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 (2 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
 
2012-07-17 07:50:48 PM  
Alright! Time to form a strike team of illegals and stuff the ballet box for Nader! :D
 
2012-07-17 07:52:20 PM  
B...b...b...b...but Walker
 
2012-07-17 07:53:14 PM  
Woohoo! Since it was likely written by ALEC, I'm sure that it'll be struck down in about 16 other states soon.
 
2012-07-17 07:57:47 PM  
Yippee! Suck it, Walker.
 
2012-07-17 07:59:32 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Woohoo! Since it was likely written by ALEC, I'm sure that it'll be struck down in about 16 other states soon.


FTFA:

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.

Depending on what the state's constitution reads like, and what the judge's decision is based on, it may or may not be applicable to the law in other states.
 
2012-07-17 08:04:53 PM  
Cool! I'm voting early and often for Obama if it is ruled illegal in Georgia.
 
2012-07-17 08:08:00 PM  
Well, that's one bit of good news.

/puts pitchfork back in closet
 
2012-07-17 08:09:13 PM  
You know, we've been voting here in Wisconsin for over 150 years without photo I.D. and it's worked just fine. The GOP has yet to demonstrate that there have been enough fraudulent votes cast in Wisconsin over the last twenty years to swing a suburban school board race much less a statewide election. They just want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to keep darker folk from voting.
 
2012-07-17 08:10:54 PM  
way to go, justice system

in before the "DAMN YOU FARTBAMA AND YOUR ACORN STEALING ELECTIONS!!1!! SOCIALISMS!!!!!11!1!!"

/SQUIRREL!!1!
 
2012-07-17 08:11:12 PM  
In before "But..but..but voting is a RIGHT!!1!!!2"
 
2012-07-17 08:12:18 PM  
Looks like the Kock Brothers couldn't buy all the judges.
 
2012-07-17 08:13:13 PM  
Good on you, Judge Flannagan.
 
2012-07-17 08:13:52 PM  

Sid_6.7: it may or may not be applicable to the law in other states.


It won't be applicable as anything other than precedent until a circuit court rules on it as well.
 
2012-07-17 08:14:12 PM  
Good news. Just need to strike down all the rest of them.
 
2012-07-17 08:14:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: In before "But..but..but voting is a RIGHT!!1!!!2"


Well, voting is a right. The greatest right any citizen of these United States can exercise. That, my friends, is true freedom. Those that refuse to cast the vote for whatever reason (ahhh! but my vote counts for nothing) fail to grasp the basic civil duty that all people over 18 should be proud to do every time they go to the polls. It is the most basic way to get involved in your country and it is the most powerful message any person can do (barring violence, but I don't condone that shiat)

You vote does more than elect people, your vote moves mountains. If we had everyone who could go out and vote, our country would be a far different and freer place.
 
2012-07-17 08:17:33 PM  
Perhaps we can stop this nonsense soon and get something that really matters...like a standard of knowledge / intellect for voting. I propose the U.S. Immigration Test (basic history / general government concepts) and an IQ test (you can't vote for Potato anyway).
 
2012-07-17 08:18:00 PM  
I think the voter ID laws are unnecessary more than actively counterproductive. They won't actually stop anyone from voting, they just won't really impact fraud in any way and thus all they do is create a minor hassle for a few people.

//In Texas we've had the option to present photo ID instead of the registration card for a couple decades now, I haven't even bothered to hang onto the reg card since the first year after I moved here, DL just being massively easier.
 
2012-07-17 08:19:14 PM  
How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.
 
2012-07-17 08:19:59 PM  

somedude210: Silly Jesus: In before "But..but..but voting is a RIGHT!!1!!!2"

Well, voting is a right...


Perhaps some reading is in order...
 
2012-07-17 08:21:55 PM  

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


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-17 08:22:26 PM  

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


Millions of Americans.
 
2012-07-17 08:23:09 PM  
Shocking! I would NEVER have guessed this judge was also linked to the Walker recall.
 
2012-07-17 08:25:14 PM  

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


In Texas somewhere between 167,000 (the states estimate) and 1.5 million (DOJ estimate).
 
2012-07-17 08:25:54 PM  

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

Millions of Americans.


