Warning: main(/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
The Supreme Court ruled today that states can require voters to produce a photo ID when they vote. This is an important step in the right direction to strengthen the integrity of our voting system and preventing voter fraud by allowing states to have voters prove they are who they say they are.
Imagine that! ID needed to cash checks, DL needed to drive, and now ID to vote! Next thing will be disallowing dead Democrat voters.
Evil Republicans.
Impeach Justice Stevens, the lousy traitor.
2.
Magnum Serpentine | April 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
This also prevents the poor from voting. They cannot pay the Poll Tax so they cannot vote. It cost quite a bit of money to get the poll tax sticker (Voter ID Card or a Photo ID) and many cannot afford to purchase the poll tax sticker. many poor would rather buy food than vote.
3.
Chip | April 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Given that many states give free voter id cards to the poor, that nixes that argument.
Care to try again?
4.
Canadian Observer | April 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
many cannot afford to purchase the poll tax sticker. many poor would rather buy food than vote.
2. Magnum Serpentine | April 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
This is happening where? In the greatest and richest democracy the world has ever known, that’s where.
Why does the Supreme Court hate America’s poor folk?
Chip, which States give free voter ID’s? Perhaps all your poor folk could pull up stakes and migrate to those generous areas of the country.
5.
OhioOrrin | April 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Magnum - do u contend the “poor” cannot cash support checks since they lack photo ID?
voting is a States Rights issue & requirements vary.
for ex - in Ohio the voter lacking ID may cast a provisional ballot then later bring in other ID such as a SSN card or utilities stub to validate their provisional ballot. the fact that the election may have already been decided does not mean their ballot doesn’t count also.
lastly voting is not an entitlement, it is a right which does not confer until one is 18 & can be revoked (felony), denied (fraud), or invalidated (failure to follow instructions).
it is therefore incorrect to conclude that the poor are prevented from voting strictly due to an ID requirement.
6.
Bigfoot | April 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
It cost quite a bit of money to get the poll tax sticker (Voter ID Card or a Photo ID) and many cannot afford to purchase the poll tax sticker.
Where I live, a new driver’s license costs $45, and a renewal costs $30. Each is good for 5 years. A non-license photo ID card for anyone over 16 costs $15, which is a little over 2 hours labor, at minimum wage.
many poor would rather buy food than vote.
Many poor people get food stamps - at your and my expense.
7.
js | April 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
those dead folk are just gonna haveta get new ID cards….the ones they got expired..lol…
8.
js | April 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
poor folks normally have ID’s anyways…you have to have photo ID to cash checks…open bank accounts….apply for government benefits….get a job…you know….stuff that lets you pay rent…oh…and to rent a place….you really need to ID who you are….apartments will not even let you check out the model home with out ID….so stop pulling our legs…with liberal alagator tears…this is a common sense issue….and it will stop illegal aliens from voting too…
9.
Rich | April 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Here’s an idea to you whiners out there. People that cannot afford the 15 dollars for an id. can get one with the 300-600 stimulus check. Should have some left over for food too Magnum. That five hundred plus will buy about four years of ramen noodles. Then they can vote and eat. (I was a poor college student for several years and have eaten ramen noodles in any manner possible, so spare the ensuing comments)
10.
InDaVa | April 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
“Voting rights activists who hoped the federal government would help local governments pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines have gone from elation to frustration as they watched Republicans who supported such a proposal in committee vote against bringing it to the House floor.
When New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt’s Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act came up for a vote in the House Administration Committee on April 2, the Republicans on the committee gave it their unanimous support. But two weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn’t make it that far.”
What possible reason could the GOP have for opposing such a measure?
11.
hermie | April 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Those who took this to court could have paid for many state id cards for the poor whom they claim to have represented, instead of paying high-priced lawyers.
Heck, for the cost of piano lessons for his kids, a typical liberal could’ve used that $10,000 to pay for the IDs of over 650 poor people.
12.
Danish Artist | April 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
In New Orleans (and I’m sure other liberal bastions), this would mean “one person - one vote”.
Wow, what a concept!
13.
Peach Tree | April 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Next we will have the State’s requirement of tattooing the mark of the beast “666″ on the foreheads of all citizens making less than $20,000. This way we can keep track of those on welfare. The conservative’s fascism of America continues.
14.
JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Take your meds, Peach Tree. You’re scaring the non-psychotic people on this blog.
