Proof-of-Citizenship Ruling Victory for Honest Vote

[Bowfinger]

Part of functioning in society is living within accepted societal norms. Having a government ID is part of that expected norm.

If you have a job, receive a pay check, get a check from the government, apply for a job, use a credit / debt card, go to the doctor, buy a firearm, apply for a loan,,,,, to only name a few, you are expected to have a form of government ID.

That talking point doesn't magically become true just because voter suppression cheerleaders repeat it tirelessly. All have been repeatedly refuted in the many previous threads here. Many of those things do NOT require a current, state-issued, photo ID, and many people do not do the subset of those things that actually do require such IDs. You should also educate yourself before you presume to understand the issue.

Requiring someone to have a government issued photo ID is not an excessive burden.

Not to you, perhaps, but you are not the center of the universe. It is a burden for millions of Americans, and that's a fact. Not coincidentally, those millions tend to fall in demographics that lean to the left: elderly, disabled, students, and minorities. That is why the RNC launched this voter suppression campaign, to rig elections in their favor.

 

[ivwshane]

Part of functioning in society is living within accepted societal norms. Having a government ID is part of that expected norm.

If you have a job, receive a pay check, get a check from the government, apply for a job, use a credit / debt card, go to the doctor, buy a firearm, apply for a loan, take a air plane, enter a public building,,,, to only name a few, you are expected to have a form of government ID.

Requiring someone to have a government issued photo ID is not an excessive burden.

When they have to pay for that ID and any supporting documents it is. Do you think we should adhere to the constitution on this issue or is this something you think ignoring the constitution on is ok in this instance?

Poll tax, do you understand it!

Those who claimed they cared about voter fraud would be looking at absentee and administration issues before moving on to in person voter fraud.

But we all know, via connect the dots anecdotes and outright statements declaring that voter ID laws are intended for one purpose only, to help get republicans elected. It's the most disgusting and unamerican thing I can think of that has happened in my life time.

 

[1prophet]

This is what potential systematic voting fraud looks like, and it's not a bunch of illegals either.

http://www.gunkjournal.com/2014/03/20/news/1403200.html

Following Justice Schick's ruling last week that many of the newly registered voters in the village would have to file affidavits confirming their residency in the village, the FBI appeared on Thursday, March 13, and forty agents fanned out through the village to check on residency qualifications. This followed challenges filed by individuals in the village against many of the new registrants while, at the same time, the Rural Heritage Party candidates called for absentee ballots for anyone still registered in Bloomingburg who may now be living somewhere else.


These ballots, or some of them, have also been challenged by attorneys for Shalom Lamm and Black Creek, the developer behind the controversial 396 town home project on property annexed to the village from the Town of Mamakating.



Capping the flurry of pre-election legal actions were the issuance of 140 subpoenas by Justice Schick's court, with state trooper presence, on Monday, March 17.



All of this followed months of tension, fear, scaremongering, animosity and ethnic division over the 396 town home project, which most believe will become a Satmar Hasidic community, despite the developers' frequent reminder that no units have actually been sold yet.

 

[Texashiker]

Not to you, perhaps, but you are not the center of the universe. It is a burden for millions of Americans, and that's a fact. Not coincidentally, those millions tend to fall in demographics that lean to the left: elderly, disabled, students, and minorities. That is why the RNC launched this voter suppression campaign, to rig elections in their favor.

So you justify people enjoying the privileges of citizenship with none of the responsibilities?

These minorities, disabled, students and elderly, how are they drawing government benefits, or even going to school without a photo id? How do you sign up for food stamps without an id?

If you have to have vaccine list to go to school. Part of going to the doctor is providing an ID. Is proving an ID at the doctors office oppressive? I have to give the doctors office all kinds of stuff before they will see me. I guess I am being oppressed?

Disabled, how are they on social security disability without government ID?

 

[ivwshane]

So you justify people enjoying the privileges of citizenship with none of the responsibilities?

These minorities, disabled, students and elderly, how are they drawing government benefits, or even going to school without a photo id? How do you sign up for food stamps without an id?