My mom for one, moved and can't get a drivers license in NV without a social security card, can't get a social security card without a DL. Catch 22

/she has a expired DL from years ago that is no help
 
2012-07-17 08:26:09 PM  

MikeMc: You know, we've been voting here in Wisconsin for over 150 years without photo I.D. and it's worked just fine. The GOP has yet to demonstrate that there have been enough fraudulent votes cast in Wisconsin over the last twenty years to swing a suburban school board race much less a statewide election. They just want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to keep darker folk from voting.


I think the Dhimmycraps would be wise to keep God's Own Party spending lots and lots of time, energy, and financial resources combatting a problem that doesn't exist any where but their own imaginations.

Yes, really.

What's really going to make me LOL is if it turns out that they're mostly impacting Hispanic and Asian voters that actually vote GOP.
 
2012-07-17 08:27:19 PM  

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


That's why the Republican governors have pushed so hard on the photo ID laws, because it's much ado about nothing. Say, I'm a New Yorker, we have this bridge in Brooklyn. Anyway, EIP if you're interested in purchasing same. I'll get you a really good price.
 
2012-07-17 08:28:18 PM  
Go, according to the article, the Supreme Court refused to hear it in time for it to have an effect on this fall's elections.

... But why? Hmm...

/They're up to something!
 
2012-07-17 08:28:58 PM  

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


More than "none."
 
2012-07-17 08:30:23 PM  

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


750,000 in Pennsylvania
Can't find the link, but according to the republican governor of South Carolina, 250,000 citizens of that state do not have photo ID.

How many cases of voter fraud that would have been stopped by requiring ID can you cite? I bet it's less than a million.
 
2012-07-17 08:31:03 PM  
Clearly someone got to this judge
 
2012-07-17 08:31:27 PM  

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


The law? Yes, quite unnecessary.
 
2012-07-17 08:32:49 PM  
DAMN YOU FARTBAMA AND YOUR ACORN STEALING ELECTIONS!!1!! SOCIALISMS!!!!!11!1!!
 
2012-07-17 08:33:18 PM  

Silly Jesus: Perhaps we can stop this nonsense soon and get something that really matters...like a standard of knowledge / intellect for voting. I propose the U.S. Immigration Test (basic history / general government concepts) and an IQ test (you can't vote for Potato anyway).


This is the post of a farktard who's completely ignorant of history.
 
2012-07-17 08:34:27 PM  

Krymson Tyde: Cool! I'm voting early and often for Obama if it is ruled illegal in Georgia.


Are you stating on this News Aggregate site that you are planning on breaking the law? I shall alert the authorities to have you arrested at once!
 
2012-07-17 08:35:04 PM  
Yea! That's $28 I don't have to spend to renew an ID I've used exactly twice in the last 3 years. (Once was to vote.)
 
2012-07-17 08:35:28 PM  
Voting is something this nation has become rather famous for. The idea that the people have a voice in their government, regardless of social status. It is an idea that has been fostered and expanded over the centuries of this country. It is an idea that we have urged other nations to adopt It is an idea that soldiers have fought and died for. It is an idea that has entrenched itself as what would seem to be an inalienable right in regards to a functioning Democracy.

It is an idea that for some reason the current Republican party wants to destroy.
 
2012-07-17 08:35:41 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-17 08:37:06 PM  

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


Not really a large proportion or anything, but since 52-48 races are fairly common, a couple percent of the population matters.
 
2012-07-17 08:37:36 PM  
If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.
 
2012-07-17 08:38:04 PM  

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


I guarantee several of my family members don't have photo IDs. Hell, my Dad doesn't. I know that for a fact. And they're all white.

To top it off, I'd bet if they did vote, which they probably won't, 95% of them would vote for Romney.

Not having photo ID isn't shorthand for "being brown" or "being a Democrat". It's usually shorthand for beIng poor and uneducated.
 
2012-07-17 08:38:28 PM  

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


FTFA:
Under the law approved last year by Republican lawmakers and Walker, voters are required to show one of a set number of photo IDs to vote. It was in place for the February primary but has been blocked by court orders since then.

Those who do not have a driver's license or other photo ID can get one without charge from the state. But Flanagan noted that birth certificates are required to get the IDs and voters who don't have them must pay for them. He said more than 300,000 voters do not have an acceptable form of ID.


300,000 and a Poll Tax in case it being mentioned in the article and directly quoted for you wasn't clear.
 
2012-07-17 08:38:43 PM  

cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.


If you think we should be restricting people's right to vote, you don't deserve to be an American.
 
2012-07-17 08:40:22 PM  
As soon as I can buy a gun without having to show ID I will support voting without having to show an ID.
 
