the state, according to Section 2.1, subsection (c). Voters who go to the wrong precinct will be able to cast a provisional ballot too, under Section 49.3. Those provisional ballots would only be counted if the voter's eligibility can be verified after the fact."

Even that very stupid person described above will be able to vote, despite the fact that he forgets his identification and/or wanders into the wrong polling station. Of course, our Democratic friends may complain that he still won't be able to vote if he wanders into Church's Fried Chicken instead of the polling place, but at least he can get some tasty food, which may be more of what he really wants.

This makes it easy for any legal voter to vote. Our Democratic friends are crying that this somehow makes it difficult for their people to cast ballots. As far as I can tell, the new law makes it easy for honest voters but harder for crooks and fraudsters.

Posted by Christine & John at September 8, 2013 7:18 AM
Comments
Comment #370376

I have not taken the time to document what other voter ID laws are, but your capsule analysis looks like a simple approach by NC. I hoping AG Holder gets his clock cleaned by suing NC an TX.

The Supreme Court did uphold IN voter ID. I expect them to uphold most other voter ID laws. In nearly all cases the pix ID cost is waived.

Democratic opposition is suspect in that even though fraud is rarely enforced, it does occur with regularity.

Posted by: tom humes at September 8, 2013 8:42 AM
Comment #370377

You can’t pass the legislation of dead ideology without the votes of dead people and you can’t pass laws to protect criminal behavior without the votes of criminals.

Posted by: JWL at September 8, 2013 8:44 AM
Comment #370378
Part 3 waives fees for the legally blind, those over 70 years old, anyone whose driver’s license has been canceled because of a disability, the homeless — and everyone else.

I visited the NC DMV website and I discovered this:

There is no fee charged for a North Carolina ID Card for a resident of the State who is legally blind, is at least 70 years old, homeless or who has been issued a driver license which has subsequently been cancelled as a result of a physical or mental disability or disease.

To obtain a North Carolina ID Card without paying a fee, a homeless person must present a letter to the Division from the director of a facility that provides care or shelter to homeless persons verifying that the person is homeless.

For everyone else, the poll tax is at least $10

In order to apply for the first time issuance of a NC ID Card you will need to gather documents from the following categories: -Proof of Age & Identity -Proof of Social Security -Proof of Residency
How much does it cost to procure a birth certificate? Posted by: Warren Porter at September 8, 2013 10:14 AM
Comment #370379

Warren

It just is not that hard.

Beyond that, if we really have people so out-of-touch that they do not have these simple things, we are doing them a favor by bringing them into civilization. And if they want to remain so out-of-touch, it is unlikely that they will want to vote anyway.

If the Supreme Court determines that this is unconstitutional, we will have to think of something else. Until then, it is lawful.

Since it is lawful, we are just disagreeing about whether or not we should “inconvenience” some people in order to protect voting. I am disgusted by anyone so out-of-touch and stupid that he has no way of identifying himself and still demands that the rest of us carry his dead weight.

The citizen has the right to vote, but not the right to impose undue costs on the rest of us.

Posted by: CJ at September 8, 2013 11:25 AM
Comment #370380

CJ,

So a $10 poll tax causes no qualms for you?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 8, 2013 12:38 PM
Comment #370381

Many states have voter ID laws. If the only question was whether a state should provide a free voter ID to voters so that they can vote, most people would be fine with that. There would be no controversy.

North Carolina goes far beyond that point, with portions of the recent bill clearly intended to suppress voting. For example, in NC the bill eliminates Sunday voting. Why? Many blacks go straight from church to vote. It has nothing to do with preventing voter fraud. It has everything to do with making it harder for people to vote. The NC law has other provisions aimed at eliminating early voting, and other voter empowerment measures. Make no mistake. The NC law is all about suppressing the vote.

Rachel Maddow did a terrific segment on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/rachel-maddow-north-carol_n_3801705.html

The situation is Boone County and Watauga County gives a clear cut illustration of voter suppression by the Tea Party. In Boone, the voting station at the local community college- a college with a large black population- was moved as far away as possible from the college, at the end of a road with no public transportation or even sidewalk to reach it. At that same school, one Tea Party member does nothing but challenge black votes. There is another community college in the voting district, a mostly white college, and no Tea Party member challenges those voters.

There are a lot of other examples. What is going on in NC is horrendous. Make no mistake. Don’t be fooled by any pretense that the recent NC law was “reasonable.” It is one of the best- or more appropriately- worst examples of an attempt at voter suppression in the entire country.

Posted by: phx8 at September 8, 2013 12:44 PM
Comment #370383

SC upholds early voting in Ohio

To make sure


Lady can vote six times

Poor lady only got to vote 6 times. How can such suppression go on in America! Shame on those mean ol’ Republicans trying to limit this poor lady to only 6 votes!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 8, 2013 1:49 PM
Comment #370384

Warren

If the Supreme Court determines it is indeed an illegal fee, I will be concerned. Until then, I don’t have any problem with people participating in their communities by having IDs.

Phx8

Perhaps you recall this scene of voter intimidation. http://mije.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/full_column/u582/blackpanthers_security.jpg. These guys are not Tea Party members.

Indeed, I pity those fools who have no IDs, but voting certainly is not their biggest challenge, since the can’t drive, get a bank loan, borrow a library book, cash a check, fly on an airplane, be serving in the military, work for a government agency …

Posted by: CJ at September 8, 2013 2:02 PM
Comment #370386

Rachel Maddow is not a reliable source

Posted by: tom humes at September 8, 2013 2:43 PM
Comment #370387

“You need a photo ID. Well, you didn’t need a photo ID for decades before. Is it really necessary now? And they claim that there’s widespread abuse and voter fraud, but nothing documents, nothing substantiates that. There isn’t widespread abuse.”

“You can say what you like, but there is no voter fraud. How can it be widespread and undetected?”
Colin Powell, August 2013

So, CJ & WW, one of you cite a single case of voter intimidation from 2008- three intimidating black men, how horrible!!!- and one of you cite the example of a case of fraud in OH- a case that never resulted in charges or conviction, as far as I can tell. And on that basis, hundreds of thousands should risk disenfranchisement of a fundamental constitutional right? I am not convinced. No one else is, either, unless you count white Tea Party members in Texas, NC, and other states with long records of voting rights violations.

There is a good reason minorities- blacks, latinos, Asians, women, gays, the poor, the young, the elderly, and others- dislike the Republican base, especially the Tea Party. If it were just one issue on which the GOP/Tea Party opposed their interests, that dislike would not exist. But on virtually every issue, time and time again, across the spectrum, those minority groups find themselves being the objects of bigotry, hatred, and attempts at disenfranchisement.

It might… might… work in 2014, in a midterm election with low turnout, since midterms typically hinge on bringing out the base. Be assured it will not work in 2016. A demographic and mathematical tsunami is coming in 2016.

Meanwhile, keep it up. Alienate those minorities. Pretend it will all work out. Make a wish. See what happens.

Posted by: phx8 at September 8, 2013 2:46 PM
Comment #370388

Weary Willie,
Absentee voting is not the topic of this discussion.

C+J,

If the Supreme Court determines it is indeed an illegal fee, I will be concerned. Until then, I don’t have any problem with people participating in their communities by having IDs.

This isn’t a subjective matter of interpretation. The 26th amendment prohibits poll taxes. Period.

In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court said:

“a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.”

In Harman v. Forssenius, Justice Warren wrote:

On the merits, the District Court held that the certificate of residence requirement was ‘a distinct qualification’ or at least an ‘increase (in) the quantum of necessary proof of residence’ imposed solely on the federal voter, and that it therefore violated Art. I, § 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment, which provide that electors choosing a Representative or Senator in the Congress of the United States ‘shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.’ The court rejected the argument that the residency certificate was merely a method, like the poll tax, of proving the residence qualification which is imposed on both federal and state voters. Accordingly, the District Court entered an order declaring invalid the portions of the 1963 Virginia legislation which required the filing of a certificate of residence and enjoining appellants from requiring compliance by a voter with said portions of the 1963 Acts. We noted probable jurisdiction. 379 U.S. 810, 85 S.Ct. 83, 13 L.Ed.2d 25.

We hold that § 24—17.2 is repugnant to the Twenty-fourth Amendment and affirm the decision of the District Court on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether that section violates Art. I, § 2, and the Seventeenth Amendment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 8, 2013 3:37 PM
Comment #370389

C&J, I didn’t post that last comment. Please edit post #370388
I’m sure it’s just a Freudian slip.
Imitation and flattery and all that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 8, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #370390

I can state many cases of voter fraud. One comes to mind in Northern Indiana. Obama wouldn’t have been on the ballot if it wasn’t for that fraud being perpetrated.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 8, 2013 3:47 PM
Comment #370391

People who say there is no voter fraud are like kids saying they didn’t eat the cookies while crumbs are flying from their mouths.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 8, 2013 3:50 PM
Comment #370392

WW,
How does eliminating Sunday voting, early voting, shortening hours, moving voting stations away from colleges and public transportation, eliminating voter registration programs and same-day registration stop voting fraud?

There are types of voting fraud that should be watched, especially with absentee ballots and those using technological methods. In-person voting fraud is virtually non-existent, yet that is what ID requirements target.

Posted by: phx8 at September 8, 2013 4:04 PM
Comment #370393

phx8

The number of hours that the polls are open will remain the same according to the law. The distribution of hours is a matter of judgement.

IMO, early voting dilutes the voting process. There is a value in democracy in having people vote within a limited period. That is only my opinion, but it is as valid as any other and if the lawmakers in NC want that, or something else, it is their business if done, as it is, within the Constitution.

I also believe same day registration is silly. If a person cannot be bothered to make a little time for his country, he is a poor citizen and is disrespecting more responsible people like you and me. Again, he is entitled to vote, but the Supreme Court and the lawmakers determine the conditions with the boundaries of the Constitution. My preference would be that he register on time this time and be ready for the next elections like a good citizen.

Re absentee ballot fraud - I agree that we should be vigilant against all sorts of fraud. Every fraudulent vote disenfranchises one honest voter.

Posted by: CJ at September 8, 2013 4:27 PM
Comment #370394
C&J, I didn’t post that last comment. Please edit post #370388 I’m sure it’s just a Freudian slip. Imitation and flattery and all that

My apologies. This is what I get for blogging while I watch the Pats beat the Bills. I would appreciate it if C&J could correct my error.

People who say there is no voter fraud are like kids saying they didn’t eat the cookies while crumbs are flying from their mouths.

You are referring to absentee ballot fraud or registration fraud, when the controversy in question is designed to fight voter impersonation fraud, of which there are fewer than a dozen recorded cases nationwide.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 8, 2013 4:33 PM
Comment #370395

Warren

The Supreme Court evidently does not interpret that as a “poll tax” and neither do I. We could just a well say that we need to provide free transportation to the polls, since making people pay for gas or bus fare would be a poll tax. Maybe we should give a clothing allowance, so the poor wouldn’t feel dumpy on election day.

Posted by: CJ at September 8, 2013 4:40 PM
Comment #370397

Requiring an ID card seems minimally intrusive on its face as it relates to ‘one person - one vote’. The money influence chooses many of your candidates, determines who wins elections and who gets re-elected, etc.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 8, 2013 5:21 PM
Comment #370398
How does eliminating Sunday voting, early voting, shortening hours, moving voting stations away from colleges and public transportation, eliminating voter registration programs and same-day registration stop voting fraud?

The same way a dam stops the flow of water.

This country has voted the same way for hundreds of years and we are none worse the wear. Why, all of the sudden, we need all of these conveniences? Sunday voting? Since when? Early voting? Why? Same-day registration? That’s ridiculous! That’s asking for fraud!

I don’t buy into the mantra that there is no voting fraud. Lately the rules are changing that encourage voting fraud. Motor voter being one. I agree with CJ:

If a person cannot be bothered to make a little time for his country, he is a poor citizen and is disrespecting more responsible people like you and me.

Also, why should we cater to the voter if not to open it up further to fraud. The easier it is the more it will be abused. For crying out loud, should people be laying in their beds and have their ballots handed to them, filled out, and folded, before you guys think it’s “fair”?

I, for one, am willing to return to a paper ballot with an accompanying receipt to be counted by hand, because I don’t trust the current electronic voting procedure at all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 8, 2013 6:45 PM
Comment #370399

“The same way a dam stops the flow of water.”

Or a torrent of unwanted but legitimate votes.

Posted by: Rich at September 8, 2013 7:11 PM
Comment #370400
This country has voted the same way for hundreds of years and we are none worse the wear. Why, all of the sudden, we need all of these conveniences?

After 235 years of voting without voter IDs, why all of a sudden do we need voter IDs?

Sunday voting? Since when? Early voting? Why? Same-day registration? That’s ridiculous! That’s asking for fraud!

It may be asking for registration fraud, or asking for absentee ballot fraud. However, it is definitely not asking for voter impersonation fraud.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 8, 2013 7:19 PM
Comment #370401

Rich

No legitimate voter will be unable to vote because of these rules. It may make it easier to prevent fraud from stealing legitimate votes, however.

Re changing voting times - the total hours the polls are open remains unchanged by the new rules.

Warren

From the time I first voted in 1976 until today, I have always presented an ID. I suppose in earlier times, people knew each other. But there was significant voter fraud at times. Various big city machines voted the dead. Non-citizen immigrants voted in place of legitimate voters.

Some of this was not merely ID. I recall reading in LBJ’s biography about boxes of votes found, as many as Democrats needed to win and all the voters seemed to have the same handwriting.

Re IDs in general - they are becoming more common. When I was younger, I often did not carry a wallet. You really cannot do that today.

Posted by: CJ at September 8, 2013 7:25 PM
Comment #370402

“Why, all of the sudden, we need all of these conveniences?”

I don’t know Weary. Maybe to increase the voter turnout from its historically dismal rate? Maybe to simply make it more convenient for poor working stiffs trying to vote on a work day? I personally stood in a long line for over five hours at our new consolidated polling place which was almost ten miles from my home during the last national election.

Posted by: Rich at September 8, 2013 7:27 PM
Comment #370405

Sometimes we take more pride in doing things that require a bit more effort. I know that people have the right to vote and I fight to protect it. But that doesn’t stop me from despising those who don’t take their right seriously enough to take voting seriously. Those clowns let good people down. And then they bitch because they feel put upon.

As I said, I protect their rights, but those who won’t take simple steps to exercise their rights are not living up to the promise of our great country. They are failing us. People died to give them that right and they cannot be bothered to get an ID or figure out where to show up on election day. Have we become a nation of dependent children? We are better than that.

It reminds me of the old joke about the guy who prays to win the lottery and criticizes the Lord for not helping him out. Finally God answers back, “Do me a favor. Buy a ticket.”