If you have to have vaccine list to go to school. Part of going to the doctor is providing an ID. Is proving an ID at the doctors office oppressive? I have to give the doctors office all kinds of stuff before they will see me. I guess I am being oppressed?

Disabled, how are they on social security disability without government ID?

Holy fuck! You are retarded!

Just because you can't think of a situation in which someone doesn't have an ID doesn't mean that such a situation doesn't exist.

 

[Zaap]

There's no great crisis in this country of anyone not having access to IDs.

Its amazing how libs will reverse themselves so stupidly. They insist there's no such thing as voter fraud (certainly its not widespread, but then it doesn't need to be to contaminate elections that come down to really close votes) and then theyll turn around and swear up and down that there's some massive "crisis!" of millions of people somehow unable to get an ID. This is even more absurd in light of the fact that IDs often don't cost much and are even issued free in certain cases.

 

[Texashiker]

Holy fuck! You are retarded!

Just because you can't think of a situation in which someone doesn't have an ID doesn't mean that such a situation doesn't exist.

How do people function without a photo id?

Ever work a day in their life for a pay check? Every live on your own and need electricity, water, sewage?

Ever get a cell phone and sign a contract? How do you sign a contract without id?

Ever apply for a job? All the jobs I have ever applied for required two forms of government id.

There is no excuse not to have a government id.

 

[Bowfinger]

So you justify people enjoying the privileges of citizenship with none of the responsibilities?

This is why pretty much everyone considers you a buffoon. You seem completely incapable of intelligent conversation. The "responsibility" to have a current, state-issued, photo ID exists only in your head.

These minorities, disabled, students and elderly, how are they drawing government benefits, or even going to school without a photo id? How do you sign up for food stamps without an id?

All addressed in earlier threads, again and again. Reading is fundamental, don't you know.

By the way, if you knew anything about this issue at all, you'd know that most of your voter suppression laws explicitly prohibit accepting student IDs. The RNC doesn't want students to vote.

If you have to have vaccine list to go to school. Part of going to the doctor is providing an ID. Is proving an ID at the doctors office oppressive? I have to give the doctors office all kinds of stuff before they will see me. I guess I am being oppressed?

Sucks to be you I guess. I don't remember ever having to show an ID when I visit a doctor. Maybe I did once, 15-20 years ago when I first started going to that doctor and that health care group, but certainly not recently.

Disabled, how are they on social security disability without government ID?

Ignoring the fact that not all disabled people are on SSD, my mother is both retired and disabled. She handled all of her Social Security application over the phone and via mail. I am almost certain she wasn't asked for a current, state-issued, photo ID at any point in that process (many years ago). More to the point, however, she does not have such an ID now, even though she probably had one back at that time. Why? Because she no longer drives, so she let it expire. And I know my mother-in-law is in the same boat. Indeed, I suspect that's the single biggest reason most people lack the required ID -- they don't drive, so they don't need one. It's not complicated.

Regardless, the FACT remains that millions of eligible American voters do not have the current, state-issued, photo IDs required by your voter suppression laws. You are trying to disenfranchise them.

 

[simpletron]

Not to you, perhaps, but you are not the center of the universe. It is a burden for millions of Americans, and that's a fact. Not coincidentally, those millions tend to fall in demographics that lean to the left: elderly, disabled, students, and minorities. That is why the RNC launched this voter suppression campaign, to rig elections in their favor.

You might want to read the supreme court decision, Crawford vs Marion County Election Board.

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.

By the way, the elderly leans to the right and make up a majority of the people who don't currently have acceptable ID.

 

[Texashiker]

Ignoring the fact that not all disabled people are on SSD, my mother is both retired and disabled. She handled all of her Social Security application over the phone and via mail.

Did your mother have to provide a copy of her SS card?

How did she pay in SS without ID? How did she old a job without ID?

If someone is capable of voting, they are capable of getting a photo id.

 

[Bowfinger]

You might want to read the supreme court decision, Crawford vs Marion County Election Board.

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.

By the way, the elderly leans to the right and make up a majority of the people who don't currently have acceptable ID.