2012-07-17 08:40:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: somedude210: Silly Jesus: In before "But..but..but voting is a RIGHT!!1!!!2"

Well, voting is a right...

Perhaps some reading is in order...


fair point. I know that there is nothing in the constitution that actually says "white male land-owners shall vote every 2 years on the first Tuesday of November for congressmen...and 4 years for president, etc"

but it technically is the only way any of our elected officials become elected. so I've got that going for me, which is nice
 
2012-07-17 08:40:54 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: Yea! That's $28 I don't have to spend to renew an ID I've used exactly twice in the last 3 years. (Once was to vote.)


Ooooh, I have to renew my D/L next month I wonder if I can get it for free if I tell them it's for voting...
 
2012-07-17 08:41:04 PM  

cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.


You've got a great point there. The handicapped, those in wheelchairs and others who can't get out and get the proper identification have no business voting. How dare they? Who do those uppity disabled think they are, people?
 
2012-07-17 08:41:09 PM  
Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.
 
2012-07-17 08:41:16 PM  

cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.


What a patriot!
 
2012-07-17 08:42:03 PM  

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

Millions of Americans.

My mom for one, moved and can't get a drivers license in NV without a social security card, can't get a social security card without a DL. Catch 22

/she has a expired DL from years ago that is no help


Having similar troubles. Like a fool I let mine expire more than five years ago, and since I've never rented or bought a house, or gotten a power bill in my name I'm having a tough time scrounging up enough proof that I'm a WA resident to get it updated. Ordered a copy of my birth certificate and am gonna try a third attempt to get it tomorrow.
 
2012-07-17 08:42:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Perhaps we can stop this nonsense soon and get something that really matters...like a standard of knowledge / intellect for voting. I propose the U.S. Immigration Test (basic history / general government concepts) and an IQ test (you can't vote for Potato anyway).

This is the post of a farktard who's completely ignorant of history.


Do tell. Is there a certain group that you feel would be disenfranchised by knowledge / intellect tests?
 
2012-07-17 08:43:15 PM  

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

One of the main targets of this were college students (because anyone with more education than Walker won't vote for him). Not only did it include the photo ID, but also required you to live at the address for a minimum amount of time. Many college students move from year to year and would have to get new IDs each year or they didn't meet the time for the residency requirements and wouldn't have been able to vote.
 
2012-07-17 08:43:40 PM  

Flashlight: As soon as I can buy a gun without having to show ID I will support voting without having to show an ID.


Once you have the gun you can do anything you want.
 
2012-07-17 08:44:16 PM  

Flashlight: As soon as I can buy a gun without having to show ID I will support voting without having to show an ID.


I can, legally, sell you a gun tonight without you having to show ID. Voter ID opponents appreciate your support.
 
2012-07-17 08:45:23 PM  

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

FTFA: Under the law approved last year by Republican lawmakers and Walker, voters are required to show one of a set number of photo IDs to vote. It was in place for the February primary but has been blocked by court orders since then.

Those who do not have a driver's license or other photo ID can get one without charge from the state. But Flanagan noted that birth certificates are required to get the IDs and voters who don't have them must pay for them. He said more than 300,000 voters do not have an acceptable form of ID.

300,000 and a Poll Tax in case it being mentioned in the article and directly quoted for you wasn't clear.


A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?
 
2012-07-17 08:45:39 PM  

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


When did racism end?
 
2012-07-17 08:46:40 PM  

Aarontology: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

If you think we should be restricting people's right to vote, you don't deserve to be an American.


1. It's not a right.
2. We already restrict it...felons, underage...
 
2012-07-17 08:46:45 PM  

Flashlight: As soon as I can buy a gun without having to show ID I will support voting without having to show an ID.


I've done that. Twice.
 
2012-07-17 08:46:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote,


ProTip: Wisconsin is in the United States of America not Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta or Mexico.

againstlineofdance.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-17 08:47:03 PM  

Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?


You do know that the birth certificate and the ID both would cost money. Additionally no, there are free rides to the polling place that are organized in your area. Take advantage of them, if you wish. Contact your local party headquarters and they'll pick you up, no charge.
 
2012-07-17 08:47:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: 1. It's not a right.


Voting, a right explicitly outlined in the constitution, is not a right?