Posted by: CJ at September 8, 2013 9:23 PM
Comment #370407

Rich, most of the people I know that don’t vote don’t because they think it doesn’t matter. They don’t believe in the system. They don’t think their vote is counted. They think the entire system is rigged to put the person on the tv screen in office. One or the other. Either one will do because they are both considered the same.

To get people interested in voting again there needs to be some skin in the game for them. Democratics have supplied that skin via. welfare, food stamps, union benefits, government jobs, pensions, health care, citizenship for illegals, eggcetella, eggcetella, eggcetella… (that’s my bad Shakespeare actor imitation)

People in general need to know the game isn’t stacked against them any longer. They need to see the results of their vote being counted. They could and would vote if they saw that their vote resulted in something changing for the better. They would have more confidence if they saw some common sense candidates elected and common sense solutions being put into effect. They would vote if they started seeing laws repealed instead of more laws passed. They would vote for candidates who they felt represented them.

Rich, the person I mentioned in the previous comment openly bragged about voting more than once. She bragged about doing it for the specific purpose of seeing Obama elected. She admitted to breaking the law as did others. These convoluted voter registration laws that make it easy to break the law promote this type of behavior. Something as important as voting needs to be verifiable, accurate, and legitimate. We can’t have buss loads of Mexicans going from polling place to polling place imitating this guy at one and that guy at another, voting for the guy they’re told to vote for. Voting for the guy they’re told will give them citizenship, free lunch, education, welfare checks and God knows what else. And don’t do a Colin Powell on me and say it doesn’t happen. I’m not 10 years old.

Rich, if the people who don’t vote started to they would most likely vote for the person who they believed would reign in this out of control government. If they were real citizens and they payed attention to our government they would vote to scale it back to something manageable. If that happened your side would be screaming bloody murder and scrambling to supress those votes. The only reason you agree with these lax voting requirements is because they are being used to your side’s benefit.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 8, 2013 9:37 PM
Comment #370408

Come on, Weary! Making voting simpler and easier for citizens would seem to be a no brainer. The idea, as C&J suggests, that making it a little harder is somehow more fulfilling seems to me to be utter nonsense. If businesses took that attitude, they would be shortly out of business.

What impressed me during my long wait to vote in the last election was the tenacity, determination and good will of the voters. Nobody left the line. There was good humor and friendly banter between opposing sides. Pizza was ordered by someone in line and it was shared with everyone nearby. What didn’t impress me was the sheer inconvenience perpetrated by the voting authorities that made such an important civic function an excruciating experience.

I don’t have any issue with some form of reasonable and free ID. But, when I see other impediments embedded in the law, I begin to smell something other than an honest effort to protect the integrity of the vote. Particularly, when those impediments are targeted at groups which favor the other party.

Posted by: Rich at September 8, 2013 10:54 PM
Comment #370410

Rich

I don’t think we need to make voting easier than other things the average person does during the day. Why? It is a right but also a responsibility to vote. If people stay home because the relatively simple act of voting is too much bother, I think they are wisely voting to let people who care more about it take the helm.

Everybody having the right the vote is important. Everybody actually voting is not necessarily the sign of health.

Turnout was very high during parts of the 19th Century when the spoils system was in place. People often voted those days because they wanted to get some partisan advantage or reward. Of course, in places like Chicago or NYC, with Democratic machines, turnout was increased when the dead voted for the machine candidates.

One of the threat to democracy since the time when the Greeks discovered it has been the idea the a majority would tyrannize fellow citizens by using their votes as means to take things. That is why our founding fathers wisely included balances, rights and limits to the republic they created. This explains the success of our republic. No republic in the history of the world has endured as long as ours; most didn’t survive the generation of their founders.

The idea that everyone has a voice and a vote is essential to our democracy. The idea that everyone’s voice will have equal weight is anathema. I understand that these truths do not go down well. In fact, scores of democracies have been destroyed when demagogues successfully attacked them. Such episodes were followed by the tyranny of the majority, with ordinary tyranny hot on its heels.

Posted by: CJ at September 9, 2013 6:08 AM
Comment #370411

Rich, are you sure your inconvenience wasn’t caused by these laws and was caused by a government that squanders it’s funding on selfish endeavors i.e. fully insured part time employees and 100% funded pensions and then using the path of least resistance by cutting funding of the bi-annual elections?

That sounds more like your problem with long lines and condensed polling places. My polling place was condensed from 4 to 1 and they were open about the reason. To reduce the cost. They couldn’t afford to administrate the most important function of our government, the vote. Do you know where they put the four polling places, Rich? They put them in the multi-million dollar Community Center that was built by and dedicated to our previous mayor!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2013 8:33 AM
Comment #370412

“No republic in the history of the world has endured as long as ours”

Maybe no modern republic. The Roman republic lasted approximately 450 years.

“The idea that everyone’s voice will have equal weight is anathema.”

Ahh, the old and enduring tension between the elites and the people. Hamilton vs. Jefferson. I know that you will say that you meant that we are a representative democracy constrained by a constitution, that we don’t put public policy to general vote, protection from the tyranny of the majority, etc. However, your other comments indicate that it might be better to discourage the less qualified voter from participating. Make it a bit difficult for the less motivated, less informed voter to cast a ballot. No sense in making it easy for the dumb and lazy to vote. I agree that it is tempting to want a system in which the elites govern but that is not our system. One vote per citizen equates to an equal voice for all. But, then again Citizens United makes one wonder.

Posted by: Rich at September 9, 2013 8:52 AM
Comment #370413

Weary,

You may very well be correct about the budgetary reasons for reduced polling places and inconvenience to voters. It was also incompetence. When they consolidated polling places they failed to increase the number of voting kiosks to accommodate the tenfold increase of voters at the consolidated location.

But, whatever the reason, it is only further argument for employing more voter friendly policies not to go the opposite route. Changing to non-work week voting, employing more efficient electronic systems, putting voting places at accessible locations convenient to public transportation, longer hours on voting day, more early voting options, etc.

Posted by: Rich at September 9, 2013 9:05 AM
Comment #370414

I would say that you should have to prove serious in-person voter fraud in order to justify the taxpayer cost and potential interference with voting that comes from these new regulations.

Otherwise, it is a waste on all counts.

Even with the Bush Administration pushing the US Attorneys at full steam, even firing some for not filing frivolous cases, the Bush Administration could not demonstrate the proportions of in person voting fraud necessary to justify these new ID and security measure requirements.

One would think that conservatives would not jump the gun and try and fight a problem that they couldn’t prove to exist. One would think that conservatives would be trying to relieve the bureaucratic burden on the system and on individuals, not increase it.

What does it say about Republicans that they are so fully allergic to any new regulations on guns, but not so much to constraints on the right to vote?

I think it’s telling that with a shift towards the Democrats in the electorate, there’s suddenly a huge surge of interest in voter fraud by Republicans. They don’t even need to prove it, they say, it should be obvious. They state that illegal aliens are voting as if it’s fact, and they attribute Barack Obama’s election and re-election to such fraud.

Fraud they can’t prove.

It might seem uncharacteristic to some that I say this, but if there is not a big problem with voter fraud, then government should not be trying to solve it. Government has enough trouble on its hands trying to deal with crimes that are happening, with electoral issue that do significantly effect people to be wasting its time and our money on ID requirements and bureaucratic hassles.

And you know what, C&J? I’m going to be quite blunt about this: you aren’t going to do much good limiting polling locations or times to vote. You know what’s going to happen? You are going to see huge lines, and get huge amounts of coverage about how ****ed up and inefficient your system is. The best electoral system is the one that fulfills the needs of voters invisibly. This one won’t.

The Republicans are wasting their time with these measures. They should be sitting down and trying to translate conservatism for a new generation, like Reagan once did for Reagan Democrats. Instead, they’re doing everything they can to permanently alienate the different demographics they’re going to need to recover.

Quit defending these bozos. They’re the folks embarrassing your party and selling their obsolescence to the next generation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2013 11:01 AM
Comment #370417

SD
The symbol for the Democratic Party is the jackass
Thank you for living up to your symbol.

Posted by: tom humes at September 9, 2013 1:17 PM
Comment #370418

humes
The symbol for someone who makes ad hominem attacks is a troll. Thank you for living up to your symbol.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 9, 2013 2:08 PM
Comment #370419

I’d like to give everyone this challenge:

Prove that your vote tallied as you expected it to.
Prove it!
You can’t can you. You can prove you voted because your signature is on the roster, but can you prove your vote tallied to the person you voted for?
No! You can’t.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2013 3:59 PM
Comment #370420

Oregon has vote by mail. Not a problem.

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2013 4:03 PM
Comment #370421
Not a problem.

If you’re so sure there isn’t a problem, prove it. Something as important as voting should be verifiable. Verify the votes in Oregon and verify every person who cast a vote had their vote attributed to their candidate.

Prove it, phx8!

You can’t. And you will think the request is absurd because you know you can’t. You think it’s absurd because no one expects their personal vote to be verifiable. It’s the biggest leap of faith this world has ever seen.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2013 4:32 PM
Comment #370422

Actually, it is verifiable. There is a paper trail, signed envelope, and internal envelope. There are stiff penalties for committing fraud, and every once in a while, someone gets caught.

We trust systems as long as they work. We trust systems until there is a reason to distrust them. We make assumptions and leaps of faith everyday, every moment.

Vote by mail virtually eliminates problems with voter suppression experienced in other states, like TX & NC.

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2013 5:02 PM
Comment #370423

Are you saying every vote cast goes thru the postal service?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2013 5:23 PM
Comment #370425

Few trust the Corpocracy anymore. The Gore/Bush debacle is still up in the air, IMO.

Therefore, I like the voter ID requirement. I would take it a step further. Something like, when you cast your vote the way you vote is recorded on your ID card and you are given visually, a random number relating to your vote and that number is recorded on your card.

Some time after the election a printout/email of these numbers and associated vote for each candidate would be made available to the public. Only you could recognize your voting info based on the associated random number.

A smart card for verification. I like that.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 9, 2013 6:03 PM
Comment #370426

See, phx8? People don’t trust the current system. The reason they don’t trust it is because there is no verification. They also don’t trust it because anyone can vote without proving who they are.

Voter ID is one step towards a verification system that will allow people to trust the system.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2013 6:15 PM
Comment #370427

Rich

The Roman Republic suffered severe changes that made it defacto different and it was never a democracy in any sense that we would understand it. But you are indeed correct on the republic point.

RE elite etc – Neither Jefferson, nor Hamilton nor anybody who really thinks about it thinks that everybody should have equal weight. There is the old difference between equal start and equal finish.

I do worry about people using their votes instead of their work to make a living. That happened with the Roman mob that demanded bread and circuses.

Partly in response to that, the great Roman orator Cicero to say, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.”

Jefferson said that it was every citizen’s duty to be informed. I am sick of so many of our citizens letting us down and then using their own lethargy and stupidity as an excuse.

If someone cannot get an ID or find his/her way to the polls … well let me quote myself - “F them.” I feel no responsibility to such people. I prefer they not vote and would do nothing to help them.

I don’t want to make it difficult for any particular type of person to vote. I do think that voting requirements should be the same for all citizens. If people too lazy or stupid to figure out how to vote choose by their actions not to exercise their franchise, I am glad of it.

I am always astonished that whenever we talk about stupid and lazy people who will not vote unless somebody gives them concierge service, all you guys assume they would vote mostly for Democrats.

Stephen

Nobody has been able to prove that voters are not allowed to vote because of lack of ID. In fact, the laws specifically make provision to let people vote when in doubt. Both sides are perhaps defending very small cases. The difference is that the potential for fraud is much greater than the potential for people being unable to vote for lack of ID. Any time a person cannot vote and any time an illegal vote is cast, we suffer disenfranchisement.

Posted by: CJ at September 9, 2013 6:51 PM
Comment #370428

Re your last sentence, C&J. I would like to see the right to vote restored to felons.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 9, 2013 7:53 PM
Comment #370429

Roy

After they have done their time and are off probation, I agree.

Posted by: CJ at September 9, 2013 8:07 PM
Comment #370432

C&J-
We should not add burdens to the voters that do not answer a proportionate threat. In Person voting fraud has been seen only at hundreds of cases per millions of voters. It’s a low yield, high risk tactic.

But you’ll make us spend millions more on elections, require greater measures to register to vote, and for what? For a vanishingly small problem.

As far as potential for fraud? It’s the actuality of it we should be concerned about, not what we imagine is possible. If you’re stopping more legal votes than illegal, more qualified voters than disqualified voters or repeat customers, then your cure is worse than the disease, and somebody is losing their right to vote because of your paranoia.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2013 10:08 PM
Comment #370433

People who are suffering from a mental illness sometimes fail to realize they have an illness. Those who try to bring this to the attention of the aflicted say they are in denial.

Those that assume there is no problem with our voting process are in denial. They discount the instances that are brought to light. They refuse to recognize the problem.

The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem. To simply say there is no problem, to say people who are trying to bring the prolem to the fore are paranoid, is to deny there is a problem.

That gets us nowhere.

I believe there is voter fraud. I also believe the people who benefit from this fraud know there is fraud. They do not want to recognize the problem.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2013 11:56 PM
Comment #370434
Those that assume there is no problem with our voting process are in denial.

BS Weary, it is you that is in denial. Show us the widespread fraud you claim, show us.


They discount the instances that are brought to light. They refuse to recognize the problem.

On the contrary Weary, the real problem is to many people voting against the corporate sponsors of the conservative movement. We see the problem but the soloution is just not acceptable to us.

The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem.

Not in the case of ALEC where the first step is to cause less people to vote using the ruse you support as a means to do so..

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/florida-gop-and-voter-fraud

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2013 6:31 AM
Comment #370435

http://voices.yahoo.com/true-vote-uncovers-voter-registration-fraud-in-6856270.html
‘True the Vote’ Uncovers Voter Registration Fraud in Houston
“Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
The Voter Fraud That ‘Never Happens’ Keeps Coming Back
She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election.
But, of course, as you know there is no voter fraud. Pay no attention to that lightning coming out of Ohio.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/2012-election-integrity-project/
Judicial Watch Announces: The 2012 Election Integrity Project
(The starting line-up for the Dallas Cowboys registered to vote in Nevada, to give just one absurd example of ACORN’s work.)
A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. As documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/8729967.html
7 charged with voter registration fraud
Secretary of State Sam Reed told a news conference it was clearly Washington’s most serious instance of voter registration fraud.


http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/did-voter-fraud-swing-election/
Did voter fraud swing the election?
Yes, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that it was committed by one side in the election in various ways. And I am convinced that at least 5 percent of the Democratic vote can be attributed to fraud – illegal voters, illegal campaign contributions, rigged balloting, intimidation at the polls, you name it.


http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem
Is Voter Fraud a Real Problem?
Last month, Florida election officials announced that by cross-referencing voter rolls with driver’s licenses and other materials, they believed 2,600 registered voters were in fact not U.S. citizens, and that they were looking into the records of another 180,000 registered voters


http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/jury-fraud-put-obama-on-08-ballot/
Jury: Fraud put Obama on ‘08 ballot
Two Democrats in Indiana have been found guilty of submitting unauthorized names on the petition that placed then-Sen. Barack Obama on the 2008 presidential election primary ballot, meaning he likely did not qualify

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/voter-fraud-the-crime-that-disenfranchises-us-all/123
Voter Fraud: The Crime that Disenfranchises Us All
Hawaii County elections clerk Jamae Kawauchi recently came under fire after her office discovered several instances of people voting twice and at least 50 people were registered more than once during the 2010 election

I could go on…

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2013 7:35 AM
Comment #370440

My wife was born on a tobacco cart going across a field in Franklin County, North Carolina. Her parents did not register her birth for several weeks, and when they di, her father misspelled his own last name (not so unusual in the 1930’s.