Let me get this straight: federal elections occur every 2 years. A “poor” person can’t put down their pop corn and stop watch Opra on their flat screen in their government provided housing to work enough to raise $15 for a state ID over 2 years? Quite a few states will give them for free. Quite a few welfare offices give them for free.
Here’s an idea: if you cannot get off your lazy ass for a couple hours of work to get an ID, then your are probably too stupid to vote, so, don’t.
16.
SteaM | April 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Here’s an idea: if you cannot get off your lazy ass for a couple hours of work to get an ID, then your are probably too stupid to vote, so, don’t.
Yeah, you’d be as stupid as those sorry people who voted Bush in for a second term. Fools.
I guess you just get the president you deserve. Whether you are too lazy to vote or are too uninformed and stupid to vote wisely.
Magnum, the rules are easier than those restricting firearms. Are you saying that those laws requiring
1. a fee for a license to own or carry long gun.
2. a fee for a a license to own or carry pistol.
3. a fee for a license to concealed carry ability
4. a fee to transfer ownership of a firearm
are designed to restrict the ability to exercise a constitutionally protected right by the poor? Interesting. Because the voter I.D. is free.
19.
Kahn | April 28th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
InDaVa - maybe Republicans don’t think that 8 years after 2000, this is an “emergency”. Maybe they’ve seen some states pull back from this direction because it’s a big pain.
But whatever, why don’t you try to figure out why yourself? Did you look into it at all?
Innuendo is enough I guess.
20.
Magnum Serpentine | April 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
This hurts those who cannot find a job or unable to work due to disability and are homeless cannot afford to spend one red cent on a poll tax sticker. Also they cannot travel to those states that offer free id due to no transportation. Many disabled live in group homes and do not have to worry about money (they don’t have it anyway) so the poll tax will hurt them the most. And there are people out there who would work any job but there are no jobs to find. They spend their entire day putting in applications but you cannot make employers hire someone if they do not want to.
Remember the Supreme Court is under the control of Republican Activist judges.
Magnum, check the link I provided above. In quite a few states, those with disabilities are given ID’s for free.
You can call it a poll tax if you want, but, most people need ID in order to live in the modern world. Most have it. This is just another disingenuous argument from the left so that they continue to have dead people vote, and, when they lose, say the GOP cheated.
22.
Kahn | April 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Magnum, this is not a “poll tax”, get off it. Any valid ID will do and you know it.
But voting is ONE right. You’re OK with restricting the 2nd Amendment by charging actual license fees like I outline above? Interesting. And on top of the fees for many gun related licenses, some states require background checks, fingerprinting (which you have to pay for), and for some items waits of several weeks.
How about hunting and fishing? Shouldn’t that be free also? It’s not by the way. In fact fishing licensees alone can cost quite a bit.
Unlike the many states willing to charge a minimum ($10) for a photo ID or just give you one for free, hunting, fishing, right to own, right to carry, and transfer fees are rarely if ever waived. Is it OK to restrict these rights from the poor? Really?
23.
Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
The first observation, of course, is that conservatives are always complaining bitterly about “activist judges” until the judge or judges rule in a way that they agree with. So, the reality is that’s it’s always really about outcomes and not process. Second, this illustrates the GOP obsession with “voter fraud” absent any actual evidence of such fraud. In this instance, the Court noted that Indiana’s law was not crafted to do anything about a problem which had actually occurred in Indiana, but that could theoretically happen.
The reality is that the interest on the part of the Republican Party is their belief, likely true, is that by making voting even a little bit more difficult, just a little bit more inconvenient, its effect will be most likely to reduce the number of votes from groups which historically tend to vote for Democrats. It’s not subtle. Regardless, the Court has now ruled that the acknowledged “impacts” of the Indiana law (as opposed to what the majority styles as the general “burden” placed upon voters by the statute) are not severe enough to outweigh an asserted state interest, despite the lack of evidence of the state interest existing outside of the theoretical. So, it is what it is.
OMG? Are you friggin serious Diana? No wait. I’ve seen you post before and sadly you are.
What is so difficult about having some form of ID? Seriously!
On top of that even if there’s a perceived problem in other ares (as Kahn brought up Guns) but no proof you’re all for it. But fixing a gaping hole in a system that is so important you’re willing to ignore? Oi oi…
25.
Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
The politicization of the Justice Department culminating in the U.S. Attorney scandal (which continues to play out) was largely about U.S. Attorneys who weren’t putting a high priority on penny-ante voter fraud cases and were instead using the limited resources of their offices for more significant problems. There is no evidence of a “gaping hole in a system that is so important” based on actual evidence. It’s just a theoretical threat whose real impact, as Republicans know full well, is going to fall on likely Democratic voters.