WTFamireading.jpg
 
2012-07-17 08:47:51 PM  

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

FTFA: Under the law approved last year by Republican lawmakers and Walker, voters are required to show one of a set number of photo IDs to vote. It was in place for the February primary but has been blocked by court orders since then.

Those who do not have a driver's license or other photo ID can get one without charge from the state. But Flanagan noted that birth certificates are required to get the IDs and voters who don't have them must pay for them. He said more than 300,000 voters do not have an acceptable form of ID.

300,000 and a Poll Tax in case it being mentioned in the article and directly quoted for you wasn't clear.

A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?


You sound like a Constitutional scholar. And tired.
 
2012-07-17 08:47:53 PM  

MorrisBird: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

You've got a great point there. The handicapped, those in wheelchairs and others who can't get out and get the proper identification have no business voting. How dare they? Who do those uppity disabled think they are, people?


How do they get out to vote if they can't get out to get an ID? Temporarily healed?
 
2012-07-17 08:48:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Perhaps we can stop this nonsense soon and get something that really matters...like a standard of knowledge / intellect for voting. I propose the U.S. Immigration Test (basic history / general government concepts) and an IQ test (you can't vote for Potato anyway).

This is the post of a farktard who's completely ignorant of history.

Do tell. Is there a certain group that you feel would be disenfranchised by knowledge / intellect tests?


The Republican base.
 
2012-07-17 08:49:03 PM  

Silly Jesus: MorrisBird: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

You've got a great point there. The handicapped, those in wheelchairs and others who can't get out and get the proper identification have no business voting. How dare they? Who do those uppity disabled think they are, people?

How do they get out to vote if they can't get out to get an ID? Temporarily healed?


See my comment above, be enlightened.
 
2012-07-17 08:49:05 PM  

cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.


On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".
 
2012-07-17 08:50:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.


Then let's do a completely free photo National ID card.
 
2012-07-17 08:50:16 PM  

MikeMc: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote,

ProTip: Wisconsin is in the United States of America not Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta or Mexico.

[againstlineofdance.files.wordpress.com image 325x214]


Just pointing out that there are perhaps valid reasons for having ID's other than OMG RACISMS.
 
2012-07-17 08:51:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

You do know that the birth certificate and the ID both would cost money. Additionally no, there are free rides to the polling place that are organized in your area. Take advantage of them, if you wish. Contact your local party headquarters and they'll pick you up, no charge.


1. The cards that I've heard about are free.
2. They should see about getting a free ride to get an ID.
 
2012-07-17 08:52:14 PM  

Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?


At my local liquor emporium, an elderly black man helped customers carry their booze to their cars. He knew I was a lawyer, because we shot the shiat when I went in. One day, he asked me how he could get a birth certificate to prove he was eligible for SSD. It seems, he was born at home in Mississippi, and his parents didn't know how to, or didn't bother to obtain one. The man served in WW II, and he couldn't get a freaking birth certificate. CSB, your mileage may vary.
 
2012-07-17 08:52:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: 1. It's not a right.

Voting, a right explicitly outlined in the constitution, is not a right?

WTFamireading.jpg


You evidently didn't read the link. It's not hard. Pretty simple, basic words.
 
2012-07-17 08:53:45 PM  

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



I believe it is more economic-based rather than race-based.

But it's good to know that you* equate poverty with minorities.

*or whomever
/
 
2012-07-17 08:54:04 PM  

Silly Jesus: How do they get out to vote if they can't get out to get an ID? Temporarily healed?


Through the mail, asshat.
 
2012-07-17 08:54:04 PM  

MikeMc: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Perhaps we can stop this nonsense soon and get something that really matters...like a standard of knowledge / intellect for voting. I propose the U.S. Immigration Test (basic history / general government concepts) and an IQ test (you can't vote for Potato anyway).

This is the post of a farktard who's completely ignorant of history.

Do tell. Is there a certain group that you feel would be disenfranchised by knowledge / intellect tests?

The Republican base.


So be it. Such folks shouldn't have the power to drastically impact the lives of others.
 
2012-07-17 08:54:43 PM  
OK, so who is Silly Jesus an alt for?

I have a clue or three....a raging clue.....
 
2012-07-17 08:54:50 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Krymson Tyde: Cool! I'm voting early and often for Obama if it is ruled illegal in Georgia.

Are you stating on this News Aggregate site that you are planning on breaking the law? I shall alert the authorities to have you arrested at once!


I thought that was what I was supposed to be doing already but have neglected my duty as a liberal. I have to make up for a lot of elections.
 
