Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(JSOnline)   Judge throws out Wisconsin's voter ID law   (jsonline.com) divider line 337
    More: Interesting, ID laws, Wisconsin, League of Women Voters, voter ID, state Government Accountability Board, J.B. Van Hollen, Dane County, University of Wisconsin-Madison  
•       •       •

4291 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2012 at 8:01 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-17 10:05:16 PM  

cmunic8r99: Do you really think Republicans would pass a Voter ID law that wouldn't accept a military ID?

Link.


I don't, no. It was someone else who asked for the citation. I was just clarfying what they were asking for. There's a huge amount of (intentional) disinformation on what will and won't be accepted.
 
2012-07-17 10:05:32 PM  

rugman11: Silly Jesus: "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

"The Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote" (Alexander v. Daley, 90 F. Supp. 2d, 35, 66, emphasis added)

Wow, you are a deceitful mother farker. The full quote:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. "

This is simply an affirmation that the Presidential election is not a national election but a series of statewide elections. States can choose not to have an election for their electors, and this rules only that if the state decides to appoint its electors, the citizens don't get to vote for Presidential electors. If there is an election, however, there is most certainly a right to vote for those electors, to which the 15th amendment applies.


Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."
 
2012-07-17 10:05:49 PM  

DempseySR26: Libtards can't win without the illegal alien and dead vote. Anyway this libtard judges ruling won't stand. The Supreme Court already upheld voter id.


Oh yeah, liberals totally can't win any election without that .004% of votes cast fraudulently.
 
2012-07-17 10:06:24 PM  

djkutch: vegasj: Ironicly, the same people who don't want voter ID laws are also against piss testing for government handouts...

add that one up.

Are you for periodic piss tests for members of the military? Members of Congress?


Conservative radio talk show hosts who rail against drug users?
 
2012-07-17 10:06:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Which would appear to be at odds with the 15th amendment as quoted above. That Amendment calls it a right. That amendment happens to be in the Constitution. How is it not a right, again?


TeaPublicans already deny that the 1st, 4th, 8th and 14th amendments count, so why not the 15th as well?

Of course, you can have the 2nd when you pry it from their cold, dead hands.

/[area_man_passionate_defender.html]
//[george_washington_facepalm.jpg]
 
2012-07-17 10:07:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."


Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.
 
2012-07-17 10:08:08 PM  
Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan wrote Tuesday that the state's requirement that all voters show photo ID at the polls creates a "substantial impairment of the right to vote" guaranteed by the state constitution.

I wish my state had a constitutional that didn't smell like shiat.
 
2012-07-17 10:08:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.


But hey, at least you're not calling it a privilege now.
 
2012-07-17 10:08:34 PM  

consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.


Roughly 25% of voting age blacks and 8% of voting age whites.

Link
 
2012-07-17 10:09:10 PM  

One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 403x403]


*sighs* Okay. Let me explain this to you slowly, then.

Historically, the people with the least money and spare time are black, Latino, or Asian. Whether or not that holds true today, asking someone below middle class to take the time to renew their ID is essentially saying "We won't let you vote unless you drop something, which might be that 'work' thing that pays your bills or a kid's birthday party, from your schedule--oh, and that twenty-odd dollars? Yeah, say goodbye to your food budget for the week".

Amazingly enough, there are people who would have to make that choice. And I'm sure you don't want them on food stamps...
 
2012-07-17 10:10:35 PM  

Wayne 985: consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.

Roughly 25% of voting age blacks and 8% of voting age whites.

Link


Dammit, man. It's only a COINCIDENCE that blacks and other minorities are less likely to have voter IDs. This has NO EFFECT on the conservative decision making process. Racism was also not a factor in Brown v. Board, the Trayvon Martin case and Dred Scott.
 
2012-07-17 10:15:16 PM  

Silly Jesus: rugman11: Silly Jesus: "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

"The Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote" (Alexander v. Daley, 90 F. Supp. 2d, 35, 66, emphasis added)

Wow, you are a deceitful mother farker. The full quote:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. "

This is simply an affirmation that the Presidential election is not a national election but a series of statewide elections. States can choose not to have an election for their electors, and this rules only that if the state decides to appoint its electors, the citizens don't get to vote for Presidential electors. If there is an election, however, there is most certainly a right to vote for those electors, to which the 15th amendment applies.

Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."


Again, it's a matter of rights versus protection. We have the right to vote. That is an inherent right. State governments can deprive citizens of the right to vote to vote if they so choose. The 15th amendment and other laws are designed to protect the right of citizens to vote based on certain criteria. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.
 