Old news. Once again, some of you folks need to read the old threads. The key point here was that SCOTUS acknowledged there was a burden (and if I'm remembering the right case, even acknowledged that this burden might be motivated by partisan motives rather than the purported vote fraud justification). Nonetheless, the court ruled that this burden was not so great that it justified federal intervention in the States' rights to manage their own elections. It seems there was another qualifying factor cited, though I don't remember the details. It was discussed at length in previous threads, however.

I disagree with this decision, for the record, but acknowledge it is the law of the land for now. I will note that this is the same right wing court that recently gutted the Voting Rights Act, so I think their rationale is suspect.

 

[Bowfinger]

Did your mother have to provide a copy of her SS card?

How did she pay in SS without ID? How did she old a job without ID?

If someone is capable of voting, they are capable of getting a photo id.

Shut up, stupid. She has had a valid SS account since she started working. You cannot use an SS card to vote. She had valid ID when she was working. She is retired. She had a current, state-issued, photo ID when she more active, working, driving, etc. It has expired. She can no longer use it to vote, or couldn't in states with voter suppression laws. Which of these plain English words and simple concepts are too taxing for your damaged little head?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I disagree with this decision, for the record, but acknowledge it is the law of the land for now. I will note that this is the same right wing court that recently gutted the Voting Rights Act, so I think their rationale is suspect.

Why do you disagree with the court's ruling last year on the Voting Rights Act? Do you feel there is systemic abuse in those 9 states affected? If so, do you have evidence?

 

[Bowfinger]

Why do you disagree with the court's ruling last year on the Voting Rights Act? Do you feel there is systemic abuse in those 9 states affected? If so, do you have evidence?

Yes, those states do have a track record of systemic abuse. Further, after SCOTUS reopened the gate, some of those states quickly acted to impose new abuses. I concede I don't have details, however, since it's been months since I last read about it.

 

[fskimospy]

I doubt there has been any studies that actually properly estimate the number of people voting in person illegally. without voter ID, there's no way to know.

I see lack of voter ID as a gaping security hole that needs to be filled. You see it as enabling poor people (who can easily get the voter ID cards..) to vote who otherwise would be disenfranchised from voting. Frankly, I don't see your argument as having merit. Getting an ID is easy.

This is a frequently repeated argument by the right and it is without merit. There are lots of ways to know without voter ID, as have been talked about in numerous other threads. In-person voter fraud would be detected by double votes when the impersonated individual came in to vote among other ways.

I think you need to learn more about in-person voter fraud before making such blanket statements.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, those states do have a track record of systemic abuse. Further, after SCOTUS reopened the gate, some of those states quickly acted to impose new abuses. I concede I don't have details, however, since it's been months since I last read about it.

If you get some time I would love to see this evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

Why do you disagree with the court's ruling last year on the Voting Rights Act? Do you feel there is systemic abuse in those 9 states affected? If so, do you have evidence?

I think Justice Ginsberg's dissent is a pretty epic demolition of the majority's reasoning in that case. While the whole thing bears reading, you can start at page 13 to see some of the evidence compiled.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/717254/ginsberg-vra-dissent.pdf

Additionally, the court's reasoning doesn't even really stand up to layman's logical review, as they used a test of voting rates. If voting rates were lower in the states affected by the VRA it would have been considered ineffective and therefore struck down. If the voting rates were the same or higher in the states affected, then its purpose was served and therefore it would be struck down.

In short, as Ginsberg says, this is like throwing away an umbrella in a rainstorm because you aren't getting wet.

 

[Vic]

LOL. No it doesn't. But by all means keep spewing a meaningless braindead slogan if it makes you feel better.

Yaknow, you complain about statism but you're one of the biggest statists on here.

 

[Texashiker]

Shut up, stupid.

You are the one who brought your mother into this.

Lets just drop that topic and leave her out of this discussion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think Justice Ginsberg's dissent is a pretty epic demolition of the majority's reasoning in that case. While the whole thing bears reading, you can start at page 13 to see some of the evidence compiled.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/717254/ginsberg-vra-dissent.pdf

Additionally, the court's reasoning doesn't even really stand up to layman's logical review, as they used a test of voting rates. If voting rates were lower in the states affected by the VRA it would have been considered ineffective and therefore struck down. If the voting rates were the same or higher in the states affected, then its purpose was served and therefore it would be struck down.