Nothing more than a poll tax. But considering there are many among the white poor who vote GOP because their preacher says so this might cut both ways.
27.
SEW | April 28th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Actually the impact will likely fall on Democrat candidates, not [illegal] Democrat voters. Legal voters required now. That should change the political landscape of south Texas, Chicago, Philly and Washington state for starters.
Say, Diana, as you give us your Howard Dean approved talking points, perhaps you could answer the question of what is so difficult in having some ID?
Or is it that you Democrats are afraid of finally having your election shenanigans stopped?
30.
neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“It’s just a theoretical threat whose real impact, as Republicans know full well, is going to fall on likely Democratic voters. -Diana”
Well of course Diana. Without the uneducated, the Democrats wouldn’t have any voters.
31.
neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Hey Bill,
How’s that island your on? And since you appear to be the conscientious objector, I am worried about your access to the internet. Evil republicans post here and that just may upset your balance and equilibium with nature. What impact will that have on the weaker species?
And you obviously have electricity to the island so how about your carbon footprint and it’s impact on the island. Had you thought about that?
You seem awfully selfish.
32.
Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
William Teach,
Have you lived lately as someone who is poor and/or elderly and/or disabled? The Supreme Court has decided the case, so it’s ancient history until some later Court should decide to overturn this decision. However, no one but the willfully blind Republican partisan sees the Indiana statute for anything other than what it is. This is a classic case of a solution in desperate search of an actual problem.
33.
js | April 28th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
to get a job, you have to have ID…to open a bank account…you have to have ID….to rent a place to live…you have to have an ID…these days….every one in america should have an ID….and to vote…you have to have an address….so…reality..the entire liberal excuse is nothing more than spam….and its a pack of amatuers that spread this lie….putz’s and all…
34.
JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
“This is a classic case of a solution in desperate search of an actual problem.”
Bullsh*t. In Washington state recently, and seemingly every year in Philadelphia, more votes are counted than were cast. Each phony vote disenfranchises a legal voter.
So why don’t you care about those disenfranchised voters? Because they’re Republicans?
35.
js | April 28th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
shoot…even to get welfare and food stamps….you gotta have ID….so whats the problem….the only people that wont have an ID is the homeless…and illegal immigrants….the homeless dont have addresses…and most of them only vote because the demoncrats give em a bottle of whisky and a pack of smokes….that leaves illegals…who should not be voting anyhow….sucks….but its true….this whole excuse is a front to get illegals to vote for demoncrats….now aint that sumptin!!
36.
phnx | April 28th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Twenty-five states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Seven of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo. In no state is a voter who cannot produce identification turned away from the polls—all states have some sort of recourse for voters without identification to cast a vote. However, in Georgia and Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order for their ballots to be counted. For specifics on what forms of identification are acceptable and the options available to voters who cannot present identification.
So this nonsense about denying voting privaleges, poll taxes, and republican conspiracy is simply that…nonsense.
Nice try leftist.
37.
Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Voting always involves counting errors. That’s why the possibility of recounts are always a statutory part of the process. Voter fraud has and does occur, however, no one has demonstrated any history of voters appearing to vote in person and claiming to be someone that they are not which is the only “issue” the Indiana statute is supposed to “fix”. If Republicans were out there advocating for electronic voting with full paper trails I’d be a lot more impressed with their passionate devotion to the integrity of the voting process.
However, the very high and greatly improved numbers of Democratic primary voters (much better than the rapidly tanking GOP brand) this season bodes very well for the gains that the Democrats will make in the House and Senate even if we don’t win the White House, as well.
38.
js | April 28th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
problem is….they are not denying anyone the right to vote….that is about as far as the constitution allows the fed’s to go…the rest is left up to the state…
39.
neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Diana,
poll #’s show McCain in much better shape than you infer due to the “tanking GOP”.
Your candidates are blowing it and you know it, hence the desperate attempts to skewer McCain and the eeeevil republicans.
It’s too late. Say hello to President McCain.
40.
js | April 28th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
only a putz counts the chicks before the eggs have hatched, no?
41.
JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
[N]o one has demonstrated any history of voters appearing to vote in person and claiming to be someone that they are not which is the only “issue” the Indiana statute is supposed to “fix”.
