Is it a crime to attempt to make voting laws that make it difficult for your opponents to vote?

[techs]

Across the nation many states, at about the same time, decided to enact laws requiring a picture I.D. to vote. If the legislatures who proposed these laws did so in the belief that voters were voting illegally and a photo id would prevent that, then I have no problem with it.
However, if the legislators proposed these laws in an attempt to keep voters without picture id's from voting, because they knew these voters tended to vote for the opposition party, then is it a crime? Wouldn't that be an attempt to disenfranchise certain voters?
So if, say, two legislatures discussed the picture id and discussed how it would hurt voters who tended to vote for the opposition, then I say it is, or should be a criminal offense.
I think if we had a Democratic or a fair Attorney General that this would be investigated.
Do you agree?

 

[EagleKeeper]

So forcing someone to prove who they are should not be allowed?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
So forcing someone to prove who they are should not be allowed?

Read my post if you want to respond. You address none of what I posted.

 

[sandorski]

I dunno. I highly doubbt that those wanting Photo ID are wanting it simply because it works to their advantage. It seems quite reasonable for such a requirement to exist. However, if the situation exiists where large groups of people eligibble to vote who don't have Photo ID, then I can see why not requiring Photo ID is somewhat reasonable. If people can't afford Photo ID or simply don't have it for some reason, perhaps the solution lies in doing whatever is needed to get them Photo ID. That might mean an Advertising campaign or even making it more affordable to get the ID.

 

[senseamp]

I hope next cycle we put that law they have in some other state that puts you in a drawing for $1M if you vote on the ballot here in CA.

 

[jrenz]

How is this even an issue...

How is it possible in this day and age that somebody doesn't have a photo ID? How long does it take to get one?

 

[techs]

I would like to remind people this thread is not about whether requiring a picture ID is a good idea or not.
The post is about whether it is or should be a criminal offence to willingly use a voting law to attempt to deny your political opposition votes.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: techs
I would like to remind people this thread is not about whether requiring a picture ID is a good idea or not.
The post is about whether it is or should be a criminal offence to willingly use a voting law to attempt to deny your political opposition votes.

No. However, proving that would be near impossible. Sounds more like a "surrender to Al Queda" equivalent soundbite than an actual situation.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: jrenz
How is this even an issue...

How is it possible in this day and age that somebody doesn't have a photo ID? How long does it take to get one?

How long does it take for a electronic voting machine to print a receipt?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: jrenz
How is this even an issue...

How is it possible in this day and age that somebody doesn't have a photo ID? How long does it take to get one?

Just why can't you recognize a Joe Crow law, when you see it?

 

[Jhhnn]

Requiring photo ID to vote is a solution in search of a problem. Proponents have never shown that any substantial fraud exists in this regard, but rather cast innuendo and suspicion.

Basically, they're claiming that anybody lacking a photo ID who attempts to vote is committing fraud, even though there is absolutely no evidence to back up the allegation...

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: techs
Across the nation many states, at about the same time, decided to enact laws requiring a picture I.D. to vote. If the legislatures who proposed these laws did so in the belief that voters were voting illegally and a photo id would prevent that, then I have no problem with it.
However, if the legislators proposed these laws in an attempt to keep voters without picture id's from voting, because they knew these voters tended to vote for the opposition party, then is it a crime? Wouldn't that be an attempt to disenfranchise certain voters?
I think if we had a Democratic or a fair Attorney General that this would be investigated.
Do you agree?

And that is what courts are for, but to deny the lawmakers from proposing laws or threatening them with investigation by the executive branch (Attorney General) is breaching the separation of powers and everything this country stands for.

Let them propose and tell the voters if you believe they are trying to disenfranchize certain voting groups, and if the law is in question, if it passed, that is what the courts are for to strike them down as unconstitutional.

So if, say, two legislatures discussed the picture id and discussed how it would hurt voters who tended to vote for the opposition, then I say it is, or should be a criminal offense.