2012-07-17 08:54:59 PM  

Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.


And in those countries everyone has a national ID card issued by the national government. When that was suggested for Americans after 9/11 the conservatives blew a gasket.
 
2012-07-17 08:55:03 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

You do know that the birth certificate and the ID both would cost money. Additionally no, there are free rides to the polling place that are organized in your area. Take advantage of them, if you wish. Contact your local party headquarters and they'll pick you up, no charge.

1. The cards that I've heard about are free.
2. They should see about getting a free ride to get an ID.


1. Not all states have free ID cards, WI is one of them that does not.
2. Call your local party and suggest it. Doesn't change the fact that they don't exist right now.
 
2012-07-17 08:55:42 PM  

Silly Jesus: Aarontology: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

If you think we should be restricting people's right to vote, you don't deserve to be an American.

1. It's not a right.
2. We already restrict it...felons, underage...


Neither is owning a gun. We already restrict it, felons, underage, mentally ill....
 
2012-07-17 08:55:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: 1. It's not a right.

Voting, a right explicitly outlined in the constitution, is not a right?

WTFamireading.jpg

You evidently didn't read the link. It's not hard. Pretty simple, basic words.


Please explain, then. I'm sure you can.
 
2012-07-17 08:55:50 PM  

Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".


It's not a right.
 
2012-07-17 08:56:00 PM  

cretinbob: OK, so who is Silly Jesus an alt for?

I have a clue or three....a raging clue.....


I'm not sure but that bastard has only been here since January and already has 36 greens.
 
2012-07-17 08:56:25 PM  

12349876: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.

Then let's do a completely free photo National ID card.


Alrighty.
 
2012-07-17 08:56:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?


I can walk to my polling place in 15 minutes. Previous 2 places a 30 minute walk. I would guess it's similar for most others in a city/suburb. And I don't know if any cities do free bus fares on election day (a good idea) but my city offers free bus rides to cooling centers during heat waves.
 
2012-07-17 08:57:01 PM  
As a community organizer I applaud this decision .The handicapped and the indigent need to be able to vote and have their interests represented. Many of them don't have the resources or ability to travel to the polling station. As a service to this under represented segment of our democracy, I travel to the polling station and vote on their behalf. Rest assured that I vote as their needs would dictate. The law as it stands enables me to perform my duties easily. If this law would've passed, I'd have to take the extra effort of requesting absentee ballots for the the handicapped and indigent. The postage costs would be passed on to my employer and result in higher union dues. Thankfully this decision protects not only the rights of Wisconsin voters, but the incomes of our hard working public servants.
 
2012-07-17 08:57:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: 12349876: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.

Then let's do a completely free photo National ID card.

Alrighty.


You're not going to get a lot of Republicans to agree with you.
 
2012-07-17 08:57:37 PM  

MorrisBird: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

At my local liquor emporium, an elderly black man helped customers carry their booze to their cars. He knew I was a lawyer, because we shot the shiat when I went in. One day, he asked me how he could get a birth certificate to prove he was eligible for SSD. It seems, he was born at home in Mississippi, and his parents didn't know how to, or didn't bother to obtain one. The man served in WW II, and he couldn't get a freaking birth certificate. CSB, your mileage may vary.


Cool anecdote bro.
 
2012-07-17 08:58:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.


So the Voting "Rights" act of 1965 did not codify voting as a right in the US?
 
2012-07-17 08:58:30 PM  

MorrisBird: Silly Jesus: How do they get out to vote if they can't get out to get an ID? Temporarily healed?

Through the mail, asshat.


What's the point of the ID then? How would it stop those people from voting in the first place, asshat?
 
2012-07-17 08:58:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

You do know that the birth certificate and the ID both would cost money. Additionally no, there are free rides to the polling place that are organized in your area. Take advantage of them, if you wish. Contact your local party headquarters and they'll pick you up, no charge.

1. The cards that I've heard about are free.
2. They should see about getting a free ride to get an ID.

1. Not all states have free ID cards, WI is one of them that does not.
2. Call your local party and suggest it. Doesn't change the fact that they don't exist right now.


Actually I remember reading that WI will give a free voter ID, they just don't advertise the fact at the local DMV's, you have to specifically request it basically
 
2012-07-17 08:59:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: MorrisBird: Silly Jesus: How do they get out to vote if they can't get out to get an ID? Temporarily healed?