More B.S. In studies of Washington state and Philadelphia, it’s been shown that many people who were not dead voted in the names of people who were dead. Had they been required to show photo ID, they might not have been able to do that.
And that’s exactly the kind of wrong that the Indiana statute is designed to fix, and why we need more laws like it.
I doubt Diana would claim this “wasn’t a problem” if she had been denied her vote because someone else had voted for her. Just because you haven’t seen any of the problems doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Once again I’m going to have to put forward Kahn’s point, do you think it’s perfectly fine that folks are denied their second amendment rights through fees, classes, and the like? I bet you’d scream poll tax if folks had to take a class that they pay for to vote. (I’d also agree with you as well)
43.
js | April 28th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
i dono…my gramma died in 1987…and she voted in chicago in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004….strange…she seems to have turned democrat too…..
44.
Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
It’s very interesting indeed that js apparently knows about the secret ballot that was cast in his grandmother’s name.
45.
Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
neocon,
I know you like to imagine I wrote things that I didn’t, but if you reread what I wrote perhaps you’ll note that I predicted the Democratic Party gains that are coming in the House and Senate. The White House is hardly a done deal. There may be a President McCain but, if we’re really lucky (although it’s a long shot) Democrats will have 60 Democrats in the Senate to help minimize the destructiveness of a McCain administration.
46.
neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Vote early and vote often.
47.
neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
And you say that because the current Democratically controlled House and Senate have been so effective?
48.
js | April 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
you think its so odd for the dead to vote putz?
they do it in Conneticut…(Following up on the matches, UConn students examined the records of nearly 100 of the suspect voters at 10 town and city halls among those with the most cases. Guilford led the state with 39, followed by West Hartford (17), Enfield (15), Stonington (13) and Norwalk (11).)
and Ohio;
(NewsChannel5 compared the county’s voter registration rolls with death records from the Social Security Administration, finding 12,688 people who have died but are still registered to vote. Many of the dead voters passed away years ago, and a good number of them more than a decade ago)
in Washington State;
(All but two of the dead voters were in King County. Pierce County did not provide voter history despite numerous requests for the records. One dead voter was from Clark County in southwest Washington, and one was from Spokane County. Of the 24, 14 were credited with voting absentee and 10 with voting at the polls. )
and even New York…
(An analysis of state-wide records by the Poughkeepsie Journal reveals that 77,000 dead people remain on election rolls in New York State, and some 2,600 may have managed to vote after they had died. The study also found that Democrats are more successful at voting after death than Republicans, by a margin of four-to-one, largely because so many dead people seem to vote in Democrat-dominated New York City.)
so whats the problem, why cant my gramma vote too?
49.
Danish Artist | April 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Did you know that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to kill the Indiana picture ID requirement couldn’t find any victims? What a tragedy it is when a Democrat can’t find a victim. The plaintiffs could not produce one shred of evidence that any legal Indiana resident would be prevented from casting a legal vote by a law requiring a picture ID.
50.
InDaVa | April 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“InDaVa - maybe Republicans don’t think that 8 years after 2000, this is an “emergency”. Maybe they’ve seen some states pull back from this direction because it’s a big pain.
But whatever, why don’t you try to figure out why yourself? Did you look into it at all?
Innuendo is enough I guess.”
Yes, I have looked into it. Right Kahn, securing the integrity of our electoral process is just too big a pain for Republican’s to deal with. A paper trail is a good thing, can’t you see that?
[…] a reminder from comment #49 by Danish Artist at Blogs For Victory. Sphere: Related […]
53.
Kahn | April 29th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Well yah InDaVa, I can. Paper ballots leave a paper trail. The problem comes when you re-engineer from paper to electronic and spend millions doing it and go through all kind of learning curves to realize that you forgot that ballots could be recounted and examined and an electronic vote could not.
Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
54.
InDaVa | April 30th, 2008 at 9:56 am
“The problem comes when you re-engineer from paper to electronic and spend millions doing it and go through all kind of learning curves to realize that you forgot that ballots could be recounted and examined and an electronic vote could not.”
LMAO! You, my tired old fartbag pal, are an idiot. Oh, now you are worried about money being spent? To ensure a fair election?
Kahn, I know you didn’t even look into Holt’s bill. It’s about accountability. States can opt-in if they’d like or not. Not confusing stuff but it would make our voting process more secure. I knew it would be too hard for your senile old brain to absorb.
54 Comments
1. SEW | April 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Imagine that! ID needed to cash checks, DL needed to drive, and now ID to vote! Next thing will be disallowing dead Democrat voters.