She was married twice prior to marrying me, so including her current surname, she has had three aliases and a maiden name.

In order to get one of those ID’s, she has to prove-up on those aliases, the one wherein her father misspelled her last name, and the two married names (provide divorce papers). Her divorces took place in two separate counties. The cost to her…$48.00.

Think about that for just a moment or two.

My wife is Caucasian. She has voted in every General Election starting in 1960 when she turned 21 thru this one just past.

Now think about a black person who was born under the same circumstances…following my train of thought? Counties kept better vital records on whites in those days. How much do you think it would cost the black lady?

I think it would cost her her voting right.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 10, 2013 4:00 PM
Comment #370441

Are you saying black people can’t get documentation, Marysdude?

I find that hard to believe.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2013 4:08 PM
Comment #370442

WW,

It would not be hard for you to believe if you were black and born before 1965.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 10, 2013 4:32 PM
Comment #370444

It’s a low yield, high risk tactic.

It is very low risk. If you need not present and ID, you can vote and if you are caught you just claim to have made a mistake

It just makes sense to ask for ID, as we do in almost every other transaction. I lock my door when I leave home. To my knowledge, nobody has ever tried to enter my house illegally through the front door. Burglars tend to come in through windows or break locks. In fact, I bet the number of burglaries committed by a burglar coming in through an unlocked front door are very small. It is a bother having keys and on a few occasions I have locked myself out. Should I not lock the door because I have no verified cases of someone robbing my house by coming in through an unlocked front door?

And I cannot think of any case where a reasonable person registered and entitled to vote would be prevented from voting under those NC rules. The worst case scenario, he would do a provisional ballot. The idea that a person would be stopped from voting is the thing that never happens.

Marysdude

By the 1920s most Americans, black and white had birth certificates. This was pushed much more strongly during WWII. There just are very few people today who cannot get some kind of identification. And if you discover such a person, it will be possible to correct the situation.

I know you think you played trump by playing the race card, but it is getting old.

Posted by: CJ at September 10, 2013 4:48 PM
Comment #370445

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/20/I-F

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2013 4:55 PM
Comment #370446

WW,

As long as you look at voting as being a ‘transaction’…well…okay…sigh…😢

Posted by: Marysdude at September 10, 2013 4:57 PM
Comment #370451

Who gives a rats ass whether or not most people had birth certificates after 1920 or bot! The simple fact is this is a blatant attempt to suppress the vote. Conservatives cannot play fair and in on a regular basis. They can only fool so much of the population at any given time. They can only dumb down a certain percentage of the population so they have decided to resort to trickery. They have attempted to make an issue out of thin air.

The rest is just blathering to make their case seem as if it had merit. It doesn’t. This is a concerted effort by ALEC to make it harder to vote, period. Weary and C&J are either fooled by movement leaders or they are disingenuous with their foolish arguments seeking to make the case for voter suppression.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2013 7:09 PM
Comment #370458

C/J
Well I hope you are proud of yourselves, you’ve got Willie off the rails.

WW
There is a difference between voter registration fraud and voting fraud that has been pointed out to you mulitiple times on this site. Please pay attention. Besides that all I can reccomend is medication for your misapprehensions.

It is inconceivable that the same person that wants to enshrine the rights of any person to own a gun can hold a beleif in that same mind that it is OK to deny a person’s right to vote.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 10, 2013 8:53 PM
Comment #370459

When was the last time you weren’t allowed to vote, j2t2? Did your vote get suppressed in the last election? How about the one before? If those nasty, cheating, dirty Republicans wanted to suppress votes they would have certainly started with yours since your such a partisan hack for the other party.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2013 8:54 PM
Comment #370460

Speak4all, you’re quibbling. Don’t try to evade the subject by using trivial distinctions.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2013 8:59 PM
Comment #370463

j2t2

Anybody who wants to vote can easily get an ID. ID requirements would stop no honest and even marginally intelligent person from voting.

I understand that we all accept that the abysmally stupid will usually vote Democratic, and that is the constituency that you are defending, but there are not very many of them.

Posted by: CJ at September 10, 2013 9:30 PM
Comment #370466

SO what C&J. They have not needed an ID for years until conservatives decided to attack them for their vote. The point is there is no fraud to speak of. It is a scam to suppress votes. Nothing more.

You can bully them with the abusive name calling but the fact remains it is voter suppression that is your goal. Because they vote different than you do, or so you assume. What next C&J will you and other conservative movement leaders advocate the use of force to gain political power if the voter suppression fails?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2013 9:42 PM
Comment #370469

j2t2

I cannot think of a case of a reasonable person who does not have or cannot easily get an ID. W/o an ID, a citizen cannot lead a normal life. He cannot cash a check, get a mortgage, fly in an airplane, borrow a library book, enter many government buildings, drive a car or in many case get a subscription filled at a pharmacy. He cannot hold a full time job or - more important for Democrats - he cannot receive welfare.

I stipulate that a person like this is more likely to vote Democratic, but you would not find many like him. And if you did, he would be able to vote provisionally if legally registered.

Posted by: CJ at September 10, 2013 9:50 PM
Comment #370472
I cannot think of a case of a reasonable person who does not have or cannot easily get an ID.

SO what C&J? Just because you can’t think of it doesn’t mean much. The constitution doesn’t require “reasonable” as a requirement to vote does it? ALEC is attempting to suppress votes, it is that simple. All these different ruses you guys try to come up with are nonsense because there is no problem an ID would solve. I vote by mail because I am a registered voter. I do not need to show ID. Why should anyone else?

Why is it conservatives were so admiring of GWB and the purple finger voters of Iraq whilst telling us how important it is to vote yet are so willing to suppress the vote in this country?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2013 10:10 PM
Comment #370483

Voter ID = suppressing a vote? LOL!

Leading up to an election, liberals troll Democratic areas to register voters they know will vote for the Democrats.
On election day, liberals troll Democratic areas to hunt down people who don’t give a crap about voting and bus them to the polls to vote for the Dem candidate.
GOTV - Get Out The Vote

Leftists don’t object to voter ID on the peoples behalf, they object to it because it would hamper their voter registration scams and last minute busing in of Dem votes.

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2013 9:22 AM
Comment #370488

WW
Trivial distinctions, the only thing trivial is your ability to comprehend that any citizen of this country should not have their voting rights accosted due to your rabid fear of someone somewhere being able to pull one over on you. Remember this is our country, not yours but mine, yours and all other citizens. Well over 2xx years of voting without ID will not be turned around by the likes of you or your screaming TP cohorts that are out to stop people who might vote for someone other than your candidate of choice. You shame the legacy of the people who worked hard to have this country endure for as long as it has, from beginning to today.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2013 12:52 PM
Comment #370490
not yours but mine

Yea, the truth slips out in the most inopportune times doesn’t it, Speak4all?

..citizen of this country should not have their voting rights accosted due to your rabid fear of someone somewhere being able to pull one over on you.

I don’t threaten citizen’s right to vote. It’s the non-citizen that troubles me. Are you going to tell me that the non-citizen isn’t voting, Speak4all? If so, prove it.

How can you?! If people, anyone, can vote without proving who they are, the ability to prove non-citizens aren’t voting is gone. You are incapable of proving the integrity of the voting process.

How can you not understand that? Where do you live, Speak4all? I want to come to your town and take your vote from you. It will be easy. All I have to do is say I’m you and boom, it’s done. I use your vote and there is nothing you can do about it.

Where do you live, Speak4all?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2013 2:14 PM
Comment #370493

WW
Misquoting me wont make your argument any better. I typed “this is our country, not yours but mine, yours and all other citizens”. Kind of typical that your type cherry picks what they see and hear to suit what they want to believe.

What you are fostering is an incomprehensible fear that someone somewhere is pulling something over on you. Rather than stalk me or someone who holds the beliefs that I do, please talk to someone professional that might be able to help you overcome your irrational fear.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2013 2:42 PM
Comment #370498

Ok, Speak4all, I’ll give you that one.

As for your insulting insinuations, prove I am not having something pulled over on me.

Prove it, Speak4all.

The way to do this is to prove the system works correctly without ID being presented by voters.

Prove that to me and I will give you that one, also.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2013 4:15 PM
Comment #370500

WW
I have nothing to prove to you. You seek answers where questions do not exist. The system has worked correctly for 237 years without the need for intrusive ID requirements, that should be proof enough for any freedom loving American.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2013 4:24 PM
Comment #370508

This ID thing is merely the second phase of a Reaganite two pronged attack.

In Ron’s first term, he determined that the GOP was losing vote through attrition. So, in his infinite wisdom, he called upon Fallwel, Robertson and Graham for advice on how to gain ground in the Christian Community. That invitation to Religious nuts brought on the Tea Party mess we have today. It worked. More votes came to the Republican side…but then those gains began to fail. It wasn’t long before more votes again were needed, but where to get them? New votes for old ideas were nowhere to be found. Prong two, disenfranchise votes from the other side. The Oligarchy came to the rescue in the form of Charles and David Koch and their ALEC conglomerate.

Why do we need voter ID laws. We don’t. But, TeaPublicans need to squelch opposing votes or lose elections. Reagan started it TeaPublicans think they can finish it.

It may work in the short run. But, the thing is…it will only work in the areas of the country wherein they need it the least.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2013 5:18 PM
Comment #370511

J2t2

Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, these laws are Constitutional and so my opinion is in line with the law.

And since there are probably very few people who don’t have an ID and even fewer who cannot easily get one, I cannot envision any reasonable scenario where a legitimate voter would be denied the vote. Therefore it cannot be suppression, since suppression needs to suppress somebody.

I am in favor of every legitimate voter getting his/her say. Any fraudulent vote, steals the vote of a legitimate voter.

Posted by: CJ at September 11, 2013 5:39 PM
Comment #370515

OOPS!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2013 6:12 PM
Comment #370521

Voter ID laws solve nothing.

Voter ID laws inconvenience many.

Voter ID laws grow government.

Voter ID laws cost taxpayer monies better spent on things that matter.

Voter ID laws are a TeaPublican idea, sponsored and written by an Oligarchy.

TeaPublicans seem to hate government so much they prefer being governed by an unelected mafia.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2013 7:19 PM
Comment #370523

Lets see here, we have coming up in 2014 Obamacare, which requires everyone to carry health insurance even if they don’t want to or face a fine or as the SCOTUS says a TAX. But to get on ANY health care insurance you need an ID, especially MEDICAID. An ID is required for most all everyday things such as cashing checks, opening bank accounts, applying for a job, applying for food stamps or MEDICAID, yet we have some say that an ID inconveniences some, grows government, and it’s a teapublican sponsored oligarchy. Seems strange to me we require ID for most everyday things yet it’s an INCONVENIENCE to show ID to vote.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2013 7:53 PM
Comment #370528

WW
I know all to well what it takes to register for citizenship in another country. You see my daughter was born in the moutains of Wales, in the NHS which I can personally attest to as a fine institution when I used it in 1972-74. At the time I was working at refurbishing a 19th century mill into a residence in Wales and it was no small feat to make my way into London to go to the American Embasssy no less tan 4 times to secure my daughters citizenship. A 2 to 3 day trip each time. Yes. I did have to pay the fees and cover all of my expenses, it was worth it. I brought my daughter back to the US as a citizen of this country. Yes, I think it should be easier for a US citizen to accomplish this in a foreign country. No, I don’t agree with your idea that there are untold millions voting illegally, this exists in the minds of those that do not have a grasp on what it is like to live in another country. If these laws deny just one person the ability to vote that should be able to then they have failed us.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 11, 2013 8:45 PM
Comment #370544
Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, these laws are Constitutional and so my opinion is in line with the law.

SO what C&J. This doesn’t make the voter suppression laws any less of a ruse. Having this opinion in line with the law tells us we have a problem with the court C&J. Of course this is nothing new as we as a country have faced this type of oppression many times in the history of this country.

Conservatives favor the original constitution when only the landed gentry could vote. Poll taxes have been a conservative standard for many years. Bit that doesn’t make it right.

The fact is ALEC has duped many conservative followers into believing these restrictions on voting will help them win elections so the ends justifies the means, right?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2013 9:42 PM
Comment #370546

Overall, I don’t have an issue with Voter ID laws. I will say, however, that those arguing from the opposite POV do posit a seemingly valid argument.

And what is that argument? That there just isn’t a whole lot of voter fraud going on - all things being equal. Indeed, there are plenty of cases and incidents to cite, but generally speaking, it looks to be much to do ‘bout nothing.

That is why I used the qualifying word seemingly.

Any attempt, tactic or strategy to supplant fraud-free voting, must ALWAYS be defended. That is the crux of the argument. There cannot be any doubt or confusion or malfeasance going on - ever! Whether one is voting for chief dog catcher or POTUS.

Finally, the institution itself is sacred. That is why the VRA of 1965 was written and that is why the constitutional amendment passed. Also, I’ve never seen so many “close-call” elections in my lifetime as I’ve seen over the last 13 years or so. Remember Gore v. U.S. (Bush) in 2000?

I’ve seen some interesting data that shows that minority voting participation has actually risen in states that recently passed Voter ID laws. North Carolina, notwithstanding.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at September 11, 2013 9:44 PM
Comment #370548

Rich K,

Well you have given everything but the kitchen sink as an excuse, but provided not one reason we should change our voting culture just to satisfy one political party’s fear of losing votes to the opposition.

Even your own argument shows that fear. Every governor who has signed the ALEX law, has shown that fear.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 11, 2013 9:45 PM
Comment #370550
No, I don’t agree with your idea that there are untold millions voting illegally, this exists in the minds of those that do not have a grasp on what it is like to live in another country.

Living in another country is immaterial and you can not know if illegals are voting or not. You have no way of knowing in either case. I disagree with your assumption there are no votes being cast by illegals or if people are voting multiple times.