Through the mail, asshat.

What's the point of the ID then? How would it stop those people from voting in the first place, asshat?


You can't show ID through the mail?
 
2012-07-17 08:59:37 PM  

12349876: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.

Then let's do a completely free photo National ID card.


ZOMG STATES RIGHTS!
 
2012-07-17 08:59:59 PM  

martissimo: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

You do know that the birth certificate and the ID both would cost money. Additionally no, there are free rides to the polling place that are organized in your area. Take advantage of them, if you wish. Contact your local party headquarters and they'll pick you up, no charge.

1. The cards that I've heard about are free.
2. They should see about getting a free ride to get an ID.

1. Not all states have free ID cards, WI is one of them that does not.
2. Call your local party and suggest it. Doesn't change the fact that they don't exist right now.

Actually I remember reading that WI will give a free voter ID, they just don't advertise the fact at the local DMV's, you have to specifically request it basically


So it's like a Land Sea Air burger at McDonald's?
 
2012-07-17 09:00:36 PM  

Ed Finnerty: cretinbob: OK, so who is Silly Jesus an alt for?

I have a clue or three....a raging clue.....

I'm not sure but that bastard has only been here since January and already has 36 greens.


I've noticed in the past that he seemed to be a Social Darwinist.
 
2012-07-17 09:00:41 PM  

revrendjim: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.

And in those countries everyone has a national ID card issued by the national government. When that was suggested for Americans after 9/11 the conservatives blew a gasket.


That's the true irony of all this. Had Republicans (save for a few NeoCons), not gone batsh*t insane over the Real ID Act after 9/11, they'd actually have a leg to stand on in this argument. The fact that they did just proves that their end goal is to disenfranchise poor voters.
 
2012-07-17 09:01:38 PM  

Silly Jesus: What's the point of the ID then? How would it stop those people from voting in the first place, asshat?


There is no point to the ID other than voter suppression. My son is currently serving this country in Kuwait. He lacks a drivers license at this point. Are you going to cut him off too?
 
2012-07-17 09:01:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

You do know that the birth certificate and the ID both would cost money. Additionally no, there are free rides to the polling place that are organized in your area. Take advantage of them, if you wish. Contact your local party headquarters and they'll pick you up, no charge.

1. The cards that I've heard about are free.
2. They should see about getting a free ride to get an ID.

1. Not all states have free ID cards, WI is one of them that does not.
2. Call your local party and suggest it. Doesn't change the fact that they don't exist right now.


1. Wisconsin disagrees.
2. But it doesn't appear that this would be an insurmountable burden.
 
2012-07-17 09:02:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.


15th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
 
2012-07-17 09:02:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: 2. But it doesn't appear that this would be an insurmountable burden.


Like I said, call your local party headquarters. I'm sure you could work something out.
 
2012-07-17 09:02:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: 1. It's not a right.

Voting, a right explicitly outlined in the constitution, is not a right?

WTFamireading.jpg

You evidently didn't read the link. It's not hard. Pretty simple, basic words.

Please explain, then. I'm sure you can.


What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.
 
2012-07-17 09:04:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.


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?
 
2012-07-17 09:04:21 PM  

12349876: Silly Jesus: 12349876: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.

Then let's do a completely free photo National ID card.

Alrighty.

You're not going to get a lot of Republicans to agree with you.


Am I trying to?
 
2012-07-17 09:05:02 PM  

Ryan2065: Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.

15th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


Does silly lawn care guy think that it is a privilege and that we should look to those who are our betters to lead us in these dark times?
 
2012-07-17 09:05:09 PM  
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

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 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
 
2012-07-17 09:06:31 PM  

MikeMc: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Perhaps we can stop this nonsense soon and get something that really matters...like a standard of knowledge / intellect for voting. I propose the U.S. Immigration Test (basic history / general government concepts) and an IQ test (you can't vote for Potato anyway).

This is the post of a farktard who's completely ignorant of history.

Do tell. Is there a certain group that you feel would be disenfranchised by knowledge / intellect tests?

The Republican base.


SWISH...nuthin but net...
 
2012-07-17 09:06:39 PM  

RyogaM: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

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 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


Obviously none of that says it's a right. Because some Congressman wrote a position paper ignoring it. Welcome to the world of Silly Jesus.
 
2012-07-17 09:07:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.

So the Voting "Rights" act of 1965 did not codify voting as a right in the US?