That is a very dangerous path and can give dictatorial powers to the executive including speech and thought control backed by the threat of criminal prosecution, no matter how good your intentions are you sure you want to go down that path?

 

[spidey07]

no picture ID = not part of society or my country.

Citizens need picture ID to vote. this is part of being a citizen and taking part in the election process.

Not taking part of this great country? don't have ID? no vote for you.

/thread

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: techs
Across the nation many states, at about the same time, decided to enact laws requiring a picture I.D. to vote. If the legislatures who proposed these laws did so in the belief that voters were voting illegally and a photo id would prevent that, then I have no problem with it.
However, if the legislators proposed these laws in an attempt to keep voters without picture id's from voting, because they knew these voters tended to vote for the opposition party, then is it a crime? Wouldn't that be an attempt to disenfranchise certain voters?
So if, say, two legislatures discussed the picture id and discussed how it would hurt voters who tended to vote for the opposition, then I say it is, or should be a criminal offense.
I think if we had a Democratic or a fair Attorney General that this would be investigated.
Do you agree?

What kind of person does not have a picture ID?

From the tone of your post, and especially the last line you believe that Republicans have enacted this to stop the Democratic vote. Which means you assume that a vast majority of people without ID's are Democrats...is that a fair assumption?

You do know that there are many Republicans without ID too...this is not a thing based on party lines.

Most people do not have a picture ID because they have no license. That can be for many reasons, no need for one, it has been revoked, you lost it or it has been stolen.

In any one of the cited examples you can go and renew your license OR get a state ID with your picture on it.

What you are saying is that anyone who SAYS they are who they are, should be allowed to vote....wrong.

Would you want to have your credit casrd stolen only to be used at a store that did not ask for identification of the person using your card?

We can all agree that voting is a sacred right that all of those who can legally do so should and no one should take that right away by using your name to fictitiously vote. There is a level of responsibilty on the shoulders of the voter, IF voting is that important to you then you should be responsible enough to ensure that you do everything you can to vote, that means if you need a state ID get one, you need a license renewed or obtained....do it.

Do whatever you need to do to be able to vote.

 

[Corbett]

If you can't afford $18 for an ID card then WTH would you be wasting your time voting in the first place? You should be out finding A FRIGGIN J.O.B!!!!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
So forcing someone to prove who they are should not be allowed?

Read my post if you want to respond. You address none of what I posted.

There is a result of unintended consequences.

A law is required to enforce something that should be done for the good of the system. People that choose to have previously abused the system will complain that it is unfair. People that get caught up by the system will always be inconvienced.

As what happened in GA, to force a ID on someone throuigh a fee coould be considered a tax.

To allow the government to provided an ID within a reasonable timeframe and then require such an ID is proper.

As long as the rules are applicable to everybody; then because it has a greater impact on one part of society vs another should not have any bearing if the impact is not intended to prevent such actions.

Anyone that is elgible to vote should be able to provide some sort of ID in order to register. At that point why should they complain when they have to provide an ID to vote.
and is not being done. Therefore a law is required to force the issue

 

[piasabird]

Well it is perfectly reasonable premise, that you have to prove who you are. I went to get a drivers license and had to have like 3 forms of identification, a SSN Card, and a Birth Certificate. You cash a check and you have to have a picture ID, you buy a house and you have to have a picture ID. Everything legal involves first proving who you are.

I think perhaps that the SSN Card should be a picture ID.

I really think we need a national ID Card.

The courts may see this differently. However, usually that is because they are idiots. It was an inconvenience for me to get my identification in order to receive a drivers license. However, I like being able to drive.

In reality, when I went to vote, they knew who I was and where I lived already when I registered.

 

[Genx87]

This is why the lefts cries about Diebold fall on deaf ears. On one hand you have them complaining about how diebold corrupts the system while on the other the support allowing anybody vote without having any proof of who they are.