Evil Republicans.
Impeach Justice Stevens, the lousy traitor.
2. Magnum Serpentine | April 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
This also prevents the poor from voting. They cannot pay the Poll Tax so they cannot vote. It cost quite a bit of money to get the poll tax sticker (Voter ID Card or a Photo ID) and many cannot afford to purchase the poll tax sticker. many poor would rather buy food than vote.
3. Chip | April 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Given that many states give free voter id cards to the poor, that nixes that argument.
Care to try again?
4. Canadian Observer | April 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
many cannot afford to purchase the poll tax sticker. many poor would rather buy food than vote.
2. Magnum Serpentine | April 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
This is happening where? In the greatest and richest democracy the world has ever known, that’s where.
Why does the Supreme Court hate America’s poor folk?
Chip, which States give free voter ID’s? Perhaps all your poor folk could pull up stakes and migrate to those generous areas of the country.
5. OhioOrrin | April 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Magnum - do u contend the “poor” cannot cash support checks since they lack photo ID?
voting is a States Rights issue & requirements vary.
for ex - in Ohio the voter lacking ID may cast a provisional ballot then later bring in other ID such as a SSN card or utilities stub to validate their provisional ballot. the fact that the election may have already been decided does not mean their ballot doesn’t count also.
lastly voting is not an entitlement, it is a right which does not confer until one is 18 & can be revoked (felony), denied (fraud), or invalidated (failure to follow instructions).
it is therefore incorrect to conclude that the poor are prevented from voting strictly due to an ID requirement.
6. Bigfoot | April 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
It cost quite a bit of money to get the poll tax sticker (Voter ID Card or a Photo ID) and many cannot afford to purchase the poll tax sticker.
Where I live, a new driver’s license costs $45, and a renewal costs $30. Each is good for 5 years. A non-license photo ID card for anyone over 16 costs $15, which is a little over 2 hours labor, at minimum wage.
many poor would rather buy food than vote.
Many poor people get food stamps - at your and my expense.
7. js | April 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
those dead folk are just gonna haveta get new ID cards….the ones they got expired..lol…
8. js | April 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
poor folks normally have ID’s anyways…you have to have photo ID to cash checks…open bank accounts….apply for government benefits….get a job…you know….stuff that lets you pay rent…oh…and to rent a place….you really need to ID who you are….apartments will not even let you check out the model home with out ID….so stop pulling our legs…with liberal alagator tears…this is a common sense issue….and it will stop illegal aliens from voting too…
9. Rich | April 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Here’s an idea to you whiners out there. People that cannot afford the 15 dollars for an id. can get one with the 300-600 stimulus check. Should have some left over for food too Magnum. That five hundred plus will buy about four years of ramen noodles. Then they can vote and eat. (I was a poor college student for several years and have eaten ramen noodles in any manner possible, so spare the ensuing comments)
10. InDaVa | April 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
“Voting rights activists who hoped the federal government would help local governments pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines have gone from elation to frustration as they watched Republicans who supported such a proposal in committee vote against bringing it to the House floor.
When New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt’s Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act came up for a vote in the House Administration Committee on April 2, the Republicans on the committee gave it their unanimous support. But two weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn’t make it that far.”
What possible reason could the GOP have for opposing such a measure?
11. hermie | April 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Those who took this to court could have paid for many state id cards for the poor whom they claim to have represented, instead of paying high-priced lawyers.
Heck, for the cost of piano lessons for his kids, a typical liberal could’ve used that $10,000 to pay for the IDs of over 650 poor people.
12. Danish Artist | April 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
In New Orleans (and I’m sure other liberal bastions), this would mean “one person - one vote”.
Wow, what a concept!
13. Peach Tree | April 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Next we will have the State’s requirement of tattooing the mark of the beast “666″ on the foreheads of all citizens making less than $20,000. This way we can keep track of those on welfare. The conservative’s fascism of America continues.
14. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Take your meds, Peach Tree. You’re scaring the non-psychotic people on this blog.
15. William Teach | April 28th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Let me get this straight: federal elections occur every 2 years. A “poor” person can’t put down their pop corn and stop watch Opra on their flat screen in their government provided housing to work enough to raise $15 for a state ID over 2 years? Quite a few states will give them for free. Quite a few welfare offices give them for free.
Here’s an idea: if you cannot get off your lazy ass for a couple hours of work to get an ID, then your are probably too stupid to vote, so, don’t.