2012-07-17 10:16:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.


Literacy tests and IQ tests are different. Also, there are IQ tests available for illiterate folks.
 
2012-07-17 10:16:23 PM  

You're the same people who railed against the so-called "motor voter" bill back in the 90s, because it included voter registration for welfare recipients. I can't imagine what the motivation was.

Just farking come out and admit it, like your friend in PA did. You are actively attempting to discourage voting from a reliably opposition bloc. And in modern America, we don't do that. This is not an issue with two sides, both merited. This is about as cut and dry as they come. Imposing anything resembling a poll tax is just not how we do business.

If you don't like it, get the fark out of my country. That's right - you don't own the copyright on that expression. Get the fark out of my US of A.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-17 10:17:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.

Literacy tests and IQ tests are different. Also, there are IQ tests available for illiterate folks.


Too bad the ruling didn't say just literacy tests. Again, oops.
 
2012-07-17 10:21:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.

Literacy tests and IQ tests are different. Also, there are IQ tests available for illiterate folks.

Too bad the ruling didn't say just literacy tests. Again, oops.


A literacy test would be legal, however, if voting was only a privilege. Which it is not, which is why it is a Right. Let's see if Silly Jesus notices.
 
2012-07-17 10:22:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.

But hey, at least you're not calling it a privilege now.


It's a really hard concept. You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" to do that thing (vote). The right only exists to the qualified...the qualifications can be changed...therefore, "you need an ID" isn't OMG I HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE WITHOUT ONE. You don't. You have the right to vote if your are qualified, and having an ID would theoretically be part of the qualification.
 
2012-07-17 10:22:18 PM  

Wayne 985: consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.

Roughly 25% of voting age blacks and 8% of voting age whites.

Link


The true tragedy is not only can't these people vote due to voter I.D. laws; they can't vote because they are in are also in prison.
 
2012-07-17 10:24:03 PM  

rugman11: Silly Jesus: rugman11: Silly Jesus: "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

"The Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote" (Alexander v. Daley, 90 F. Supp. 2d, 35, 66, emphasis added)

Wow, you are a deceitful mother farker. The full quote:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. "

This is simply an affirmation that the Presidential election is not a national election but a series of statewide elections. States can choose not to have an election for their electors, and this rules only that if the state decides to appoint its electors, the citizens don't get to vote for Presidential electors. If there is an election, however, there is most certainly a right to vote for those electors, to which the 15th amendment applies.

Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Again, it's a matter of rights versus protection. We have the right to vote. That is an inherent right. State governments can deprive citizens of the right to vote to vote if they so choose. The 15th amendment and other laws are designed to protect the right of citizens to vote based on certain criteria. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.



It's a really hard concept. You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" to do that thing (vote). The right only exists to the qualified...the qualifications can be changed...therefore, "you need an ID" isn't OMG I HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE WITHOUT ONE. You don't. You have the right to vote if your are qualified, and having an ID would theoretically be part of the qualification.
 
2012-07-17 10:24:14 PM  
As a resident of Wisconsin, I am disturbed how a partisan judge in the most liberal county in Wisconsin can tell the other 75% of the state that the law that your duly elected representatives passed.

That is the problem with a county (district) judge in such a partisan controlled district.

/yeah I know both sides are bad, blah blah.
//yes I'd be biatching if this was a republican backed suit in Waukesha
 
2012-07-17 10:24:40 PM  

RyogaM: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.

Literacy tests and IQ tests are different. Also, there are IQ tests available for illiterate folks.

Too bad the ruling didn't say just literacy tests. Again, oops.

A literacy test would be legal, however, if voting was only a privilege. Which it is not, which is why it is a Right. Let's see if Silly Jesus notices.



It's a really hard concept. You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" to do that thing (vote). The right only exists to the qualified...the qualifications can be changed...therefore, "you need an ID" isn't OMG I HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE WITHOUT ONE. You don't. You have the right to vote if your are qualified, and having an ID would theoretically be part of the qualification.
 
2012-07-17 10:24:54 PM  
If voter fraud is such a threat to democracy, why doesn't the state spend money on providing easy access to free photo IDs for people who need one rather than spend the money on defending a voter ID law in court?
 