That is the basic flaw in your logic, Speak4all. You expect those of us who insist in a verifiable voting system to simply trust that our current system is accurate and legitimate. That is a very naive position. A position many of us cannot accept. Many of our policies are based on the doctrine of trust but verify. Your position is to trust but don’t verify. That is totally unacceptable.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2013 9:58 PM
Comment #370551

No Dude just fact, you need ID for everyday things. Inconvenience is just an excuse. I have no problem showing ID, even if it were a liberal or Democrat idea I wouldn’t have a problem. IMO it’s you and people like you who fear voter ID laws.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2013 10:00 PM
Comment #370554
you need ID for everyday things

You need money for everyday things. Does that mean it’s OK to charge a poll tax?

But regardless, it’s possible to live life without an ID. It’s not any affluent lifestyle (it’s actually a really stupid lifestyle), but that’s not the point.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 11, 2013 10:16 PM
Comment #370556

It is possible to live life without an ID, just like it is possible to live life without medical insurance but Obama is making us get that, Warren. In both cases I wouldn’t suggest being without either.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 11, 2013 10:26 PM
Comment #370557
You expect those of us who insist in a verifiable voting system to simply trust that our current system is accurate and legitimate. That is a very naive position. A position many of us cannot accept.

The shoe fits on the other foot just as well. Proponents of ID requirements insist that that everyone simply trust that the new system would not disqualify legal voters. This is a very naive position, a position that many find unacceptable.

Actually, it is possible to verify that the old system is legitimate. If someone tried to impersonate me at the polls, I’d find out because when I show up to vote, I’d discover that “Warren Porter” had already voted. That has never happened, so I am sure no one has ever impersonated me at the polls.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 11, 2013 10:32 PM
Comment #370559

Marysdude is projecting a fear Democratics have, to losing votes and elections. Deep down Marysdude may know the success of the Democratic Party can be attributed to fraud.

Kevin L. Lagola, I am going to ask you the same thing I asked Speak4all. Prove there is very little voter fraud.

The vote is a finite procedure. There are a finite number of citizens elligible to vote. That makes a finite number of votes that can be cast. They are cast for a finite number of candidates.

Business’s throughout this country count every penny with a great deal of accuracy. Can you say as much for our voting system? Is a vote and a dollar treated the same? If they were it should be a very simple process to verify the vote.

Voter ID is one step towards verifying the system is legitimate. Would you bank somewhere that allows anyone to walk up to a bank teller and get a dollar out of your account without proving who they are?

My point is there is no way to verify the vote as it is. Just because Democratics say there is very little voter fraud is no reason to believe them. Why is it mostly Democratics who are against Voter ID anyway? HMMM?


j2t2, your ignorance is showing again.

Poll taxes have been a conservative standard for many years. Bit that doesn’t make it right.

Poll taxes are outlawed by the 24th amendment. Before that the poll tax was a tool used by southern Democratic Party states to disenfranchise black people.

Get it right, j2t2! The Democratic Party is the party of racists.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2013 10:40 PM
Comment #370560

Warren Porter, who will go to see if you voted when you are dead and buried? Who will go and see when you move away? Who will go and see if you voted at your summer house location? Who will go to see if Daffy Duck and the starting squad of the Dallas Cowboys voted in Kansas?

You?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2013 10:45 PM
Comment #370561

Anyway, Warren Porter. How are you to correct the vote if someone did show up and vote in your place?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2013 10:48 PM
Comment #370562

Warren

Supreme Court thinks it is not a poll tax. I certainly agree that if you can get a free ID, it cannot be called a poll tax.

I blame liberals for destroying the “reasonable person” theory. You guys are so adept at complicating the obvious and setting up impossible hypotheticals that you lose sight of reason. In the Middle Ages, you are the guys who would be seeking proof and counter proof about whether an all powerful God could make a rock so heavy that he could not lift it.

In the practical sense, there is no way that a reasonable person who wanted to vote and was legally entitled to do so could be prevented from voting by the legal application of the voter laws described above. In person fraud is indeed rare, but “suppression” by this law is nearly impossible.

We have some convictions for voter fraud and we know of widespread fraud in other places and in our own past. We know that hundreds of felons voted in recent elections. (In 2008 felons votes in Minnesota were sufficient in number to have changed the election won by Al Franken) We don’t know if the felons themselves voted or someone voted in their names. While a voting ID would not have stopped them if they were on the rolls, it would have added a risk and made it easier to prove that they were the ones voting.

In any case, this will be the law. I suppose the Obama folks will harass the authorities in NC, but it will be the law and we will see that there will be no serious problem. Democrats will tell their usual ghost stories, but be unable to point to specific cases. There is no such thing as ghosts, after all. And North Carolina will have fairer elections.

Posted by: CJ at September 12, 2013 6:08 AM
Comment #370565

If there was no fear attached to the voter ID laws, they would not now be on ballots and/or enacted legislation. The ONLY places other than Delaware that have or are getting voter ID legislation are those led by TeaPublicans. Does that mean that the only areas that have a problem with fraudulent voting are states dominated by TeaPublicans? If that is the case, then the solution is to rid America of that cancer, not make laws that hurt only the poorest segment of society.

It is not fraud that TeaPublicans fear. They fear being on the losing end of political evolution.

The Oligarchy takes advantage of that fear. Popular vote is the last bastion against the Mafia taking over America. TeaPublicans are all too willing to participate in destroying it.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2013 7:26 AM
Comment #370566

jane doe,

It’s good to be back, but it may be temporary. For right now though, come on in, the water’s fine.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2013 7:33 AM
Comment #370567
I certainly agree that if you can get a free ID, it cannot be called a poll tax.

But the NC ID’s cost $10; they aren’t free unless one is legally blind, is at least 70 years old, homeless or who has been issued a driver license which has subsequently been cancelled as a result of a physical or mental disability or disease. And in order to claim homelessness, one needs a letter from the director of a homeless shelter.

And this completely ignore the fact that obtaining Birth Certificates, etc also costs money.

The number of cases of voter impersonation fraud are vanishingly small, yet the number of eligible voters without IDs is quite substantial. Letting a couple of ineligible votes be cast is by far the lesser harm here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 12, 2013 9:04 AM
Comment #370568

Warren Porter is admitting voter fraud and also supports it as the lesser of his two evils.

A couple, eh? Just a couple? Your Democratics must be slacking off!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2013 9:33 AM
Comment #370569

MarysDude

“The ONLY places other than Delaware that have or are getting voter ID legislation are those led by TeaPublicans. Does that mean that the only areas that have a problem with fraudulent voting are states dominated by TeaPublicans?”

No, because much like the problem with gun violence, the problem lies within the BLUE areas of those red states.
Funny how some of us have no problem showing ID to vote or with exercising our 2nd Amendment rights, while others are assummed to be to irresponsible to do either.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2013 9:42 AM
Comment #370570

And the number of eligible voters who do not vote is quite substantial, Warren. Any vote that is ineligible is a harm, how many elections in the last decade were close? If we let a few ineligible votes slide that in itself harms the integrity of the voting process.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 12, 2013 9:44 AM
Comment #370573

I am assuming that disenfranchizing many more voters than those who commit fraudulent voting somehow FIXES that minor problem?

“Well”, you say, “it’s an expensive and clumsy and nation dividing attempt at it, so that’s a good thing, right?”

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2013 10:11 AM
Comment #370574
Warren Porter is admitting voter fraud

I believe there are roughly ten documented cases of impersonation fraud. No one has denied that. But this represents such a minute value that it is essentially meaningless. Do you really want to disenfranchise 11% of American voters just to prevent ten cases of fraud?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 12, 2013 10:56 AM
Comment #370575

WW
I sometimes think the basic flaw in my logic is that I attempt to use it against a brick wall. Take it from someone who has spent time in several different countries and came in contact with some people who were there illegally, the last thing someone who is in a country illegally wants to do is draw attention to the fact by trying to vote. You have no clue what you speak of and only use what the rabid right sees as threats to justify an unnecessary usurpation of voting rights by a non-existent and wholly invented widespread danger.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 12, 2013 11:03 AM
Comment #370576

Who is the 11%????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 12, 2013 11:17 AM
Comment #370577

Rich KAPitan,

The NYU Brennan Center for Justice conducted a telephone survey and found that 11% of Americans lack the ID necessary to vote.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 12, 2013 12:20 PM
Comment #370578

In that survey I can answer NO to 2 of the questions so am I disenfranchised? No I’m not. So if you go by that survey I’ll bet 99.9% of those asked can get an ID if they wanted to. Anybody can get an ID for little or no cost, so I would say those disenfranchised are to lazy to get off their A** to go and get an ID.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 12, 2013 1:10 PM
Comment #370579
the last thing someone who is in a country illegally wants to do is draw attention to the fact by trying to vote.

What’s stopping them, Speak4all? There’s no way to determine whether they are illegal or not. They don’t need to identify themselves. They don’t even have to prove they are the person they say they are, why should they worry about giving away their immigration status?

And don’t think for a second that doesn’t skew the data on voter fraud.

I want you people to denounce with as much furvor the labor laws that insist an ID be used. I want you guys to denounce the use of an ID to open a bank account, or purchase a firearm.

C’mon hypocrits! Let’s hear it!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2013 1:33 PM
Comment #370580

Don’t give me that crap about 237 years worth of not needing an ID either.

For 237 years we didn’t need an ID to get a job, or to purchase a firearm, we didn’t need a hunting or a fishing license, we didn’t need a driver’s license, we didn’t need a business license, or a permit to speak on the street corner. These are all products of the progressive era.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2013 1:40 PM
Comment #370581
In that survey I can answer NO to 2 of the questions so am I disenfranchised? No I’m not.

If you answered yes to the first question, then you are part of the 89% who aren’t disenfranchised.

So if you go by that survey I’ll bet 99.9% of those asked can get an ID if they wanted to. Anybody can get an ID for little or no cost, so I would say those disenfranchised are to lazy to get off their A** to go and get an ID.

Except that it is very difficult for many Americans to get an ID if they aren’t affluent like you or me.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Democracy/VRE/Challenge_of_Obtaining_Voter_ID.pdf

Many Americans don’t drive, don’t live within 10 miles of an ID-issuing office and don’t have the documents required to get an ID in the first place. Also, many ID-issuing offices have very restrictive hours including some offices that are open only a handful of days a year.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 12, 2013 1:55 PM
Comment #370582

Warren, Please quit with the BS. If a person wants an ID why don’t you volunteer your time to help them get one. I live in a senior complex and do a lot of favors for those who do not have a car and want to get to the stores, doctors, hospitals and YES TO THE DMV to get ID’s. So get off your liberal BOO HOOING and do some thing for your fellow man besides crying.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 12, 2013 2:15 PM
Comment #370583

WW
We do what we like. You are not the commissioner of watchblog so stick your demands where sunshine can’t find them. Again, you are unhinged. Try to use logic and reason and stop demanding we all bow to WW’s great and powerful comments. Yes 237 years of crap is about what I figured a “patriot” like yourself thinks of this great nation. Seek knowledge outside of your current sources, they are suspect.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 12, 2013 2:21 PM
Comment #370584

Reading down this thread, I’ve discovered the reason President Obama said he didn’t think it should be more difficult to vote than to buy a gun.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2013 2:24 PM
Comment #370585

KAP
I will once again try to make you understand that not everyone lives as you do nor do they want to. I can only imagine what that torturous fevered imagination you own puts you through on a daily basis, that can’t be easy. Good for you for helping out your fellow citizens now start commenting with respect for your fellow citizens here at WB and we may believe that you actually do try to help your fellow man, instead of coming across as some cranky old guy.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 12, 2013 2:28 PM
Comment #370586

I get to be a cranky old guy when DUMBA** liberals cry about how disenfranchised some are and the only thing DUMBA** liberals can do is give government handouts. It’s a proven FACT that conservatives do more charitable work than crybaby young and old liberals do. So if you want me to be more civil to you crybaby young and old liberals let me see you do more charitable work that DOSEN’T include the government. Start giving of yourself instead of relying on government nannys to do it. For an OLD GUY speak4all your comments make you out to be just another CRANKY OLD LIBERAL.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 12, 2013 2:57 PM
Comment #370587

Rich KAPitan, they have no logical arguement. They are resorting to the name-calling stage of the debate.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2013 3:15 PM
Comment #370588

WW, Your right logic does escape the liberal mind.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 12, 2013 3:26 PM
Comment #370589

We shouldn’t have driver’s licenses. They violate the constitutional right to relocate. I shouldn’t have to pay a fee for a driver’s license. It’s a relocation tax.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.”
[


I’m offended. My feewings are huwt.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2013 3:35 PM
Comment #370590

WAAAHHHH!!!!

I need to prove who I am to buy a gun! How dare they make me prove who I am when I buy a gun!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Don’t they know what “shall not be infringed” means?!

WAAAAHHHH!!!! BoooHoooHoooHooo!
We should be able to “do what we like”!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2013 3:41 PM
Comment #370591

OK you two win the nutcases of the innertubes award for today. You don’t get to be cranky you want to be. Sorry your feelings are hurt but when you stick you wazoo where it shouldn’t be that is inevitable.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 12, 2013 3:42 PM
Comment #370592

I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL WW!

BOW TO THE CASHIER WHEN YOU PURCHASE YOUR ADULT BEVERAGE!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2013 3:44 PM
Comment #370593

See, just namecalling from now on.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2013 3:46 PM
Comment #370594

I notice how the conservatives are howling and claiming all sorts of crap as they continue to try to justify the need for voter ID laws. They seem to forget that the few cases they lead us to as some kind of proof positive that the need for these restrictive laws (not just the ID law they use as a front btw) are justified were caught with existing laws.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13236464-new-database-of-us-voter-fraud-finds-no-evidence-that-photo-id-laws-are-needed


Why is it conservatives only bring up one part of the voter suppression laws ALEC has been so active in bringing to the state legislatures the past several years, The ID portion of the law. WHy not mention the rest of these laws they have wrought upon the electorate? The restrictive registration laws and the shorter voting periods to name two.
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup

http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/ballot-security-and-voter-suppression

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2012-voting-laws-roundup

Posted by: j2t2 at September 12, 2013 5:34 PM
Comment #370595

If you can’t recruit more voters to your list by convincing them your antiquated policies and ideas are best, then shoot those who would vote against you. Same result.

ALEC writes the voter ID laws and ALEC writes the gun laws.

ALEC members are members of the Oligarchy started by David and Charles. That unelected Mafia is dedicated to restricting America to its notion of what America can give it in the way of power.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2013 5:48 PM
Comment #370597

Warren

The number of people who don’t have or cannot get an ID is vanishingly small.

The Courts have let these laws stand. If they do it Constitutional. That is the bottom line for me.