16. SteaM | April 28th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Yeah, you’d be as stupid as those sorry people who voted Bush in for a second term. Fools.
I guess you just get the president you deserve. Whether you are too lazy to vote or are too uninformed and stupid to vote wisely.
17. William Teach | April 28th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
FYI, you can go to this site and see the cost of ID cards: http://www.dmv.org//co-colorado/id-cards.php
18. Kahn | April 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Magnum, the rules are easier than those restricting firearms. Are you saying that those laws requiring
1. a fee for a license to own or carry long gun.
2. a fee for a a license to own or carry pistol.
3. a fee for a license to concealed carry ability
4. a fee to transfer ownership of a firearm
are designed to restrict the ability to exercise a constitutionally protected right by the poor? Interesting. Because the voter I.D. is free.
19. Kahn | April 28th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
InDaVa - maybe Republicans don’t think that 8 years after 2000, this is an “emergency”. Maybe they’ve seen some states pull back from this direction because it’s a big pain.
But whatever, why don’t you try to figure out why yourself? Did you look into it at all?
Innuendo is enough I guess.
20. Magnum Serpentine | April 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
This hurts those who cannot find a job or unable to work due to disability and are homeless cannot afford to spend one red cent on a poll tax sticker. Also they cannot travel to those states that offer free id due to no transportation. Many disabled live in group homes and do not have to worry about money (they don’t have it anyway) so the poll tax will hurt them the most. And there are people out there who would work any job but there are no jobs to find. They spend their entire day putting in applications but you cannot make employers hire someone if they do not want to.
Remember the Supreme Court is under the control of Republican Activist judges.
21. William Teach | April 28th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Magnum, check the link I provided above. In quite a few states, those with disabilities are given ID’s for free.
You can call it a poll tax if you want, but, most people need ID in order to live in the modern world. Most have it. This is just another disingenuous argument from the left so that they continue to have dead people vote, and, when they lose, say the GOP cheated.
22. Kahn | April 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Magnum, this is not a “poll tax”, get off it. Any valid ID will do and you know it.
But voting is ONE right. You’re OK with restricting the 2nd Amendment by charging actual license fees like I outline above? Interesting. And on top of the fees for many gun related licenses, some states require background checks, fingerprinting (which you have to pay for), and for some items waits of several weeks.
How about hunting and fishing? Shouldn’t that be free also? It’s not by the way. In fact fishing licensees alone can cost quite a bit.
Unlike the many states willing to charge a minimum ($10) for a photo ID or just give you one for free, hunting, fishing, right to own, right to carry, and transfer fees are rarely if ever waived. Is it OK to restrict these rights from the poor? Really?
23. Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
The first observation, of course, is that conservatives are always complaining bitterly about “activist judges” until the judge or judges rule in a way that they agree with. So, the reality is that’s it’s always really about outcomes and not process. Second, this illustrates the GOP obsession with “voter fraud” absent any actual evidence of such fraud. In this instance, the Court noted that Indiana’s law was not crafted to do anything about a problem which had actually occurred in Indiana, but that could theoretically happen.
The reality is that the interest on the part of the Republican Party is their belief, likely true, is that by making voting even a little bit more difficult, just a little bit more inconvenient, its effect will be most likely to reduce the number of votes from groups which historically tend to vote for Democrats. It’s not subtle. Regardless, the Court has now ruled that the acknowledged “impacts” of the Indiana law (as opposed to what the majority styles as the general “burden” placed upon voters by the statute) are not severe enough to outweigh an asserted state interest, despite the lack of evidence of the state interest existing outside of the theoretical. So, it is what it is.
24. Gozer the Carpathian | April 28th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
OMG? Are you friggin serious Diana? No wait. I’ve seen you post before and sadly you are.
What is so difficult about having some form of ID? Seriously!
On top of that even if there’s a perceived problem in other ares (as Kahn brought up Guns) but no proof you’re all for it. But fixing a gaping hole in a system that is so important you’re willing to ignore? Oi oi…
25. Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
The politicization of the Justice Department culminating in the U.S. Attorney scandal (which continues to play out) was largely about U.S. Attorneys who weren’t putting a high priority on penny-ante voter fraud cases and were instead using the limited resources of their offices for more significant problems. There is no evidence of a “gaping hole in a system that is so important” based on actual evidence. It’s just a theoretical threat whose real impact, as Republicans know full well, is going to fall on likely Democratic voters.