2012-07-17 10:25:20 PM  

Silly Jesus: rugman11: Silly Jesus: rugman11: Silly Jesus: "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

"The Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote" (Alexander v. Daley, 90 F. Supp. 2d, 35, 66, emphasis added)

Wow, you are a deceitful mother farker. The full quote:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. "

This is simply an affirmation that the Presidential election is not a national election but a series of statewide elections. States can choose not to have an election for their electors, and this rules only that if the state decides to appoint its electors, the citizens don't get to vote for Presidential electors. If there is an election, however, there is most certainly a right to vote for those electors, to which the 15th amendment applies.

Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Again, it's a matter of rights versus protection. We have the right to vote. That is an inherent right. State governments can deprive citizens of the right to vote to vote if they so choose. The 15th amendment and other laws are designed to protect the right of citizens to vote based on certain criteria. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.


It's a really hard concept. You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" to do that thi ...


At least you backed down from your stupid literacy/IQ test idea.
 
2012-07-17 10:27:35 PM  

Overfiend: As a resident of Wisconsin, I am disturbed how a partisan judge in the most liberal county in Wisconsin can tell the other 75% of the state that the law that your duly elected representatives passed.


Every state has this problem and every state biatches about it.

"Wahhh, why does Chicago have so much influence in IL politics"
"Wahhh, why does St. Louis and KC have so much influence in MO politics"
 
2012-07-17 10:28:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.

But hey, at least you're not calling it a privilege now.

It's a really hard concept. You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" to do that thing (vote). The right only exists to the qualified...the qualifications can be changed...therefore, "you need an ID" isn't OMG I HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE WITHOUT ONE. You don't. You have the right to vote if your are qualified, and having an ID would theoretically be part of the qualification.


You're getting there. Now, understand, those qualifications must be related to a compelling state interest, not just, hey, let make it a "qualification" that you make $250,000 a year. And, ID laws, are right on the cusp of is it a compelling state interest or not, the state's interest in holding fair elections free from fraud versus the voter's Right to vote. Do you get it?
 
2012-07-17 10:29:57 PM  

Solchie: vegasj: Ironicly, the same people who don't want voter ID laws are also against piss testing for government handouts...

add that one up.

Not all of us. Personally, I also would have no problem making people perform community service in exchange for welfare and food stamps. The community is going to help you out, you should do something to give back to the community.


We make criminals perform community service. Is being poor a crime in need of punishment?
 
2012-07-17 10:30:14 PM  

runwiz: If voter fraud is such a threat to democracy, why doesn't the state spend money on providing easy access to free photo IDs for people who need one rather than spend the money on defending a voter ID law in court?


Because regulations that infringe your ability to participate in democracy WITHOUT costing the government overhead in terms of helping you overcome the regulations is the best kind of regulation!
 
2012-07-17 10:30:16 PM  

runwiz: If voter fraud is such a threat to democracy, why doesn't the state spend money on providing easy access to free photo IDs for people who need one rather than spend the money on defending a voter ID law in court?


How about just providing ID because it is a requirement for many activities in our society such as travel, receiving food stamps, check cashing, renting housing, alcohol purchase, attending NAACP speeches about evils of having ID delivered by Eric Holder, etc.
 
2012-07-17 10:30:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Overfiend: As a resident of Wisconsin, I am disturbed how a partisan judge in the most liberal county in Wisconsin can tell the other 75% of the state that the law that your duly elected representatives passed.

Every state has this problem and every state biatches about it.

"Wahhh, why does Chicago have so much influence in IL politics"
"Wahhh, why does St. Louis and KC have so much influence in MO politics"


The difference here in Illinois is 90% of voters ant Chicago to DIAF and 135% of voters like being crooks and felons.
 
2012-07-17 10:31:20 PM  

soy_bomb: runwiz: If voter fraud is such a threat to democracy, why doesn't the state spend money on providing easy access to free photo IDs for people who need one rather than spend the money on defending a voter ID law in court?

How about just providing ID because it is a requirement for many activities in our society such as travel, receiving food stamps, check cashing, renting housing, alcohol purchase, attending NAACP speeches about evils of having ID delivered by Eric Holder, etc.


As an American, I consider voting far more important than any of those other activities. Why don't you?
 
2012-07-17 10:32:41 PM  

soy_bomb: runwiz: If voter fraud is such a threat to democracy, why doesn't the state spend money on providing easy access to free photo IDs for people who need one rather than spend the money on defending a voter ID law in court?

How about just providing ID because it is a requirement for many activities in our society such as travel, receiving food stamps, check cashing, renting housing, alcohol purchase, attending NAACP speeches about evils of having ID delivered by Eric Holder, etc.


