| Jan 10 @ 12:55 AM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
iam7545
Posts: 4,151
|
How nice it is to have a sensible SCOTUS! About time! I can hear the election scamming Dems whining now! 
Just the thought that intelligent people would push for this proves how corrupt the Dems really are!
Photo freakin ID!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SCOTUS SAYS YES TO PHOTO ID <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A conservative majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to support an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote.
At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud would disenfranchise large numbers of Americans who might lack proper identification -- many of them elderly, poor or minority voters.
In what has become a highly partisan legal and political fight, the justices wrestled with a balancing test of sorts to ensure both state and individual interests were addressed.
Civil rights activists and the state Democratic Party complain Indiana's law is the most restrictive in the nation.
"The real question is, does it disenfranchise anyone?" Todd Rokita, Indiana secretary of state told CNN. "After six elections in the state of Indiana, the answer has been no. ... That's why the opponents to this keep losing in court."
State officials claim that voter turnout actually has increased 2 percent since the law took effect. But Rokita concedes the state has never presented a case of "voter impersonation," which the law was designed to safeguard against.
|
|
  |
|
| Jan 10 @ 1:15 AM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,023
|
Where you been, iam? I have voted in two states. In both states if I were not recognized I had to show I was whom I claimed. Drivers License was the first thing I went for....my picture is prominently displayed along with the address!
So, what is the deal again?
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 8:24 AM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
kjac
Posts: 5,484
|
If only that damned fatwah had worked, we wouldn't be having this problem.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 12:49 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
I'm not sure what the implication of the OP is in this case, but I'm all for proper ID. And I'm an independent centrist, not influenced by partisan BS. .
despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote.
The above conclusion is just a lot of hooie!! Those who can't produce ID probably don't have any, because they are not legitimate voters to begin with, or are not who they say they are. So they should be filtered out of the system, as the law is designed to do.
Any legitimate American who wants a photo-ID can get one.. Illegal Aliens and those who are impersonating someone else, or interested in voter fraud, are the ones who would attempt to resist such a requirement.
-MM 
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 2:21 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
The above conclusion is just a lot of hooie!! Those who can't produce ID probably don't have any, because they are not legitimate voters to begin with, or are not who they say they are. So they should be filtered out of the system, as the law is designed to do.
While on its surface, requiring ID to vote seems to have merit, it flies in the face of the 24th amendment to the Constitution that prohibits overt taxes or any other type of financial levy conditioning the right to vote. As drivers' licences are not free, some argue that mandating their use is a form of poll tax. To date, laws in GA and MO similar to the IN law in question have been thrown out.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that as many as 4.5 million voters, mostly poor and elderly, lack the documentation necessary to obtain a driver's licence. The National Governors' Association has opposed a federal voter ID law, especially one which would provide failsafes for these 4.5 million saying that the new law is an unfunded mandate and could cost the $11 billion across the states.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 2:35 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
While on its surface, requiring ID to vote seems to have merit, it flies in the face of the 24th amendment to the Constitution that prohibits overt taxes or any other type of financial levy conditioning the right to vote. As drivers' licences are not free, some argue that mandating their use is a form of poll tax. To date, laws in GA and MO similar to the IN law in question have been thrown out.
Here in Kansas they have an alternative to a driver's license, still issued by the DMV, that is simply a photo-identification card, with all the same information as a driver's license but does not allow the carrier to operate a motor vehicle. As our laws have changed in recent years regarding renewals, etc., I'm not sure how long the card is valid. It used to have to be renewed every 4 years to be valid. As Eastham points out, requiring a form of identification that the user has to pay for before they can vote has been declared to be unconstitutional. For those who might have to have copies (which cost money) of documentation that is difficult (or impossible to get) in order to get such identification, it does become a burden. I had an uncle who was born under a bridge in northeast Kansas in the 1950s. Literally. There is no hospital documentation of his birth or birth certificate on file. I myself was adopted in my teens by my stepfather, and my birth records in Nebraska sealed. Despite knowing who my father was, the date and time I was born and what hospital, I'm not sure what all I would have to go through to get a copy of my birth certificiate. If I were to lose my current documentation of identiifcation, given the paranoia since 9/11, I might have great difficulty obtaining an approved ID. The point of the argument is not whether or not it is inconvenient to a few, but whether or not it deprives ANY of their rights. If the state is going to require photo-ID to vote, the state should bear the cost (and AID people) in obtaining that ID. Charging for a license as part of the privilege of driving is one thing. Charging to demonstrate a right is another.