26. Bill Eischeidt | April 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Nothing more than a poll tax. But considering there are many among the white poor who vote GOP because their preacher says so this might cut both ways.
27. SEW | April 28th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Actually the impact will likely fall on Democrat candidates, not [illegal] Democrat voters. Legal voters required now. That should change the political landscape of south Texas, Chicago, Philly and Washington state for starters.
As Democrats know full well.
28. William Teach | April 28th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
BTW, nice deflection with a barking moonbat talking point, Steam
29. William Teach | April 28th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Say, Diana, as you give us your Howard Dean approved talking points, perhaps you could answer the question of what is so difficult in having some ID?
Or is it that you Democrats are afraid of finally having your election shenanigans stopped?
30. neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“It’s just a theoretical threat whose real impact, as Republicans know full well, is going to fall on likely Democratic voters. -Diana”
Well of course Diana. Without the uneducated, the Democrats wouldn’t have any voters.
31. neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Hey Bill,
How’s that island your on? And since you appear to be the conscientious objector, I am worried about your access to the internet. Evil republicans post here and that just may upset your balance and equilibium with nature. What impact will that have on the weaker species?
And you obviously have electricity to the island so how about your carbon footprint and it’s impact on the island. Had you thought about that?
You seem awfully selfish.
32. Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
William Teach,
Have you lived lately as someone who is poor and/or elderly and/or disabled? The Supreme Court has decided the case, so it’s ancient history until some later Court should decide to overturn this decision. However, no one but the willfully blind Republican partisan sees the Indiana statute for anything other than what it is. This is a classic case of a solution in desperate search of an actual problem.
33. js | April 28th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
to get a job, you have to have ID…to open a bank account…you have to have ID….to rent a place to live…you have to have an ID…these days….every one in america should have an ID….and to vote…you have to have an address….so…reality..the entire liberal excuse is nothing more than spam….and its a pack of amatuers that spread this lie….putz’s and all…
34. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
“This is a classic case of a solution in desperate search of an actual problem.”
Bullsh*t. In Washington state recently, and seemingly every year in Philadelphia, more votes are counted than were cast. Each phony vote disenfranchises a legal voter.
So why don’t you care about those disenfranchised voters? Because they’re Republicans?
35. js | April 28th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
shoot…even to get welfare and food stamps….you gotta have ID….so whats the problem….the only people that wont have an ID is the homeless…and illegal immigrants….the homeless dont have addresses…and most of them only vote because the demoncrats give em a bottle of whisky and a pack of smokes….that leaves illegals…who should not be voting anyhow….sucks….but its true….this whole excuse is a front to get illegals to vote for demoncrats….now aint that sumptin!!
36. phnx | April 28th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Twenty-five states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates. In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Seven of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo. In no state is a voter who cannot produce identification turned away from the polls—all states have some sort of recourse for voters without identification to cast a vote. However, in Georgia and Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order for their ballots to be counted. For specifics on what forms of identification are acceptable and the options available to voters who cannot present identification.
So this nonsense about denying voting privaleges, poll taxes, and republican conspiracy is simply that…nonsense.
Nice try leftist.
37. Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Voting always involves counting errors. That’s why the possibility of recounts are always a statutory part of the process. Voter fraud has and does occur, however, no one has demonstrated any history of voters appearing to vote in person and claiming to be someone that they are not which is the only “issue” the Indiana statute is supposed to “fix”. If Republicans were out there advocating for electronic voting with full paper trails I’d be a lot more impressed with their passionate devotion to the integrity of the voting process.
However, the very high and greatly improved numbers of Democratic primary voters (much better than the rapidly tanking GOP brand) this season bodes very well for the gains that the Democrats will make in the House and Senate even if we don’t win the White House, as well.
38. js | April 28th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
problem is….they are not denying anyone the right to vote….that is about as far as the constitution allows the fed’s to go…the rest is left up to the state…
39. neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Diana,
poll #’s show McCain in much better shape than you infer due to the “tanking GOP”.
Your candidates are blowing it and you know it, hence the desperate attempts to skewer McCain and the eeeevil republicans.
It’s too late. Say hello to President McCain.
40. js | April 28th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
only a putz counts the chicks before the eggs have hatched, no?
41. JPL | April 28th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
[N]o one has demonstrated any history of voters appearing to vote in person and claiming to be someone that they are not which is the only “issue” the Indiana statute is supposed to “fix”.
More B.S. In studies of Washington state and Philadelphia, it’s been shown that many people who were not dead voted in the names of people who were dead. Had they been required to show photo ID, they might not have been able to do that.