In short, as Ginsberg says, this is like throwing away an umbrella in a rainstorm because you aren't getting wet.

Interesting. Do you feel that the law should have also included western States with a horrible turnout of minority voters? It appears there may be systemic abuses in those States that are much, much worse.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting. Do you feel that the law should have also included western States with a horrible turnout of minority voters? It appears there may be systemic abuses in those States that are much, much worse.

You may have misunderstood my post: I said basing your determinations on minority turnout is not a good way of doing things. That's actually what the conservative majority did. Does that mean you similarly distrust their reasoning?

EDIT: I strongly urge you to read the dissent in full. It's not that common that a justice really goes after a majority opinion like Scalia does, and Ginsberg tears it a new one.

Also, this ruling was part of one of Scalia's most brazen bouts of hypocrisy ever on the bench. In the same set of rulings one day apart he said that SCOTUS had no right to question Congress' decisions and the following day said Congress couldn't be trusted to make the right decision.

 

[Fayd]

Incorrect. One can estimate the incidence of such fraud by counting collisions, i.e., the frequency of two people voting under the same name. Such studies have been done and have confirmed that the rate is negligible.

that fails to take into account the number of occurances of someone voting under someone else's name, when they know that other person won't be voting.

You think it's easy to get the required current, state-issued, photo IDs because you cannot see beyond your own circumstances (presumably relatively young, middle class, healthy, and mobile). Millions of Americans live in different situations, however, raising substantial obstacles to obtaining such IDs and the documentation required, e.g., certified birth certificate. This has been discussed at great length in a dozen previous threads. Perhaps you might want to read some of them before assuming you understand the issue.

A state issued ID costs somewhere between 5-20 dollars. If the potentially disenfranchised voter can't make it to the DMV to get a card, how are they going to get to a voter station?

 

[Zaap]

Yaknow, you complain about statism but you're one of the biggest statists on here.

LOL.

You're the idiot sitting around yelling "freedom means not wearing pants!" Wait, no one responded, let me repeat cause I know this is really profound stuff... "I repeat..."

When told you'really spouting nonsense like a moron you reply with "you're such a sexist!"

You just seem to hang around picking up a few political phrases now and then and then spouting them back almost at random, like a human parrot. But you need to work on actually *understanding * any of the shit you're attempting to sling. But by all means, continue the pathetic display.

 

[fskimospy]

that fails to take into account the number of occurances of someone voting under someone else's name, when they know that other person won't be voting.

A state issued ID costs somewhere between 5-20 dollars. If the potentially disenfranchised voter can't make it to the DMV to get a card, how are they going to get to a voter station?

So your idea is that individuals will conduct an investigation of people that they know, find out who isn't planning on voting, and then make a unique trip to the polling station, waiting in line for each time while running the risk of being detected by a poll worker who could very well notice the same person coming in twice and thus likely taking a trip to prison, all to cast a single fraudulent in-person ballot?

Someone is so smart as to carry out this investigation and perpetration undetected, but so stupid as to not just commit absentee ballot fraud instead, which is way easier and has a way lower chance of being caught?

And you think this is a source of voter fraud that is happening so frequently that we need to require every individual in the United States to obtain a government issued ID card.

Excuse me if I can't help but laugh.

 

[Texashiker]

A state issued ID costs somewhere between 5-20 dollars. If the potentially disenfranchised voter can't make it to the DMV to get a card, how are they going to get to a voter station?

I am not attacking you, I am just using your post to convey a point.

If someone can not get to the DMV or afford the $20 for an ID, is it safe to assume that person is paying very little in taxes?

Who are the disenfranchised voters everyone keeps talking about? People who live off the system? People who draw welfare, food stamps and live in public housing?

If someone wants to vote bad enough, pick up cans on the side of the road, wash cars, cut grass, do day labor,,,, save up $20 and get someone to bring you to the DMV.

Elderly and disabled excluded, those who contribute so little are the ones who demand so much.

If someone wishes to be a functioning member of society, then do what is expected of you.