Indeed, I don’t like people who are both stupid and demanding, which is what I believe describes anyone who thinks he should vote and won’t get an ID. We differ in this assessment. I have the law on my side. And those few people who cannot vote because they will not help themselves can jump in the lake. I won’t pretend I feel bad is such people don’t participate in our country’s political process. It is their own damn fault.

This is a place where we just talk past each other. We both think we hold the moral high ground and I suppose each of us is right given our presumptions.

You feel that people have an absolute right no matter how stupid their behavior in not doing simple things that they need to do. I think that citizens can be expected to do the minimum to protect their freedoms and ours. IMO, the liberal idea of absolute rights w/o responsibly has gone too far. I would be content to dial it back a bit to a reasonable standard. These laws do that. As long as they are not struck down by the courts or changed by the legislators, reason wins.

Posted by: CJ at September 12, 2013 6:17 PM
Comment #370599

I think that even stupid people, gullible people, poor people, black people, white people, all people, who were born or naturalized as citizens and have reached the age of eighteen have the RIGHT to vote whether they can get to an ID outlet or can/cannot afford one. Anything else is below despicable.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 12, 2013 9:33 PM
Comment #370600

Ok you bleeding hearts on the left. If you are aware of someone that does not or cannot acquire a voter ID then call your local political party and they will provide a means to get one. See how simple that is. That takes care of the ride, time, distance argument. Theo only situation left is the lazy element. They are probably registered in the Welfare Workers of the World (the new wobblies).

Posted by: tom humes at September 13, 2013 1:28 AM
Comment #370604


To quell the Manzanares River in the team, the 2012/13 season, has fond memories of their access to the European Super Cup and the King’s Cup champion franklin marshall clothing uk , and the top three in the league, get immediate access to the Champions League group race qualifications. Although the team leave star striker Falcao joined Monaco, but the history of the Spanish national team top scorer David Villa to join the fans let the team looking forward to the new season. “We are very clear that he will have to face the challenge of how difficult, we concentrate on the start of the new season, hoping to have a good start.” Villa said on Sunday they will usher in the opener against Sevilla . He also said: “We do a lot of preseason preparation, after preparation, I feel foothold here already for a very clear idea I’m glad everything is going very smoothly.”
Villa in La Liga had played for 10 seasons in Zaragoza,abercrombie fitch outlet Valencia and Barcelona and other teams, played a total of 316 games, scoring 173 goals, this 31-year-old player has also twice won the league champion. As a right-footed player ralph lauren sale uk , David Villa’s long-range capability is quite prominent in his Atletico debut was against Las Palmas,lacoste polo australia the game, he also proved that since last month after leaving Barcelona, ??he still has capacity among the world’s most outstanding football striker.
“For a striker, the most important task is of course goals.” This name 2008 European Championship and 2010 World Cup winner said: “Slowly I began to feel himself into the team, where I had clearly positioning my body feels good, very calm and I have a strong work ethic, full of desire to improve their own, and here I have a lot of good teammates, I am sure we can achieve some good results. “
Atletico Madrid won the last time, the current head coach Simeone is that support for a double in the team, they broke the La Liga Barcelona and Real Madrid for 11 monopolies. La Liga clubs last season championship reign for another nine years already, they are still the most threatening team,ralph lauren outlet uk Simoni eager to lead Atletico Madrid with the 1995/96 season as once again break their monopoly.
“Last season our data with those championship teams compares favorably.” 43-year-old Simone said, since he took over in December 2011 after Atletico pointer, led the team has won the Europa League,ralph lauren sale Europe Super Cup and the King’s Cup.superdry factory outlet He also said: “Now we have ushered in an important moment, we have entered a new season,Ed hardy uk we should hope and expect this. Obviously we will start from scratch, a one game to work on. Wish we could there is steady play. “


Posted by: tooo21212 at September 13, 2013 4:30 AM
Comment #370605

tom,

Much easier to back off the voter ID requirement to begin with. It was and is a stupidity waiting for a train wreck.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2013 5:25 AM
Comment #370606
The number of people who don’t have or cannot get an ID is vanishingly small.

Not nearly as small as the number of people charged with voter fraud C&J. That number is microscopically infinitesimally vanishingly small yet here you are trying to tell us harsh voter suppression laws are needed to combat this non existent problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2013 7:39 AM
Comment #370607

j2t2

Few people are charged with voter fraud because it is hard to detect. There are, however, convictions for voter fraud. On the other hand, there are essentially no people who cannot get an ID. This is the non-existent problem.

The NC law is very reasonable and it is constitutional.

Marysdude

I agree that even stupid people have a right to vote and will probably vote Democratic. Nobody is denying anybody the right to vote. The law protects the rights of honest voters from those who would steal their votes.

Posted by: CJ at September 13, 2013 8:00 AM
Comment #370608

The law is a waste of time, money and effort, period.

No matter how you cut it, the law as written by ALEC for most states that are ignorant enough to enact it, are to be used solely for the purpose of squelching opposing votes and for no other reason.

You may have fallen for the Oligarchy’s pitch, but sane intelligent people have not. Koch Brothers Snake Oil Shill is on the road and traveling fast.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2013 9:21 AM
Comment #370609

As for stupid people probably voting Democrat…you have not been visiting as many political blog sites as me, or you would know better.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2013 9:23 AM
Comment #370611

Poor Mary :(

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2013 10:19 AM
Comment #370612
Few people are charged with voter fraud because it is hard to detect. There are, however, convictions for voter fraud. On the other hand, there are essentially no people who cannot get an ID. This is the non-existent problem.

BS C&J you have no proof of any rampant voter fraud this is just another myth perpetrated by conservatives to keep the truly stupid in line.

Speaking of stupid people C&J here are some truly stupid and it is obvious who they will be voting for. You seem to forget that stupid people can also get ID’s. You do just forget ..right?

But the real issue isn’t stupid people voting ,IMHO, C&J it is stupid people voting for stupider people.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2013 10:56 AM
Comment #370615

“it is stupid people voting for stupider people.”

A quick youtube search of ‘Obama voters’ proves this to be VERY true.

And you are slacking a little bit J2, you didn’t mention the evil ALEC conspiracy in your last couple of posts.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2013 11:48 AM
Comment #370617

kctim,

Do you have ANY idea what ALEC does, who it is composed of, who controls it?

If you do know, do you personally approve?

Do you honestly believe that unelected entities should be in control of America?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2013 12:09 PM
Comment #370619

I do! I do!

It’s a disease that infects liberal no-nothings with a virus that turns them into babbling incoherent snobs, unable to contain a fixation on four letter acronyms.

Not really! It’s a think tank of conservatives who advise governors who recently gained the spotlight only because about 4 big corporations withdrew from it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2013 12:18 PM
Comment #370620

Marysdude

I thought it was your assumption that those people who cannot figure out how to vote with ID laws would tend to vote Democratic? If you don’t believe that, your screed about the laws that you say would exclude such people is w/o basis.


J2t2

I lock my front door even though nobody I know has ever been robbed by a thief coming in through an unlocked one. I lock my car for the same reason.

There is not currently widespread in-person voter fraud. However, voter suppression based on ID is completely non-existent. Perhaps we should indeed leave our doors and cars unlocked and don’t require IDs.

Every time I have voted since 1976, I have shown an ID. I did not know I didn’t “have to.” It was always just a matter of course, BTW.

RE stupid people - see what I wrote above. If the law the makes it less likely that stupid people will vote affects mostly Republicans, how is it that you accuse conservatives of trying to enact laws that would do that?

The North Carolina law is very reasonable and it is Constitutional. It will prevent no reasonable and honest person from voting but may make it more difficult for dishonest ones to steal votes. Perhaps that is why liberal groups oppose it. We know of the many convictions of ACORN activists for election fraud, felons voting and the woman who voter six times for Obama. I would like to stop such activities.


Posted by: CJ at September 13, 2013 12:52 PM
Comment #370623

C&J,

Don’t please read into what I say, what you want me to say.

I said even stupid people have the right to vote…that is all I said about stupid people be they TeaPublican or Democrat.

Those most ill affected by these stupid, childish laws are the poor and elderly (and students), but you KNOW these things. Why do you insist on demeaning yourself with this type of drivel?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2013 1:54 PM
Comment #370624

MarysDude

Yes, I know about ALEC. And with it being one of the lefts latest boogeymen, opinions about its great evil are easy to come by.

To be honest, their support of limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty, scare me alot less than other groups who influence legislation. Groups like the Center for so-called American Progress, Bloombergs MAIG, NARAL, NAACP, Moveon, La Raza, CAIR, Brady etc…

While I don’t like those kinds of groups having so much influence over our legislative process, we pretty much brought it upon ourselves by voting for entitlements and special priviledges for whatever group one belongs to.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2013 2:02 PM
Comment #370625

Marysdude

I have been poor, a student and I am getting on toward elderly. At none of those times was it difficult to get an ID. I don’t understand why you think the poor, elderly and students have no need to drive, cash checks, fly on airplanes, work at legitimate jobs, or sometimes collected welfare and SS.

The NC law makes it harder for crooks to commit fraud and steal the votes of honest citizens. It it not a particular burden on any honest people, excepting those people who just cannot figure out much of anything. We need not call them stupid - cognitively challenged, if you prefer, but there is no way that a reasonable and honest person who wants to vote will be prevented from doing so by the law quoted above.

Posted by: C&J at September 13, 2013 2:04 PM
Comment #370627

Even the poor and elderly and stupid people have ID’s No one is preventing anyone’s right to vote. Even students have ID’s for the colleges and universities they attend. So that makes your argument stupid Dude. Answer this dude, How do people without ID’s live if they cannot get a job, bank account, government assistance, social security, cash a check, get care at a hospital, and the many other things that requires an ID.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2013 2:17 PM
Comment #370630
There is not currently widespread in-person voter fraud.

But there is in home burglaries, whether they be through locked or unlocked doors, so why the comparison. Why would so many states with near zero voter fraud enact or attempt to enact these laws? Would you have us believe it is coincidence? That these state legislators are so on top of all the pressing problems of their respective states that voter suppression law was what was left to do? Surly not even conservatives believe that. It was due to a concerted effort by ALEC to put restrictions into place designed to hamper certain voters, to make it tougher to vote. Al these silly arguments you guys come up with are just a ruse C&J.

If the law the makes it less likely that stupid people will vote affects mostly Republicans, how is it that you accuse conservatives of trying to enact laws that would do that?

Really C&J? It was real clear in my previous comment “You seem to forget that stupid people can also get ID’s. You do just forget ..right?” But just in case here is why….

The North Carolina law is very reasonable and it is Constitutional.

No C&J it is not. Like I asked earlier why is it conservatives fail to mention the rest of the laws they are enacting with the voter ID law?

“That’s because the bill includes a slew of measures designed not only to keep left-leaning demographics away from the voting booth, using the nonissue of voter fraud as a pretext, but also inhibits voter registration and campaign finance transparency to the benefit of Republicans.”
http://www.policymic.com/articles/59395/why-everyone-should-oppose-north-carolina-s-new-voter-id-laws

And you are slacking a little bit J2, you didn’t mention the evil ALEC conspiracy in your last couple of posts.

You should be happier now kctim.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2013 2:42 PM
Comment #370632

That’s better J2, thanks.
You about lost me to the dreaded oligarchy conspiracy though.

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2013 2:49 PM
Comment #370636
How do people without ID’s live if they cannot get a job, bank account, government assistance, social security, cash a check, get care at a hospital, and the many other things that requires an ID.

Who cares? What people do in their own lives is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Just accept that 11% of voting age citizens don’t have IDs and they won’t be forking over $10 to get them anytime soon. Suffrage is an unalienable right for these people, which means it cannot be compromised in order to vanquish voter impersonators that do not exist outside of your hallucinations.

Even students have ID’s for the colleges and universities they attend.
However, these IDs are not accepted for the purposes of NC’s voter ID law if issued by a private institution. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2013 4:16 PM
Comment #370637

C&J,

I had forgotten just how dense y’all can be. It is obvious you are more intelligent than your entries here would indicate, but it is too wearing and becomes too boring to stick around for.

jane doe, I take it back…stay away…far away. Don’t even read the mess that spews here.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 13, 2013 4:27 PM
Comment #370639

Warren, Another STUPID comment, NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, then if they can’t prove who they are or where they live how are they going to register to vote in the first place? Student ID’s may not be accepted to vote but they still had to have some sort of ID to get the student ID to enter college or university. You can whine and cry about the 11%, but the fact remains they are ABLE to get ID’s at little or no cost unless they are just to lazy to get up off their A** to get an ID or don’t want to spend their drinking or drugging money. So IMO you don’t have a LOGICAL answer to the question.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2013 4:37 PM
Comment #370640

Warren Porter wants the terrorists that are coming across the border to vote, and he wants all the drug runners to have a say in our government to make it easier for them to sell drugs. He also needs those gun smugglers to vote so he can get more ATF guys hired. Let’s not forget the human trafficing people who need to vote for less border security.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2013 5:04 PM
Comment #370641

Oh, Wait! There aren’t that many of them we should worry about are there, Warren Porter?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2013 5:08 PM
Comment #370642

“Who cares? What people do in their own lives is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.”

Unless we are talking about health insurance, eh Warped?
Or guns. Or faith. Or retirement. Or eating. Or smoking. etc… etc…

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2013 5:08 PM
Comment #370643

KAP/WW
I am reluctant to comment after yesterday. It took me 3 hours and a jar and a half of industrial strength internet spittle cleaning solution to scrub my screen clean after you both started SHOUTING!!! and spraying spittle everywhere. But here goes. KAP you old coot, just get over the fact that there are very few people who want to live your life the way you do but you would want to force people to do that. WW still making stuff up when you can’t present a valid argument I see. OK commence with the SHOUTING!!! and spitting I have covered my screen in plastic wrap this time.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 13, 2013 5:11 PM
Comment #370645
Unless we are talking about health insurance, eh Warped? Or guns. Or faith. Or retirement. Or eating. Or smoking. etc… etc…

I don’t care which health insurance you buy, just don’t make me pay when you need care.

I don’t care about your faith or retirement savings (or lack thereof).

I don’t care what you eat or smoke in the privacy of your own home. I do care when you force me to inhale your second hand fumes.