And that’s exactly the kind of wrong that the Indiana statute is designed to fix, and why we need more laws like it.
42. Gozer the Carpathian | April 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I doubt Diana would claim this “wasn’t a problem” if she had been denied her vote because someone else had voted for her. Just because you haven’t seen any of the problems doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Once again I’m going to have to put forward Kahn’s point, do you think it’s perfectly fine that folks are denied their second amendment rights through fees, classes, and the like? I bet you’d scream poll tax if folks had to take a class that they pay for to vote. (I’d also agree with you as well)
43. js | April 28th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
i dono…my gramma died in 1987…and she voted in chicago in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004….strange…she seems to have turned democrat too…..
44. Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
It’s very interesting indeed that js apparently knows about the secret ballot that was cast in his grandmother’s name.
45. Diana Powe | April 28th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
neocon,
I know you like to imagine I wrote things that I didn’t, but if you reread what I wrote perhaps you’ll note that I predicted the Democratic Party gains that are coming in the House and Senate. The White House is hardly a done deal. There may be a President McCain but, if we’re really lucky (although it’s a long shot) Democrats will have 60 Democrats in the Senate to help minimize the destructiveness of a McCain administration.
46. neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Vote early and vote often.
47. neocon | April 28th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
And you say that because the current Democratically controlled House and Senate have been so effective?
48. js | April 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
you think its so odd for the dead to vote putz?
they do it in Conneticut…(Following up on the matches, UConn students examined the records of nearly 100 of the suspect voters at 10 town and city halls among those with the most cases. Guilford led the state with 39, followed by West Hartford (17), Enfield (15), Stonington (13) and Norwalk (11).)
and Ohio;
(NewsChannel5 compared the county’s voter registration rolls with death records from the Social Security Administration, finding 12,688 people who have died but are still registered to vote. Many of the dead voters passed away years ago, and a good number of them more than a decade ago)
in Washington State;
(All but two of the dead voters were in King County. Pierce County did not provide voter history despite numerous requests for the records. One dead voter was from Clark County in southwest Washington, and one was from Spokane County. Of the 24, 14 were credited with voting absentee and 10 with voting at the polls. )
and even New York…
(An analysis of state-wide records by the Poughkeepsie Journal reveals that 77,000 dead people remain on election rolls in New York State, and some 2,600 may have managed to vote after they had died. The study also found that Democrats are more successful at voting after death than Republicans, by a margin of four-to-one, largely because so many dead people seem to vote in Democrat-dominated New York City.)
so whats the problem, why cant my gramma vote too?
49. Danish Artist | April 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Did you know that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to kill the Indiana picture ID requirement couldn’t find any victims? What a tragedy it is when a Democrat can’t find a victim. The plaintiffs could not produce one shred of evidence that any legal Indiana resident would be prevented from casting a legal vote by a law requiring a picture ID.
50. InDaVa | April 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“InDaVa - maybe Republicans don’t think that 8 years after 2000, this is an “emergency”. Maybe they’ve seen some states pull back from this direction because it’s a big pain.
But whatever, why don’t you try to figure out why yourself? Did you look into it at all?
Innuendo is enough I guess.”
Yes, I have looked into it. Right Kahn, securing the integrity of our electoral process is just too big a pain for Republican’s to deal with. A paper trail is a good thing, can’t you see that?
51. Chip | April 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Canadian Observer
I know for a fact that Georgia does.
52. Indiana Identification La&hellip | April 29th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
[…] a reminder from comment #49 by Danish Artist at Blogs For Victory. Sphere: Related […]
53. Kahn | April 29th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Well yah InDaVa, I can. Paper ballots leave a paper trail. The problem comes when you re-engineer from paper to electronic and spend millions doing it and go through all kind of learning curves to realize that you forgot that ballots could be recounted and examined and an electronic vote could not.
Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
54. InDaVa | April 30th, 2008 at 9:56 am
“The problem comes when you re-engineer from paper to electronic and spend millions doing it and go through all kind of learning curves to realize that you forgot that ballots could be recounted and examined and an electronic vote could not.”
LMAO! You, my tired old fartbag pal, are an idiot. Oh, now you are worried about money being spent? To ensure a fair election?
Kahn, I know you didn’t even look into Holt’s bill. It’s about accountability. States can opt-in if they’d like or not. Not confusing stuff but it would make our voting process more secure. I knew it would be too hard for your senile old brain to absorb.