Wow, I buttf*cked you (figuratively) on that one last week. It is a f*cking security concern for press at a private event, you thinking-impaired dullard. Saying that is comparable to voting is like saying Dan Quayle is from Idaho because he attempts courageously to spell potato.
 
2012-07-17 10:33:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" to do that thing (vote).


Suppose the law is altered so that you must have a net worth greater than 1.5 million dollars to vote.
 
2012-07-17 10:34:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: rugman11: Silly Jesus: rugman11: Silly Jesus: "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

"The Equal Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote" (Alexander v. Daley, 90 F. Supp. 2d, 35, 66, emphasis added)

Wow, you are a deceitful mother farker. The full quote:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. "

This is simply an affirmation that the Presidential election is not a national election but a series of statewide elections. States can choose not to have an election for their electors, and this rules only that if the state decides to appoint its electors, the citizens don't get to vote for Presidential electors. If there is an election, however, there is most certainly a right to vote for those electors, to which the 15th amendment applies.

Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Again, it's a matter of rights versus protection. We have the right to vote. That is an inherent right. State governments can deprive citizens of the right to vote to vote if they so choose. The 15th amendment and other laws are designed to protect the right of citizens to vote based on certain criteria. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.


It's a really hard concept. You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" t ...


I did? No, I still fully believe that only people who have at least a smidgen of intellect and knowledge about what they fark they are voting for should be able to impact my future in powerful ways.

If you want ignorant morans having a hand in controlling your destiny, more power to ya, I guess. I suppose that's the moral high ground or something.
 
2012-07-17 10:35:28 PM  
I'm not against picture ids for voters. but I am against these laws put in at the last minute that require people to jump though hoops to get theirs. if the state is going to do this then they need to roll it out in such a way that the public has a chance to get them with no cost to the voter and once they are sure that everyone is compliant then institute them. Don't just announce them ,make them costly or difficult to get then set a really tight deadline.
 
2012-07-17 10:35:39 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Overfiend: As a resident of Wisconsin, I am disturbed how a partisan judge in the most liberal county in Wisconsin can tell the other 75% of the state that the law that your duly elected representatives passed.

Every state has this problem and every state biatches about it.

"Wahhh, why does Chicago have so much influence in IL politics"
"Wahhh, why does St. Louis and KC have so much influence in MO politics"


I'm on vacation at the Lake of the Ozarks this week, and now my Google ads on Fark are giving me ads about how elected Republicans like Todd Akin aren't conservative enough. Same with the local TV ads. Madness.
 
2012-07-17 10:35:42 PM  

RyogaM: Do you get it?


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

You know better.
 
2012-07-17 10:36:02 PM  

Silly Jesus: I did? No, I still fully believe that only people who have at least a smidgen of intellect and knowledge about what they fark they are voting for should be able to impact my future in powerful ways.

If you want ignorant morans having a hand in controlling your destiny, more power to ya, I guess. I suppose that's the moral high ground or something.


You completely forgot why the 15th Amendment was created did you?
 
2012-07-17 10:37:43 PM  

RexTalionis:

Suppose the law is altered so that you must have a net worth greater than 1.5 million dollars to vote.



thinkprogress.org

I'm for it! Wait, does the money have to be in the US?
 
2012-07-17 10:38:33 PM  

Silly Jesus: "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)


But is a Presidential Elector the only federal office that anyone can vote for?


Article I
Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,...


/don't forget this either:"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"
 
2012-07-17 10:39:08 PM  

Alphax: my Google ads on Fark are giving me ads about how elected Republicans like Todd Akin aren't conservative enough.



suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com

/How is tha even possible
//But to be fair, the Lake is in the Springfield TV market which caters to the derpiest of Missourians
///Haven't seen anything that derpy here in St. Louis just yet
 
2012-07-17 10:39:26 PM  

soy_bomb: runwiz: If voter fraud is such a threat to democracy, why doesn't the state spend money on providing easy access to free photo IDs for people who need one rather than spend the money on defending a voter ID law in court?

How about just providing ID because it is a requirement for many activities in our society such as travel, receiving food stamps, check cashing, renting housing, alcohol purchase, attending NAACP speeches about evils of having ID delivered by Eric Holder, etc.


There are not requirements to do many of those things you claim,

I can travel without an id, even get on a plane, if the company running the plane agrees.
I can cash a check without ID, if the bank allows me to, and they often will.
I can rent a home and purchase alcohol without ID, if the store wants to. And Eric Holder is free to allow anyone into his meetings he wants to without id, if he chooses to. I don't get food stamps, so have no idea about that. ID are not a requirement, they are helpful, but not necessary.
 