It’s called liberalism: Do whatever you want with your life, just take responsibility for your choices.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2013 5:17 PM
Comment #370646

Speak4yourself, I’m not forcing anyone to do anything, but you and W.P have not answered the question how do people live without a job, bank account, government assistance, a way to get Health care, SS, buying or renting a home, cashing a check, so IMO S4Y I guess those few people want to be left alone and don’t give a DA*N about government and voting, so you and W.P can’t give me a logical answer on how those people live, so I’ll just assume you don’t know how to answer the question.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2013 5:34 PM
Comment #370648

I believe that’s classic liberalism Warped, NOT the liberalism that is forced upon us today.
You know, the liberalism that the people you vote for practice:
Where I am forced to buy the health insurance THEY think is best for me.
Where I am forced to go against my faith and pay for birth control and abortion.
Where I am forced to pay into a government ‘safety net’ because it doesn’t think I am capable enough to save for myself.
Where I am forced to not eat or serve trans fats with or to others who enjoy them.
Where I am forced to provide no smoking even though I wish to cater to smokers.

IF todays liberalism was even close to personal responsibility, there would be no Republican Party.

I’m curious Warped. If you don’t think or expect 11% of Americans to fork over $10 for voter ID, what makes you think roughly 15% of Americans are going to fork over at least ten times that amount for health insurance ID?

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2013 5:43 PM
Comment #370649

How do we know that the 11% who are to lazy to get an ID aren’t also some of the ones who are to lazy to vote?

Posted by: kctim at September 13, 2013 5:55 PM
Comment #370650

KAP
I don’t need to answer the question, you do since you need the answer. I am fine with that but don’t expect me to answer questions for you, find out for yourself how people want to live.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 13, 2013 5:58 PM
Comment #370651

Just as I thought S4Y. You and W.P. DON’T KNOW how to answer, so you resort to the liberal dance around and avoid giving an answer because YOU DON’T KNOW!!!! LOLOLOL You ought to follow dude he can’t stand the fire either.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2013 6:15 PM
Comment #370653
so you and W.P can’t give me a logical answer on how those people live, so I’ll just assume you don’t know how to answer the question.

KAP, the answer is who gives a sh*t. It is just not relevant to the issue of voting. The question is a red herring KAP. You raise the question because you cannot justify the amount of money North Carolina will need to spend to “give a free ID” to those who need it to vote. I suppose others are getting tired of the red herrings you and other conservatives keep trying to use as some sort of “gotcha” to justify the need for voter ID laws. It has after all been asked and answered many times already in this thread.

I don’t think it is the fire they can’t stand it is the nonsense conservatives come up that wears thin. If it weren’t for red herrings and straw man arguments conservatives wouldn’t be able to post on this issue it seems. Trying to justify an ID law in so many states for practically non existent voter fraud is tough to justify.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 13, 2013 6:42 PM
Comment #370655

The only nonsence j2 is coming out of your keyboard. Who gives a S**T, you better because YOUR TAX dollars may be supporting those you don’t give a S**T about. You and people like you don’t want to answer the question because you just might agree that an ID is needed for most everyday things and you don’t want to make yourselves look like DUMBS**Ts.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2013 6:55 PM
Comment #370656
IF todays liberalism was even close to personal responsibility, there would be no Republican Party.

Except the Republican party doesn’t give a hoot for personal responsibility. The party is predicated around identity politics, namely around the identity of old, white, southern men.

Where I am forced to buy the health insurance THEY think is best for me. Where I am forced to go against my faith and pay for birth control and abortion. Where I am forced to pay into a government ‘safety net’ because it doesn’t think I am capable enough to save for myself. Where I am forced to not eat or serve trans fats with or to others who enjoy them. Where I am forced to provide no smoking even though I wish to cater to smokers.
I have always favored modifying the PPACA to let people opt out of the mandate if they wish to forgo protections against preexisting conditions. I have always expressed skepticism regarding the utility of the safety net/welfare state. No one has ever advocated forbidding one from eating trans fats that one has prepared for oneself. I personally think it is best to label such foods and make consumers aware of the risks contained therein and leave it at that. It is accepted in this country that certain businesses are not allowed to discriminate against certain classes of people (such as non-smokers). This is the precedent set by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
How do we know that the 11% who are to lazy to get an ID aren’t also some of the ones who are to lazy to vote?
Most of them probably are, but that’s no excuse to abrogate their unalienable rights .
You and W.P. DON’T KNOW how to answer
I’ve answered the question dozens of times before in previous threads even though the question is quite irrelevant (it’s not your business whether or not these people live “normal” lives or not. I assume most of these people live without many of services that you and I enjoy (such as medical services or welfare benefits). They might work for cash rather than a check, or they might endorse all of their checks to someone else who cashes it in their stead. Also, it’s not difficult for me to imagine that this country contains a few hermits living lives of solitude deep in the wilderness subsisting only on what they find or make for themselves. Much like Ted Kaczynski, but without the bombs.

Just because such life choices seem stupid or foolish to you or to me isn’t an excuse to abrogate a Natural Right that has been endowed by our Creator (and therefore not subject to the whims of mortal men like you).

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2013 6:57 PM
Comment #370659

There is a definite difference of philosophy. I believe firmly in the right to vote. But I see no particular reason to make it significantly more convenient than other things that most people do every day. So far, the courts have agreed with this and held that these minor inconveniences are constitutional.

My liberal friends have pushed this to an absurdity, IMO. It is a danger of calling anything a affirmative right. Recipients, or more likely their champions, demand more and more accommodations. Clearly, anybody who wants to vote and is legally entitled to vote can do so under these laws. Even in the worst case scenario, there is a little inconvenience, which is less than a person confronts every day of their lives in doing ordinary tasks.

We can always think of a case. What about the guy who lives out in the country and has no car? Does a special bus need to run on election day to pick him up? What about parking? Where I vote, there was road construction last election and no convenient parking. How about driving itself? Is it a “poll tax” that people have to pay for gas and parking if they want to vote?

What bothers me about these kinds of idea is actually not a political question. I am worried about the wimpification of America. More and more, we empower weakness. We make excuses for idiots who will not get IDs. I admit, this angers me. THEY are letting ME down by their stupidity and then demanding the good people adjust to them.

The beauty of America used to be that you could be stupid if you wanted. You could be what you wanted because you made few demands on others. If you want to piss on a spark plug, I don’t care. But when you start blaming me for your sore member or demanding pissing on spark plug rights, it starts to bothers me. So many of people’s problems these days are caused by the choices they make. Their failures are foreseeable and foreseen. If you want to be fat, good. Stuff that food in your mouth and shut up. If you want to be poor, everybody knows how. Just don’t bother me. If you want to live w/o an ID, you will be poor and mostly useless to your fellow man, since you cannot participate in society. That is your business, but don’t inconvenience the rest of us with your peculiar “needs.” Those of us who are pulling your weight have more important things to do.

Posted by: C&J at September 13, 2013 7:14 PM
Comment #370660

As I have said and others those who do not have ID’s or want an ID must not give a rats A** about government and voting, Warren. Nobody is abridging anyone’s unalienable rights, if a person wants to live FREE FROM GOVERNMENT intrusion must not want to VOTE either. So why the fuss. When I have to start paying their support through TAX dollars, I will pitch a bitch. Also as Jack has said until the SCOTUS rules against Voter ID laws it’s the law of the State.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2013 7:22 PM
Comment #370661

KAP
We can tell the difference between fire and someone trying to blow smoke up our wazoo. You are doing the latter.

CJ
How noble and astute of you to just group us all togther as a bunch of freeloaders who live off the backs of the gentry. Sounds like a Lord and peasant personality disorder you are dealing with there.

Posted by: Speak4all at September 13, 2013 7:30 PM
Comment #370664

S4Y, You wouldn’t know a wazoo from a hole in the ground, as I said your just a CRANKY OLD LIBERAL who ain’t getting his way.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 13, 2013 7:49 PM
Comment #370665

Speaks4

I am not grouping you with them. I assume everyone writing here has an ID or can get one. In fact, this is the interesting things. Is any one of us writing for or against actually unable to vote because we cannot identify ourselves?

There has been increasingly aggressive begging groups, however. Organized groups demand one-sided rights, whereby they get stuff and others pay.

Our basics rights are easy. They require only that you be left alone. As they become more “positive” they get worse.

I think all of us on this blog probably pull our own weight. We work, worked or saved enough. I help people less fortunate than I am, but I don’t like it defined as a right.

I believe in society where we have rights and responsibility to each other. It is not a one-way street. I am glad people helped me when I needed it. I could not pay back all I got, but I showed respect and gratitude. I try to help others in that way. Society, all just societies, is based on reciprocity. If lots of people become mere recipients, it breaks down our civilization. It is even worse if they develop entitlements to be mere recipients.

Getting an ID to vote is not too much to ask. Those who will not do that are not living up to their minimal responsibilities to us.

Posted by: CJ at September 13, 2013 7:54 PM
Comment #370670
Just don’t bother me. If you want to live w/o an ID, you will be poor and mostly useless to your fellow man, since you cannot participate in society. That is your business, but don’t inconvenience the rest of us with your peculiar “needs.” Those of us who are pulling your weight have more important things to do.

If this is the case, then you are the wrong side of this issue. Supporters of these laws advocate taxpayer funded IDs for these schmos. Compare this with my position, where people are personally responsible for their own votes and they don’t interfere with their neighbor’s private business.

If I vote without an ID, then it causes no inconvenience to you. So why do you complain? Impersonation fraud is dwarfed by the number of people without IDs. Not to mention the fact that impersonation fraud is already so difficult to pull off. And we can always use the old-fashioned trick of dipping thumbs in ink to make it even more difficult.

Is any one of us writing for or against actually unable to vote because we cannot identify ourselves?
If Massachusetts had an ID law like North Carolina’s then I wouldn’t be able to vote. I have plenty of out-of-state identification documents, but nothing issued by Massachusetts. Laws such as North Carolina’s would not let me use my New York State Driver’s License, my SUNY Stony Brook student ID or my expired passport to vote. If I lived in North Carolina, I would have to pay the $10 poll tax to convert my out of state documents to NC documents before I could vote.
Getting an ID to vote is not too much to ask.

I have already demonstrated that obtaining an ID is a very onerous task for people who aren’t as affluent as you or I: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Democracy/VRE/Challenge_of_Obtaining_Voter_ID.pdf

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 13, 2013 10:35 PM
Comment #370673
I have plenty of out-of-state identification documents, but nothing issued by Massachusetts. Laws such as North Carolina’s would not let me use my New York State Driver’s License, my SUNY Stony Brook student ID or my expired passport to vote.

Why do you have these pieces of ID, Warren Porter?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2013 12:18 AM
Comment #370674
You and people like you don’t want to answer the question because you just might agree that an ID is needed for most everyday things and you don’t want to make yourselves look like DUMBS**Ts.

KAP, Once again you cannot seem to grasp the fact that we are talking about voting. People have voted for many years without the need for an ID. Nothing has changed except for ALEC deciding to make the voting law tougher in hopes of discouraging opposition voters from going to the polls. Whether or not someone needs ID for other things such as driving or whatever is just not relevant to the issue. Read up on Red Herring as you seem to want to continue down that path.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2013 12:44 AM
Comment #370675

That’s not true, j2t2. You have only pounced on your latest boogie man and named him ALEC. Many states are suffering from illegal immigrants. They know they are vunerable to having their vote skewed by illegal votes. They are using voter ID to discourage illegal activity. Why do you have ID, j2t2?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2013 12:58 AM
Comment #370676

Warren

” Impersonation fraud is dwarfed by the number of people without IDs” We don’t know this. The comparison would not be direct in any case. A person not having an ID is a simple problem to correct. Voter fraud is a crime where people are actively trying not to be detected.

We also need to consider wholesale voter fraud, as practiced in places like Chicago in the recent past. They would literally deliver the votes needed, by voting the dead and the non participating. Voter ID would not stop this, but it would add a layer of accountability. W/o an ID, the crooked poll workers could simply assert that somebody had shown up and voted. Not their fault. With an ID, they would have to claim that they check the ID and passed the voter. Their story, in the case of dozens or hundreds of miscast votes becomes less tenable.

Re getting an ID - I had IDs when I was not affluent. It was not hard. As I said, we have a point of view disagreement. I am offended that some of my fellow citizens value their vote so little that they are unwilling to be inconvenienced only a little to protect it. I despise such people. That of course, is only my opinion. But since the Courts have decided that voter laws pass constitutional muster, it is within the range of legal opinion.

Posted by: CJ at September 14, 2013 7:35 AM
Comment #370682
With an ID, they would have to claim that they check the ID and passed the voter.
Corrupt poll worker claims they were presented a counterfeit ID and the result is the same.
I had IDs when I was not affluent. It was not hard.

I am offended that some of my fellow citizens value their vote so little that they are unwilling to be inconvenienced only a little to protect it.

It’s not a little inconvenience. $10 is a lot of money for some people. A trip to the DMV would take 6 hours for some people. Obtaining Birth Certificates, etc is even more onerous. These are very difficult barriers for an impoverished individual to overcome. It basically requires saving at least $50, taking an entire day off from work to travel to get a birth certificate & other docs as well as to travel to the DMV. And this ignores the fact that there are many people who cannot get a valid birth certificate because they were birthed by a midwife 75+ years ago. Not to mention the people with different aliases or names with typographical errors. It’s truly a nightmare.

And the kicker in all this debate is the paucity of voter impersonation fraud that should never justify placing such burdens on exercising one’s unalienable right.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2013 11:29 AM
Comment #370684

Warren

We disagree about the amount of inconvenience. I understand that it might cost a worker $50, but an ID - free person is likely NOT to be a worker.

Birth certificates became essentially ubiquitous is the U.S. in the 1920s. During WWII, we had people needing to prove their births. Males have had to register for selective service since about that time.

So I suppose it is possible that some very old ladies might have a legitimate problem. In which case, I am sure that some kindly strangers would help them.

Again, a person w/o the possibility to get an ID does not work, does not fly on airplanes, does not collect welfare, if male has violated the law by not registering with selective service, cannot borrow a library book, cannot drive … Frankly such a person wouldn’t know how to vote given the chance. But we DO give these people the opportunity. They have the responsibility to take it. If they don’t, I say F them and the courts back it up, in less colorful language.

Posted by: CJ at September 14, 2013 1:18 PM
Comment #370685
does not work
Or is self-employed. Or works for cash.
does not fly on airplanes, does not collect welfare
Most people don’t collect welfare or fly.
if male has violated the law by not registering with selective service, cannot borrow a library book
A photo ID is not needed to register for the SS or obtain a library card.

The reality here, is your position will deny voting rights to many Americans who are not guilty of any crime. If you want specific examples, recall the 9 cases I shared earlier.

Here are more anecdotes relating the challenge of obtaining an acceptable photo ID:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/08/28/5116672/id-voting-denied.html

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2013 2:13 PM
Comment #370686
I suppose it is possible that some very old ladies might have a legitimate problem. In which case, I am sure that some kindly strangers would help them.