No...you didn't read the link at all, did you? I specifically covers this.

The act merely lists some specific reasons why you can't deny someone the ability to vote.

I really think that you'd find the position paper interesting. I was confused, just as you are, prior to reading it.
 
2012-07-17 09:08:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: 12349876: Silly Jesus: 12349876: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.

Then let's do a completely free photo National ID card.

Alrighty.

You're not going to get a lot of Republicans to agree with you.

Am I trying to?


What's your point, then? ID required for voting? Fine, just make it free and accessible. It seems only Republicans have a problem with the cure for all the so-called voting fraud occurring.
 
2012-07-17 09:08:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: MorrisBird: Silly Jesus: How do they get out to vote if they can't get out to get an ID? Temporarily healed?

Through the mail, asshat.

What's the point of the ID then? How would it stop those people from voting in the first place, asshat?

You can't show ID through the mail?


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-07-17 09:08:52 PM  

MikeMc: Burn_The_Plows: Yea! That's $28 I don't have to spend to renew an ID I've used exactly twice in the last 3 years. (Once was to vote.)

Ooooh, I have to renew my D/L next month I wonder if I can get it for free if I tell them it's for voting...


Not if you previously had a D/L or ID. The "free" ones for voting are for those that have never had an ID in Wisconsin. Not sure if that applies to someone that has/had an ID from another state.
 
2012-07-17 09:10:16 PM  

Silly Jesus: The act merely lists some specific reasons why you can't deny someone the ability to vote.


Then why does it call it the "right to vote"? You have yet to answer thy the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights act of 65 both call it a right. Like, specifically. The words "right to vote" are right in there, no pun intended.
 
2012-07-17 09:10:56 PM  
I already have 10 perfectly good forms of ID on me at all times...

well most of the time. Sometimes the soldering iron slips and I nip one a bit.
 
2012-07-17 09:11:44 PM  

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

Millions of Americans.

My mom for one, moved and can't get a drivers license in NV without a social security card, can't get a social security card without a DL. Catch 22

/she has a expired DL from years ago that is no help


First off, a photo ID and a drivers license are two different things.

She can get a license without the SS card. She can bring a certified birth certificate, which can be obtained surprisingly easily online at vitalcheck.com (think I got the web site right). And since her license is expired she'll have to take the driving test. http://www.dmvnv.com/newresident.htm#Tests

Really, this shiat isn't that hard. But I'm cool with people not voting if they're too stupid to figure out how to get a drivers license.
 
2012-07-17 09:11:58 PM  

Flashlight: As soon as I can buy a gun without having to show ID I will support voting without having to show an ID.


as a liberal, i support your right to buy a gun and vote without showing id. Even though i think your an irresponsible hillbilly hick who will probably shoot your own foot or god forbid one of your own family.. and your not going to vote for anyone id agree with.. yet still.. i believe in the constitution and i believe in your rights. Thats what it means to be an American.. i guess that's something your just not familiar with.
 
2012-07-17 09:12:19 PM  
I don't believe anyone who says voting is the most important thing a citizen can do unless they also advocate moving election day. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November? Come on. Polls should be open from 7AM until midnight on the first Saturday and Sunday of October. There are over 200 million Americans eligible to vote and the polls are open for 12-14 hours on a work day? That's as far as you need to look to call our elections unfair
 
2012-07-17 09:13:10 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: MikeMc: Burn_The_Plows: Yea! That's $28 I don't have to spend to renew an ID I've used exactly twice in the last 3 years. (Once was to vote.)

Ooooh, I have to renew my D/L next month I wonder if I can get it for free if I tell them it's for voting...

Not if you previously had a D/L or ID. The "free" ones for voting are for those that have never had an ID in Wisconsin. Not sure if that applies to someone that has/had an ID from another state.


So much for that idea. This August is WisDOT month for me, D/L and registration renewals.
 
2012-07-17 09:13:24 PM  

MorrisBird: Silly Jesus: What's the point of the ID then? How would it stop those people from voting in the first place, asshat?

There is no point to the ID other than voter suppression. My son is currently serving this country in Kuwait. He lacks a drivers license at this point. Are you going to cut him off too?


1. A great many countries are suppressing a great many votes then.
2. If he's serving in Kuwait, I have every confidence that he would be capable of obtaining an ID to vote.