2012-07-17 10:39:35 PM  

RyogaM: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Read the other quote...the state legislature decides who is qualified to vote. Only those qualified to vote are guaranteed the "right." The state could vote that you must score X on an IQ test to vote, and they wouldn't be taking away some "right."

Except for the fact that, you know, the SCOTUS has also decided that a test is illegal and takes away the right to vote. Oops.

But hey, at least you're not calling it a privilege now.

It's a really hard concept. You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" to do that thing (vote). The right only exists to the qualified...the qualifications can be changed...therefore, "you need an ID" isn't OMG I HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE WITHOUT ONE. You don't. You have the right to vote if your are qualified, and having an ID would theoretically be part of the qualification.

You're getting there. Now, understand, those qualifications must be related to a compelling state interest, not just, hey, let make it a "qualification" that you make $250,000 a year. And, ID laws, are right on the cusp of is it a compelling state interest or not, the state's interest in holding fair elections free from fraud versus the voter's Right to voteability to qualify to vote. Do you get it?

 
2012-07-17 10:40:21 PM  
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing the obvious troll to take over this thread.

Most of you have been around long enough to know better.
 
2012-07-17 10:40:52 PM  

RexTalionis: Silly Jesus: You have the "right" to do something (vote) as long as your are qualified, but adding qualifications (IQ, ID) isn't taking away some inherent "right" to do that thing (vote).

Suppose the law is altered so that you must have a net worth greater than 1.5 million dollars to vote.


And?
 
2012-07-17 10:42:26 PM  
Good job Wisconsin.

We should make it as easy as possible for every eligible citizen to vote. Period. Full stop.
 
2012-07-17 10:42:33 PM  

Tor_Eckman: You all should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing the obvious troll to take over this thread.

Most of you have been around long enough to know better.


Yes, and you know the counter point:

"Vanquish the troll's retarded argument lest some voting-aged mushroom-brained Farker wanders in here and doesn't know any better."
 
2012-07-17 10:44:38 PM  

Alphax: Mrtraveler01: Overfiend: As a resident of Wisconsin, I am disturbed how a partisan judge in the most liberal county in Wisconsin can tell the other 75% of the state that the law that your duly elected representatives passed.

Every state has this problem and every state biatches about it.

"Wahhh, why does Chicago have so much influence in IL politics"
"Wahhh, why does St. Louis and KC have so much influence in MO politics"

I'm on vacation at the Lake of the Ozarks this week, and now my Google ads on Fark are giving me ads about how elected Republicans like Todd Akin aren't conservative enough. Same with the local TV ads. Madness.


yeah the ads here are crazy. all they are are "I'm out to stop the Obama/Pelosi socialist takeover,I have NRA support (watch me shoot a gun) Praise Jesus vote for me

Even this rich guy who's daddy owned one of the biggest dairies in the southeast (Mayfield) comes on wearing this farking bow tie talking about how he grew up working on a farm.
Bullshiat your granddad did. You were born with a silver spoon and probably haven't smelled cowshiat since forever.
 
2012-07-17 10:44:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: I did? No, I still fully believe that only people who have at least a smidgen of intellect and knowledge about what they fark they are voting for should be able to impact my future in powerful ways.

If you want ignorant morans having a hand in controlling your destiny, more power to ya, I guess. I suppose that's the moral high ground or something.

You completely forgot why the 15th Amendment was created did you?



0_o

thatsracist.jpg
 
2012-07-17 10:45:18 PM  

runwiz: If voter fraud is such a threat to democracy, why doesn't the state spend money on providing easy access to free photo IDs for people who need one rather than spend the money on defending a voter ID law in court?


Yeah, about that -- here in WI when the Repubs passed their voter ID bill, their civil service apparatchiks moved to close or reduce hours at some locations, and increase access in other locations.

You'll never guess how the proposed changes in service hours correlated with redness/blueness of the surrounding area.

Lemme go find a link, they may have had to walk it back a little, but just the fact they tried invalidates Silly Jesus' "hey it's easy" argument.
 
2012-07-17 10:45:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Alphax: my Google ads on Fark are giving me ads about how elected Republicans like Todd Akin aren't conservative enough.




/How is tha even possible
//But to be fair, the Lake is in the Springfield TV market which caters to the derpiest of Missourians
///Haven't seen anything that derpy here in St. Louis just yet


I think it was something about him voting to raise the debt ceiling in the past.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report