From the anecdotes I read, there seem to be A LOT of very old ladies stuck in this pickle. And I am sure that many of them will not be helped by some kindly stranger.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2013 2:22 PM
Comment #370687

More Anecdotes

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2013 2:41 PM
Comment #370688

Warren

I will send $10 to those nine people so they can get their IDs and the problem will be solved. Of course, I assume that once they were identified, their problems was already solved. I assume the nice people who brought the problem our attention were good enough to help.

Re some won’t vote - I say again, I don’t care. They have the right to vote. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law. If these guys won’t take the opportunity, it is on them. If they won’t take a small step for their country, I find their behavior offensive.

Posted by: CJ at September 14, 2013 2:47 PM
Comment #370689
I will send $10 to those nine people so they can get their IDs and the problem will be solved

Those 9 are only the tip of the iceberg. 11% of Americans are a lot of people. See my other link with many more anecdotes.

Also, if it were a matter of kind strangers donating $10, then why did we pass the 24th amendment when you and I could have simply paid the $1 tax on behalf of a fellow voter?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2013 3:35 PM
Comment #370690
That’s not true, j2t2.
Whats not true Weary? The fact that people have voted for many years without the need for an ID at the voting booth? If an ID were already required why would all these states pass another law requiring it once again Weary?
You have only pounced on your latest boogie man and named him ALEC.

Weary once again you seem to think I make this stuff up. ALEC was not named by me. That name they did themselves and have had it for 40 years. You can call it the boogie man if you want Weary but this silly attempt to downplay what ALEC has done with it’s model voter laws in the different states shows just how misinformed you are.

Many states are suffering from illegal immigrants. They know they are vunerable to having their vote skewed by illegal votes.

Weary using this myth is lame. You have no proof of fraud that this law would solve. Your heavy handed use of government to suppress the vote is showing, for someone who wants less government interference in their lives you should be opposed to this type of authoritarianism.

They are using voter ID to discourage illegal activity.

No they are using the law to gain advantage for the repubs at election time, Weary. They are hiding behind these phony myths you repeat as a means to do so.

Why do you have ID, j2t2?

Not to vote, which is the issue here Weary. ALEC legislation has failed twice here in Colorado Weary.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 14, 2013 4:01 PM
Comment #370691

Warren

That 11% is too high. That is people who don’t have IMMEDIATE access. It doesn’t mean they cannot get.

How do you propose identifying voters. They just walk in and assert that they are Mr …?

If the courts decide to call the need for an ID a poll tax, it will be unconstitutional. Until then it is not. It really is that simple. You are offended that some people might be inconvenienced by the need for an ID. I am offended that some people value the security of their vote so little that they cannot be bothered. Both points of view are equally valid, but mine currently is the law in some places.

j2t2

I have always presented an ID when I voted. I thought it was already the law in Wisconsin, California, Indiana and Virginia where I have voted at various times. It made it much faster and easier to get through the line.

You guys keep on saying that these laws will suppress the Democratic vote, but then you refuse to admit that your opinion must be that people who cannot figure out how to get IDs or can’t be bothered to do so are more likely to be Democratic. It is inconsistent.

Posted by: CJ at September 14, 2013 5:26 PM
Comment #370696

I’ve asked j2t2 and Warren Porter why they have ID and they won’t answer.

I have also asked Warren Porter how he intends to fix the illegal vote taken by the criminal voting in his place. He has not answered.

I’ve asked anyone how we verify an accurate tally of each election. No one is able to describe how a vote is verified.

I have asked why citizenship requires hundreds of dollars to prove. Using j2t2’s and Warren Porter’s logic I have demonstrated how a driver’s license in unconstitutional and pointed out the hypocrisy of their position and they cannot answer.

They have not been able to answer my questions. They can’t because they know their arguement is false. They are protecting the Democratic’s fraudulent voting practices that sway elections in their favor. They cannot afford to have the illegal voter separated from the legal voter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2013 7:44 PM
Comment #370706

Come to think about it, when I was young I had a state issued ID. They used to specifically ask for it when you went to bars, since Wisconsin driver’s licenses didn’t have pictures in those days.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but my rights were being violated. I was legally allowed to drink, but the state made me spend extra money and go through the inconvenience of getting another form of ID.

Posted by: CJ at September 14, 2013 8:57 PM
Comment #370707

WW, I didn’t answer questions because your acting like a nutcase. However to prevent any further deterioration in your mental state, I’ll answer your meaningless questions:

I have a driver’s license because I live an affluent lifestyle. For instance, I own and drive my own car on public roads. Other voters do not enjoy the same privileges I do and will not have the same IDs.

There is no problem to fix regarding criminals voting in my place. If there were a problem, I would know about it because I would show up at the polls and I would be unable to vote.

We can verify an accurate tally of an election using the same methods that we have used traditionally. If ain’t broken, don’t fix it!

For more information regarding the difficulties of proving citizenship, read this report:
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Democracy/VRE/Challenge_of_Obtaining_Voter_ID.pdf
Although hundreds of dollars might be an exaggerated claim, the monetary cost of obtaining an ID is well over $75. And we must remember that the poll taxes that were ruled unconstitutional 50 years ago were nominal bits of pocket change ($1 poll taxes were common). The size of the poll tax is not a factor in its unconstitutionality

Regarding driver’s licenses, believe it or not you can legally drive without a license. So there is no impairment regarding the freedom of movement. However, you will be limited to private roads. Also, an unlicensed citizen may still enjoy freedom of movement on public roads as long as he/she utilizes non-motorized forms of transportation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2013 9:12 PM
Comment #370711

Warren

You have to get farther and farther from reality. Who would be able to drive only on private roads? I have roads on my farms. You can drive a few minutes but you don’t get anywhere.

Re your report, it says ” Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office open more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.”

Poor suckers. But how do they do anything else in life and how will they get to the polls even if they can vote?

Posted by: CJ at September 14, 2013 9:35 PM
Comment #370714

Warren Porter,

If there were a problem, I would know about it because I would show up at the polls and I would be unable to vote.

You didn’t answer my question. How would you correct the illegal vote? Since the illegal voted for one of two people how would you be able to remove the effects of the illegal vote?

You can not. The illegal vote cannot be removed because the candidate voted for is known only to the person who voted illegally. Your vote would be the extraneous vote at that point. You whould not be allowed to vote and you would not be able to prove you are the legitimate voter because you have no ID.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2013 10:16 PM
Comment #370715

Also, I have never brought your mental state into question, Warren Porter. You are exibiting a trait employed by Democratics when the Democratics are losing the debate.
You are name-calling.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2013 10:21 PM
Comment #370716

Warren Porter, did ALEC force the nation to build polling places on private roads? If not everyone would need a driver’s license to drive on public roads to get to the polls to vote.

Can you see how your futile argument is unraveling?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2013 10:25 PM
Comment #370718
You can drive a few minutes but you don’t get anywhere.

So? Freedom of movement is not the same as freedom to trespass.

how do they do anything else in life and how will they get to the polls even if they can vote?

They probably live within walking distance of their polling place, but not within walking distance of the ID office.

You didn’t answer my question. How would you correct the illegal vote? Since the illegal voted for one of two people how would you be able to remove the effects of the illegal vote?

You can not. The illegal vote cannot be removed because the candidate voted for is known only to the person who voted illegally. Your vote would be the extraneous vote at that point. You whould not be allowed to vote and you would not be able to prove you are the legitimate voter because you have no ID.

I shouldn’t be answering a hypothetical question about an event that isn’t occurring and will never occur; however, it seems I must do so to prevent any more deterioration. If I showed up at the polls and discovered that someone had voted in my stead, then I’d report the occurrence to law enforcement and the perpetrator could be caught. Not wanting to be caught, hardly anyone is actually foolish enough to pull this kind of stunt. The result is that my vote remains my own.

If not everyone would need a driver’s license to drive on public roads to get to the polls to vote.
Or perhaps people can get themselves to the polls without using a car? Posted by: Warren Porter at September 14, 2013 11:05 PM
Comment #370719

This would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 14, 2013 11:24 PM
Comment #370724

Warren

“They probably live within walking distance of their polling place, but not within walking distance of the ID office.” Come on. What are the chances?

You must be joking now. It is clearly a case where ID opponents are trying to think of crazy hypothetical cases. “What if a person of color (it is always good to use that one) with only one leg could turn only left and the polling stations was to the left but the ID place was to the right?”

The only case I can think of where a legal voter who really wanted to vote could not do so is if he woke up on the day of the election and decided he wanted to vote but had not done anything to make that possible before. Too bad for him.

I am offended that such stupid people think we have a responsibility to help them vote. I used to volunteer to drive people to the polls. I drove them no matter how they planned to vote, but they used to have to call the day before, show a little intelligence. I would not help some dummy who thought of voting ten minutes before he polls closed. I think we need to be less tolerant of these sorts of behaviors.

If I was a liberal, I would be ashamed to be the voice of the stupid. I know stupid people have the right to vote and I would not take it away from them, but we don’t have to encourage them.

Posted by: CJ at September 15, 2013 4:21 AM
Comment #370726
Come on. What are the chances?

Are you kidding me? How many DMV branches are there in NC? Probably around 100. How many polling places are in NC? At least a 1000. There is simply no comparison.

Look at the list of NC DMV locations:
http://www.safemotorist.com/northcarolina/dmv_locations.aspx

Most rural counties have only a single DMV office. There a few counties without any DMV office.

On the other hand, I imagine the average county has polling location for every single precinct.

If I lived in Denver, NC (Lincoln County), then the nearest DMV office would be in Lincolnton, which is 16 miles from the town center (there are no public transit options). However, Denver has two polling locations located conveniently nearby at Denver United Methodist Church and at St. James Elementary School. This pattern is repeated across the state. I can walk to my polling place, but not to the DMV.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 15, 2013 10:18 AM
Comment #370727
You guys keep on saying that these laws will suppress the Democratic vote, but then you refuse to admit that your opinion must be that people who cannot figure out how to get IDs or can’t be bothered to do so are more likely to be Democratic. It is inconsistent.

BS C&J. You have changed your spiel here. Before it was stupid people but then I showed you that stupid people vote repub just as well. What is inconsistent is the conservatives demanding new laws for a crime that is practically non existent.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but my rights were being violated. I was legally allowed to drink, but the state made me spend extra money and go through the inconvenience of getting another form of ID.

More drivel C&J. The difference between a right and a privilege is lost on you I guess.

I’ve asked j2t2 and Warren Porter why they have ID and they won’t answer.

Weary how foolish. I have answered several times. Who gives a sh*t is my answer. It is just not relevant to the issue, how much clearer can I make it?

I have also asked Warren Porter how he intends to fix the illegal vote taken by the criminal voting in his place. He has not answered.

IT is so minimal as to be non existent Weary. This type of red herring is just a ruse because you cannot justify new laws based upon a non existent crime.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 15, 2013 10:19 AM
Comment #370731

j2t2

My believe is that only losers and stupid people do not have or more importantly cannot get IDs. I admit that is a mere premise, but the examples you guys give of those who cannot encompass in their ranks nobody who you would immediately want to hire or depend on.

You tell me such people would vote mostly Democratic.

This approaches a syllogism.

All people who don’t have or cannot get IDs are losers
Democrats don’t have IDs therefore …

Here is another near syllogism. It is indeed a right to vote. Courts so far have ruled that the minor inconvenience of getting an ID is Constitutional. Therefore the right is not violated.

The NC law is reasonable and will help protect the votes of honest voters, even including the stupid ones. Besides, we are doing these poor suckers a favor if we help them get and ID and welcome them back into human society.

Posted by: CJ at September 15, 2013 10:56 AM
Comment #370734

So 85 year old retired women are stupid idiots who need to be “brought back into human society”?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 15, 2013 11:07 AM
Comment #370736

Warren

Yes. They should be brought back into human society, poor old bags. It will do them good. I am surprised that they have no friends that will help them.

Posted by: CJ at September 15, 2013 11:14 AM
Comment #370737

Maybe all their friends predeceased them?

But in all due respect, an unalienable right shouldn’t be subject to the generosity of one’s friends. If that were the case, the poll tax would be Constitutional.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 15, 2013 11:20 AM
Comment #370739

Warren

It is NOT an unalienable right to vote w/o and ID. Courts so far say so. In any case, with our w/o IDs, it is very unlikely the old ladies can get out to vote w/o help from friends or the kindness of strangers.

Posted by: CJ at September 15, 2013 11:24 AM
Comment #370745
IT is so minimal as to be non existent Weary.

j2t2, tax evasion is so minimal as to be non existent. Oh, wait! We have an apparatus that seeks out tax evaders and punishes them when they find them.

Ok, then running stop signs in so minimal as to be non existent. Ummm.. no we have police in place to find people who run stop signs.

Well, stealing electricity by bypassing the electric meter is so minimal as to be non existent. Uhh, no there are checks and balances in place to protect the supplier against such practices.

Obama wants to add IRS agents to accomodate the new health care law. Why can’t the existing structure police the new health care law? Why would we need any more rules and regulations? We never needed them before!

Mayors across the country want more police officers to combat crime in their neighborhoods. Why? Why can’t the existing police work with the existing laws do the job? It’s just crazy to think more police are needed.

And what’s up with these utility companies installing wireless meters on my electric lines?! Just who do they think they are? Who thinks up these things? They’re trying to force this nation to do the craziest things! It’s unconstitutional! They’re violating my right to privacy!


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 15, 2013 3:10 PM
Comment #370749
My believe is that only losers and stupid people do not have or more importantly cannot get IDs. I admit that is a mere premise, but the examples you guys give of those who cannot encompass in their ranks nobody who you would immediately want to hire or depend on.

Once again C&J, so what, whether it be a premise or not it is still irrelevant to the issue. It doesn’t matter whether they are stupid, or lazy or losers they still have the right to vote. This bullying by the right wing of those different than them is wrong C&J. The name calling used to make your point is illogical, it demonstrates to us you have no valid argument. Your comments sadden me as they make me realize that I was not as far off as you would have liked to make me believe…. Let me leave you with this…..FIRST THEY CAME FOR…..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…

Posted by: j2t2 at September 15, 2013 5:43 PM
Comment #370751

I agree j2 that every U.S. Citizen over 18yrs. has the right to vote. No one denies that fact, but then again the polling place also has the right and DUTY to make sure that person is who he/she says they are, and please explain to us how they are supposed to do that without that person having a State issued ID?, which in most cases for the poor can get it free of charge. I, like Jack, have had to show ID since the first time I voted, and also have to give my SS# or drivers permit number if I vote by mail.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 15, 2013 6:16 PM
Comment #370752

j2t2

I will repeat again that I fully support their right to vote. I also support the protection of their and our votes from fraud by the us of a reasonable ID. The courts have upheld that rule as Constitutional.

Posted by: CJ at September 15, 2013 6:17 PM
Comment #370756
I will repeat again that I fully support their right to vote. I also support the protection of their and our votes from fraud by the us of a reasonable ID.