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 2:37 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
iam7545
Posts: 4,151
|
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that as many as 4.5 million voters, mostly poor and elderly, lack the documentation necessary to obtain a driver's licence.
eastham - Most states will issue a photo ID at the Motor Vehicles Admin. Maryland does.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 3:27 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
But you have to provide documentation, and you must pay for it. Both are at issue for many Americans and the fact you must pay for a government document that then must be produced at a polling station has been declared unconstitutional.
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 3:37 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
There are many alternatives. And not all of them cost.
I have several photo IDs, besides a drivers license, and I didn't ask for any of them.
The point really is, this measure is to reduce voter fraud, which is a significant problem in this era, especially with rampant Identity theft and massive illegal immigration. And to a very large extent it does that. Photo IDs are often required to use a credit card or to cash a check. Not having one at all is very limiting.
It's a changing world in many ways. Current times require adjustment. We can't conduct ourselves just the way we did some 30 years ago, and deal effectively with modern problems. It is imperative to take steps like this to solve such problems. If a given court system deems it to be unfair, or unconstitutional then they are using poor judgment. Remember, judges are merely people too.
-MM 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 3:40 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
iam7545
Posts: 4,151
|
But you have to provide documentation, and you must pay for it. Both are at issue for many Americans and the fact you must pay for a government document that then must be produced at a polling station has been declared unconstitutional.
Well not anymore
How freakin stupid! You are saying that people cannot afford a $5 photo ID? ANd you agree with that? DO you think we should just trust people?
How do they Bank?  How do they get checks cashed?
Thank God our new SCOTUS has good sense!
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 3:47 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,865
|
It OUTRAGES me when I go to vote and I am not required to identify myself! This is the most outrageous perversion of democracy there is when it comes to the voting system in this country.
All the issues about voting machines pale in comparison to this breach of democracy.
It's about damn time this becomes the law of the land.
Sad news for Democrats is that they may never win another election again once it happens. But at least they might drop their fondness for the illegal invaders who crash our southern border. They won't have any use for them anymore if they can't get them to register their illegal votes!
NO ID, NO VOTE. PERIOD!
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 3:52 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
How freakin stupid! You are saying that people cannot afford a $5 photo ID? ANd you agree with that? DO you think we should just trust people?
Iam, it doesn't matter whether or not some people feel they can or can't afford a $5 photo ID. Requiring any ID that imposes any financial burden (read "cost," whether or not that burden is prohibitive) before you can vote has been ruled unconstitutional as being in violation of the 24th Amendment, which read:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Arguably (obviously, since that IS the argument), requiring a state-approved ID for which one must pay a state fee is construed as being in violation of this.
MM, I don't know where you have obtained photo-ID's that you can use in a polling place that were free. I'd be interested in knowing more.
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 4:16 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
iam7545
Posts: 4,151
|
no - once again it seems you have gone off on a silly tangent. The SCOTUS does not agree with your non sense. Did you read the article???
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 4:34 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
pamdemonium
Posts: 14,503
|
A friend of mine married a woman from China within the last two years.
While accompanying him to vote, she couldn't believe he wasn't asked
to produce ID.
It's not a secure system. It's surprising it hasn't been a law before now.
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 4:34 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
The only photo ID I have ever paid for Nightowl was a driver's license. And I have a number of them. Among them military IDs, employment/contractual IDs, Veteran's ID cards, various memberships to organizations.. All of which qualify as valid identification for legal purposes.
Some credit card companies are now promoting that, and some places advertise free photo IDs just for the asking. I believe the DMV is one of those as are some state and city governments. But I have heard of others too, which I can't recall off the top of my head. I didn't need such things or I would have made note. It just isn't a big problem, and I suggest most resistance to it is for the wrong reasons. There isn't anything wrong with requiring an unknown person to ID themselves for official activities such as voting or using someone's credit card. Again, in this era, it is very justified because so many are attempting to be someone they are not.
I have often been required to have them for use of credit cards or cashing checks, and I never complain about that, because I believe it's a good thing. It protects me and my interests. I am who I am and I can prove it. Hopefully no one else can prove they are me. But without a photo-ID it would be much easier to do so.