The system is broken even before diebold gets involved.
Let the state provide a free ID of some type if people cant afford one. If people arent even going to bother and get one of those then they wont bother voting either.

 

[piasabird]

That is why I think the SSN Card should be a Photo ID. It is universally accepted. You have to have one to both get a job and also to pay taxes. I would hope you need one to get any help from the government, unless you have a GREEN CARD.

 

[Moonbeam]

What happened to all the paranoia about having 666 stamped on your head. Yow about we tattoo a number on your arm. How about a video and tape recorder implanted in your eye and ear reporting to the National Security Agency. How about tasers implants in case you need to be controlled? There is just so much more we can do to make people act responsibly.

How about you can't vote unless you can pass a galvanic skin test that shows no emotional bias on any political issues or that you can't succumb to any form of hypnosis?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: techs
Across the nation many states, at about the same time, decided to enact laws requiring a picture I.D. to vote. If the legislatures who proposed these laws did so in the belief that voters were voting illegally and a photo id would prevent that, then I have no problem with it.
However, if the legislators proposed these laws in an attempt to keep voters without picture id's from voting, because they knew these voters tended to vote for the opposition party, then is it a crime? Wouldn't that be an attempt to disenfranchise certain voters?
So if, say, two legislatures discussed the picture id and discussed how it would hurt voters who tended to vote for the opposition, then I say it is, or should be a criminal offense.
I think if we had a Democratic or a fair Attorney General that this would be investigated.
Do you agree?

The answer to your question is yes. Creating laws designed to make it difficult for a specific legal bloc of people to vote based soley on that group's tendency to vote for one party or another is wrong.

However your example is kind of lame as requiring some sort of ID to vote is just common sense. Add to that the fact that voter ID laws almost always (in truth I haven't seen an example of this NOT happening) include a provision to provide anyone who doesn't already have a government issued ID a free voter ID card and the issue is solved.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: jrenz
How is this even an issue...

How is it possible in this day and age that somebody doesn't have a photo ID? How long does it take to get one?

Just why can't you recognize a Joe Crow law, when you see it?

Is he related to Jim . . . b/c that guy was a real arsehole. Curiously, Jimmy's old stomping grounds are also the same states most likely to be looking for a way to implement photo ID laws for voting. Bad habits die hard . . .

 

[palehorse]

two words: National ID.

I have yet to see a decent argument against having a standardized National ID being made mandatory for all US citizens, especially given our nation's renewed focus on immigration and national security. I would also have no problem seeing and supporting new programs whose sole purpose is to provide free ID's to those who cannot afford to pay for their own. To me, that sounds like an excellent return on domestic investment.

And showing an ID for voting... why the hell not?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
two words: National ID.

I have yet to see a decent argument against having a standardized National ID being made mandatory for all US citizens, especially given our nation's renewed focus on immigration and national security. I would also have no problem seeing and supporting new programs whose sole purpose is to provide free ID's to those who cannot afford to pay for their own. To me, that sounds like an excellent return on domestic investment.

And showing an ID for voting... why the hell not?

Hahaha right, the same national ID card you'd HAVE to present to be employed?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: palehorse74
two words: National ID.

I have yet to see a decent argument against having a standardized National ID being made mandatory for all US citizens, especially given our nation's renewed focus on immigration and national security. I would also have no problem seeing and supporting new programs whose sole purpose is to provide free ID's to those who cannot afford to pay for their own. To me, that sounds like an excellent return on domestic investment.

And showing an ID for voting... why the hell not?

Hahaha right, the same national ID card you'd HAVE to present to be employed?

ummm, ya...? why not?

Employment would require one of the following:
1) National ID (proves US citizenship)
2) Green card (legal immigrant)
3) Valid work visa (legal immigrant)

While voting would be limited to those with a National ID.

How is that unreasonable? and dont give me any more of your microchip / tattoo strawman crapola... If you are truly serious about cutting down on voter fraud and the employment of illegals, then this would be one of the effective ways to do both.