If only there was fraud you would have a point. However because this law was just a means for the conservatives to keep voters away from the polls, to keep their vote from counting, your repeating this statement rings hollow C&J. Defending the law that solves nothing speaks much louder than the hollow ringing of your statement.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 15, 2013 9:17 PM
Comment #370757

j2t2

Every year there are convictions for voter fraud. It is not currently a big problem, but the problem of honest people unable to get IDs is even smaller.

I think it is your objections that ring hollow. Perhaps you understand that what fraud occurs mostly benefits Democrats. In Minnesota, enough felons voted to elect Al Franken. Once the fraud vote is in, you cannot call it back even if you detect the fraud.

We know that Democratic groups like Acorn registered thousands of people who were ineligible to vote, sometimes due to an inconvenience of being dead, other times the even greater problem of not ever having existed. Of course, we presume that they merely did this for the fun of it, or maybe the challenge, and nobody ever had intentions to use those “mistakes.”

Posted by: CJ at September 15, 2013 9:53 PM
Comment #370764
the problem of honest people unable to get IDs is even smaller.

Do you have one iota of proof of this?

Are theese not “honest people”?

And since when do we restrict constitutional rights to only those people whose habits we approve of? Perhaps we should eliminate conservatives’ right to free speech. After all, if a conservative were truly an “honest person” they would surely be a liberal. Therefore, a law outlawing conservative speech wouldn’t impact any “honest people”.

If we are truly concerned about the

I guess, if you want to get more sophisticated, we could take a photo of every voter as he or she receives a ballot. The photos could be saved to a database and used the next election. That way, the only way to successfully impersonate a voter would be for someone to impersonate the same voter in election after election. But is this really worth the cost to chase so few perpetrators?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 16, 2013 4:18 AM
Comment #370774
The photos could be saved to a database and used the next election.

Been there, done that, Warren Porter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIA1lQBqH1s


But is this really worth the cost to chase so few perpetrators?

Ask your lord, Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 16, 2013 12:49 PM
Comment #370775


Data Centers in US Double Since 2011


Why aren’t your panties in a wad over this, Warren Porter, Marysdude, j2t2, Speak4all?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 16, 2013 12:58 PM
Comment #370787

Warren

None of those people would be prevented from voting if they made a few simple adjustments.

I don’t object to their habits. I object to the fact that they cannot prove their identity and by their actions are endangering my vote and yours.

Re the few impersonators - we need to weight them against the even fewer people, maybe essentially none, who could not vote because of the ID law. Since any voter under the law can get a provisional ballot, there is really no way that anybody who is legally registered to vote would not be allowed to do so.

The woman who voted six times for Obama stole my vote and that of four of my friends. I want to stop people like her.

Posted by: CJ at September 16, 2013 7:09 PM
Comment #370791
Every year there are convictions for voter fraud. It is not currently a big problem, but the problem of honest people unable to get IDs is even smaller.

But the voter ID portion of the NC law will only help to stop voter impersonation at the voting booth C&J. You lump all the voter fraud into a group and come up with a miniscule amount of voter fraud nation wide and how many in NC, none?

I think it is your objections that ring hollow. Perhaps you understand that what fraud occurs mostly benefits Democrats. In Minnesota, enough felons voted to elect Al Franken. Once the fraud vote is in, you cannot call it back even if you detect the fraud.


Seriously C&J lets just stop the misinformation,repubs are no stranger to voter fraud here are….just…. a….. few….. examples.
Do you assume that all the felons voted for Franken,C&J? Got ant proof? Secondly how does a voter ID law stop felons from voting? Third the information comes from a conservative source which may well have inflated the numbers and such on this issue. No one knows yet.

We know that Democratic groups like Acorn registered thousands of people who were ineligible to vote, sometimes due to an inconvenience of being dead, other times the even greater problem of not ever having existed. Of course, we presume that they merely did this for the fun of it, or maybe the challenge, and nobody ever had intentions to use those “mistakes.”

How many of them voted C&J? This only goes to prove how well the pre-ALEC laws worked. This type of nonsensical arguments seem to prove your wreak argument C&J.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 16, 2013 7:59 PM
Comment #370795

j2t2

In person voter fraud is hard to detect. Beyond that, we used to have wholesale use of fraud, in places like Chicago and NYC. At least if the dishonest poll workers have to say they saw and ID, we can more easily prosecute.

Re Republican voter fraud - I am against it no matter who does it.

Re felons voting - we have no way of proving who they voted for. That is precisely the problem. Once the fraud is perpetrated there is no way to undo it.

Re Acorn fraud - they registered fraudulent voters on a massive scale. The authorities caught some of the worst ones. I wonder why they registered so many liars and frauds. I suppose they had hoped to use them for something.

Posted by: CJ at September 16, 2013 9:06 PM
Comment #370801
You lump all the voter fraud into a group and come up with a miniscule amount of voter fraud nation wide and how many in NC, none?

j2t2, you claim voter fraud is miniscule yet later in this same comment you link to five different cases of voter fraud that probable took you longer to format than it did to find.

Which is it, j2t2?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 16, 2013 9:53 PM
Comment #370803
In person voter fraud is hard to detect.
Because it is practically non existent.

“The creation and propagation of the voter fraud myth, which has gained huge currency in the GOP over the past decade, has been championed by Hans von Spakovsky, a lawyer who is also a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

Beyond that, we used to have wholesale use of fraud, in places like Chicago and NYC. At least if the dishonest poll workers have to say they saw and ID, we can more easily prosecute.

Prove it C&J or quit using it as an example. Were it true do you really believe the conservatives of the day would have stood by and did nothing?

Re Republican voter fraud - I am against it no matter who does it.

Me to C&J but the list of repubs were in response to your misguided mythinformation that it was dems benefiting from voter fraud.

Re felons voting - we have no way of proving who they voted for. That is precisely the problem. Once the fraud is perpetrated there is no way to undo it.

Yet you falsely claim “that enough felons voted to elect Al Franken.” You also failed to explain how the ID law would have stopped the felons from voting, yet you continue to use it as some sort of an example.

Re Acorn fraud - they registered fraudulent voters on a massive scale. The authorities caught some of the worst ones. I wonder why they registered so many liars and frauds. I suppose they had hoped to use them for something.

Once again how many of these massive amount of registered voters actually voted? It seems to me that when someone uses the alias Mickey Mouse on a voter registration form it is more of a joke, probably a conservative doing it as well. But how many voted and how would the ID law have stopped this red herring of an issue you have once gain brought up?

j2t2, you claim voter fraud is miniscule yet later in this same comment you link to five different cases of voter fraud

5 cases out of 120 million votes cast in 2012 Weary and you are questioning miniscule! Seriously?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 16, 2013 10:39 PM
Comment #370813

How do you propose we stop voter fraud, jt2t? It’s not like the McBurgerler-esq type is slinking into the polls thru the side door. How do you propose we stop this before the damage of an illegal vote is done?

Or do you propose we just ignore it, stick our fingers in our ears and go, NANANANANANA?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 17, 2013 6:48 AM
Comment #370816

First of all Weary we must be honest with ourselves. It is the intent of the ALEC legislation to make voting one sided favoring the repubs. SO first of all repeal all ALEC laws in states that have fell victim to them. Them as the article in the link in my previous comment suggests:


1.Make voter registration seamless.
2.there shouldn’t be just one election day.
3.Make voting mandatory.
4.Don’t link voting to polling places. People are mobile. They should be able to vote anywhere

If only you would have read the link your question was answered before the silly comment you just made.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/

Posted by: j2t2 at September 17, 2013 10:02 AM
Comment #370828

Re mandatory voting etc - In Brazil they have mandatory voting, but they also have biometrics. You have to register your body and they check. Now that is an ID.

j2t2

Just Google terms such as Tweed ring, Prendergast machine, Daley machine, big city political machines. These are in all the history books (maybe not the dumbed down ones of today, I suppose). We need to guard against these kinds of things coming back.

Re ““that enough felons voted to elect Al Franken.” You need to parse that. I don’t say that they did elect him. I explain that is unknowable. I Said that there were enough doubtful votes to have do so, which is just plain true.


My point is that fraud could be sufficient to change the outcomes of elections, even recent ones, so it is not a “non-problem.” Some really big elections are being decided by really small numbers of votes. The results are within the margin of error and within the reach of even small voter fraud. Since you believe that both sides sometimes cheat, it is in all our best interests to make cheating more difficult.

With history as a guide and recent examples as backup, it is pretty naive to think that nobody will cheat to win an election, when stakes are so high and risks of detection so low. It is reasonable and proper for us to seek to protect the votes of our citizens and asking citizens to join in the fight to protect their rights and ours is not too much to ask.

I know you like to dismiss information based on your dislike of the messengers, but you should pay attention to this Heritage Foudation study of voter fraud in the 1982 election in Chicago. If you read it carefully, as I have, you will find that it references FBI and Justice Department documents and talks about actual convictions, not stories. I would ask that you be reasonably intelligent about this and use whatever ability to understand research methods you learned in college. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-in-chicago#_ftn31

There are also references to various police reports, which a competent scholar can track down and check.

You may disagree with details, but there is no doubt about the general direction.

This is what the Grand Jury report said - Every vote that is fraudulently manufac­tured disenfranchises the legitimate voter and makes a mockery of our political pro­cess. Vote fraud is like a cancer, and it must be treated so that it will not destroy our con­stitutional right to vote, the basis of our American heritage

And

Although the canvass disclosed that a number of persons who were registered to vote in the precinct had died, moved away, or for some other reason had become ineligible to vote, these persons were not struck from the list of eligible voters. Finally on election day the defendants, either personally or by acting through others, caused numerous false ballots to be cast for the straight Democratic ticket.

These “defendants” were convicted. That is, the jury of their peers thought they were guilty after going through the court process. This is proof as positive as it gets.

Posted by: CJ at September 17, 2013 4:26 PM
Comment #370831
I would ask that you be reasonably intelligent about this and use whatever ability to understand research methods you learned in college.

Then you link to an article by the same person I just called out in the previous comment as the creator and propagator of the voter fraud myth! Lets look at facts, C&J, of the ‘82 election mentioned in the link . First of all Thompson won. Second of all the 65 people charged with voter fraud were tried and convicted. With the pre-ALEC laws of the day , in Illinois. So using this as an example to support the need for the ALEC laws doesn’t work C&J. Conservatives are trying to fix something that isn’t broke. They are doing it to tilt the game in their favor by making it hardcer for others to vote.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 17, 2013 8:07 PM
Comment #370844

j2t2

Call names when you cannot attack the facts.

You wanted a robust example of voter fraud and I gave you one. It was not enough to change the outcome, because Thompson had such a margin.

So this massive voter fraud was not a problem according to you.

Simply stated, I win here. I have demonstrated more than you asked for. If you won’t see it, there is none so blind …

Posted by: CJ at September 18, 2013 2:57 PM
Comment #370853

C&J, Name calling? Lets try this once again slowly. Look at my comment#370803. Notice the quote from the link and the link itself in the second paragraph. Now look at the author of the story you linked to in comment #370828.

Declaring victory based upon an incident in 1982! Seriously! 1982. So now in 2012 it is imperative to change the laws despite the laws in place back in 1982 working for this “massive” voter fraud. Sorry my friend you must be recent to gain any points here. In fact the desperation that led you back to 1982 to find massive voter fraud is telling. To bad you don’t have any evidence regarding Diebold, the computer fraud and lack of a paper trail from this century. Even then an ID wouldn’t have helped.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2013 6:30 PM
Comment #370855

j2t2

The author doesn’t matter. No matter how odious the messenger, you have to look at the message and its sources.

We have voter fraud in the past. There are few or no honest voters prevented from voting by the changed laws. It is good due diligence to ask for ID.

Posted by: CJ at September 18, 2013 7:20 PM
Comment #370862

C&J in this day and age the author does matter. This guy has been defrauding his way to voter suppression for years C&J. In fact it was his “study” you quoted regarding AL Franken and the Minnesota felons which was false according to the County Attorney:

” However, Mike Freeman, the Hennepin County Attorney, who oversees Minneapolis, told me, ‘Those numbers are fraudulent. We investigated, and at the end of the day, out of over four hundred allegations in the county, we charged thirty-eight people. Their research was bad, sloppy, incredible. They are just liars.’””

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=5

So the problem here is this guy and others like him who spread misinformation that people like you then take to be factual. You then form an opinion based upon the misinformation and argue it to the death despite the fraudulent information that was the basis for the opinion to begin with.

SO not only is your information outdated it is also, for the most part myths, misinformation, half truths and outright lies.

We have voter fraud in the past. There are few or no honest voters prevented from voting by the changed laws. It is good due diligence to ask for ID.

C&J, yes we have but it was also dealt with using existing laws, to use these past cases as justification for the current spate of conservatives voter suppression laws is just wrong. It is self serving and anti-democratic. As you have said in previous comments every vote counts. To think that without any evidence you tell us a few honest voters are prevented from voting by the changed laws you forget this.

Lets be clear conservatives are using the ALEC laws for political gain. They are passing these laws only where they have a majority in the statehouses. It is a poor substitute for decent government. Defending these laws with the newly acquired knowledge you have does not set a good example for “honest” IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 18, 2013 11:29 PM
Comment #370868


j2t2, American Legislative Exchange Council doesn’t pass laws any more than the Center for American Progress does.

Why are you so up in arm about the American Legislative Exchange Council and not the Center for American Progress?

They both do the same thing. Advise. Why aren’t you bashing the advice the Center for American Progress gives it’s legislating followers?

Is it because you are blinded by partisanship? Would you be raising this much hell if the Democratics were supporting voter ID laws?

I doubt it.

Didn’t you say you aren’t concerned about voter ID as much as you are about cutting early voting and consolidating polling places? What would you do if each issue came up separately? Would you support voter ID then?

And also, my position on voter reform would include:

Contributions can only go to the person who you are elligable to vote for. If the candidate is not on your ballot you cannot contribute to their campaign.

Every elligible voter will have a voter card that is the equivilant of a credit card. If it works for money it will work for votes.

Corporations are not people. Corporate CEOs and Employees of a corporation already have the right to vote. A corporation doesn’t hold any cards in an election. Corporate money is out of the picture.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 19, 2013 6:13 PM
Comment #370872

j2t2

If the person you hate most in the world told you that 2+2=4 would that make it untrue? You can check the underlying facts by going to the footnotes. I also don’t much care about ALEC. Again, if they are telling lies, you can attack the facts. The source might make you more suspicious and you can question opinions, but facts are hard things.

Your narrow minded attitude is appalling. This is the second time in this thread when I suspect you are being purposely obtuse. You cannot be that foolish.

Posted by: CJ at September 19, 2013 9:00 PM
Post a comment