Even if one ultimately pays a couple of bucks for such things, what's the harm in that, to protect something very basic to our society? And to protect themselves? As far as constitutional, or fair, obviously it wasn't deemed unconstitutional where it is law. So I suggest that's a matter of interpretation by a number of different parties.
-MM
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 4:41 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 7,784
|
Iam.. the SCOTUS also does not agree with you...
there will be modifications to the law that will solve the unconstitutional aspect of requiring people to pay for the right to vote... the states are fighting it because the only one that makes any sense is to provide free Identification voter cards... and the states do not want to pay for it...
the states want the federal government to pick up the bill....
About time! I can hear the election scamming Dems whining now!
Just the thought that intelligent people would push for this proves how corrupt the Dems really are!
where the heck did you come up with this nonsense... the fact is, that the republicans are just as guilty of election fraud in the past...... you should think about how silly you actually look to the majority here... and not put as much stock in what a limey... ????twit????? says... 
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 4:47 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
eastham
Posts: 6,317
|
Did you actually read the article or only the headline as usual? The Supreme Court has not ruled on this case, they only held oral arguments. The headline presumes from the questioning how the court will rule. There are a number of scholarly articles on this point and many feel that the oral arguements do not play a very important role in the final outcome of the SCOTUS decision-making process. For example, many people read alot into the fact the SCOTUS took on Eldred v. Ashcroft, a case concerning copyright law. During oral argument, the justices, especially Sandra Day O'Connor, asked some very pointed questions of Ted Olsen, then Solicitor General. Many people thought the court would rule in favor of Eldred, and in the end ruled 7-2 against him.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 4:48 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 4,865
|
Liberals/Democrats have fought a requirement to show ID when voting for decades.
They used to use the excuse that it was the equivalent of a "poll tax" which is constitutionally prohibited.
That worked in the 60s and 70s when the civil rights movement was still fresh in everyone's mind. They just let them get away with it.
But in recent years, this excuse doesn't work since there is so much prosperity today among all Americans. (although as you can see that doesn't stop liberals from trying to use the same old tired excuse anyway even today!)
Democrats HATE the idea of requiring ID to vote because the LOVE creating give away programs to illegals and then getting those illegals who got the freebies to illegally vote. They know they will always vote for the party that gives them the payoff.
There have been many cases of illegal voting by illegal immigrants that did exactly that. I heard about one case a few weeks ago by an illegal alien who voted multiple times (for Democrats of course) in many different places. I forgot the number of times, but it was huge!
Requiring ID, it's the nuclear scenario for Democrats!
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 4:51 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,087
|
As far as constitutional, or fair, obviously it wasn't deemed unconstitutional where it is law.
I hate to bring up a small thing like "process," but laws are passed which are often then contested and subsequently shown to be unconstitutional. Laws are not subjected to a constitutional review by the courts until they are contested. And IamALiar saying that the Supreme Court disagrees with me obviously missed Eastham's post (or didn't have anyone around to read it to him) stating that several such laws have been deemed unconstitutional to date.
To date, laws in GA and MO similar to the IN law in question have been thrown out.
This is apparently the first time the law in Indiana has been contested on constitutional grounds, and since the Supreme Court is only 'reported" to "appear" likely to support the law, that doesn't mean that as yet they have disagreed with my position. And as I have posted on other threads, the Supreme Court has upheld constitutionality of certain things at one time or another, only to be ultimately overturned by a later Supreme Court.
Military ID's aren't exactly "free." You have to join the military. Something that would be pretty difficult for an 80-year-old woman on an Okalhoma reservation with no birth record to do between now and the next election. If she never had occasion to drive and never used a bank account, and has been cashing her checks at a local institution where she has been known all her life, she may never have been required to present any identification.
Again, the issue is not whether or not it is inconvenient for a few, but whether or not it Deprives the Rights of ANY. My position remains. If it ain't free, it's unconstitutional. (Only in reference to any ID required to vote am I applying that statement. Don't take it out of context and claim something I'm not saying.)
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 10 @ 4:55 PM |
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law |
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 7,784
|
Democrats HATE the idea of requiring ID to vote because the LOVE creating give away programs to illegals and then getting those illegals who got the freebies to illegally vote. They know they will always vote for the party that gives them the payoff.
There have been many cases of illegal voting by illegal immigrants that did exactly that. I heard about one case a few weeks ago by an illegal alien who voted multiple times (for Democrats of course) in many different places. I forgot the number of times, but it was huge!
back this up with actual facts..and not what the party line is...
|
| |
|
|