People get ID's all the time so that they can enjoy the amazing privilege of driving a car...or so they can enjoy the privilege of buying a beer. But ask someone to get an ID to enjoy the privilege of voting and you've suddenly burdened them beyond comprehension.
 
2012-07-17 09:13:24 PM  

MorrisBird: Silly Jesus: What's the point of the ID then? How would it stop those people from voting in the first place, asshat?

There is no point to the ID other than voter suppression. My son is currently serving this country in Kuwait. He lacks a drivers license at this point. Are you going to cut him off too?


Well, people that have actually seen the result of Republican foreign policy first-hand sometimes rethink how valid a "bomb the shiat out of everyone" approach really is.
 
2012-07-17 09:13:35 PM  
Cmon, Silly Jesus, I'm waiting. Please explain how two documents that specifically call voting a "right" don't do just that.
 
2012-07-17 09:14:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: People get ID's all the time so that they can enjoy the amazing privilege of driving a car...or so they can enjoy the privilege of buying a beer. But ask someone to get an ID to enjoy the privilege of voting and you've suddenly burdened them beyond comprehension.


Because it's a right, not a privilege. Say so right in the Constitution as amended.
 
2012-07-17 09:15:18 PM  

Ryan2065: Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.

15th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


Read this...I promise it's interesting.
 
2012-07-17 09:16:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: Ryan2065: Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.

15th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Read this...I promise it's interesting.


You still have yet to prove that when the 15th amendment calls voting a "right" that it doesn't actually mean what it says.

Literally, how can "the right of citizens to vote" mean anything other than "the right of citizens to vote"? If it doesn't mean the right to vote, what DOES it mean?
 
2012-07-17 09:16:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.


Your link cites two cases. Bush v. Gore dealt only with the right to vote in presidential elections, which end up being decided by the electoral college. Your second case dealt with the District of Columbia, which doesn't elect representatives or senators due to not being a state. That seems to be a bit of cherry picking, unless you think that those are the only offices people vote for.
 
2012-07-17 09:16:45 PM  

jj325: I don't believe anyone who says voting is the most important thing a citizen can do unless they also advocate moving election day. The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November? Come on. Polls should be open from 7AM until midnight on the first Saturday and Sunday of October. There are over 200 million Americans eligible to vote and the polls are open for 12-14 hours on a work day? That's as far as you need to look to call our elections unfair


Some people do work on weekends and not weekdays, too. Early voting should be, and is, available in many states.
 
2012-07-17 09:19:10 PM  

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


*plonk*
 
2012-07-17 09:20:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: People get ID's all the time so that they can enjoy the amazing privilege of driving a car...or so they can enjoy the privilege of buying a beer. But ask someone to get an ID to enjoy the privilege of voting and you've suddenly burdened them beyond comprehension.


I'm 40 years old and haven't driven a car since I was 15 (Driver's Ed) because I have very poor depth perception. I also don't smoke and have been sober for almost 2 and a half years.

Please explain to me why I need to pay $28 for an ID to vote.
 
2012-07-17 09:21:52 PM  

Flashlight: As soon as I can buy a gun without having to show ID I will support voting without having to show an ID.


You just need to go to Arizona and be a bit Fast and Furious.
 
2012-07-17 09:21:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.


That's Old Europe, doesn't count.
 
2012-07-17 09:21:57 PM  
A soothing refreshing balm for the butthurt inflicted by Walker.
 
2012-07-17 09:22:19 PM  
So liberal judges can ignore ussc precedent, did not know that. And people wonder why liberal judges are seen as functionally retarded...
 
2012-07-17 09:22:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: How do they get out to vote if they can't get out to get an ID? Temporarily healed?


Polling locations here are open 7AM to 8PM.

The DMV? 9AM to 4:30PM

See the problem, troll?
 
2012-07-17 09:22:27 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: Silly Jesus: People get ID's all the time so that they can enjoy the amazing privilege of driving a car...or so they can enjoy the privilege of buying a beer. But ask someone to get an ID to enjoy the privilege of voting and you've suddenly burdened them beyond comprehension.

I'm 40 years old and haven't driven a car since I was 15 (Driver's Ed) because I have very poor depth perception. I also don't smoke and have been sober for almost 2 and a half years.

Please explain to me why I need to pay $28 for an ID to vote.


Because even though the 15th amendment explicitly calls it a right, it's somehow not a right because DC and Presidential Elections are different.
 
2012-07-17 09:22:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.

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?


Really? The amendment is specifying reasons that can't be used to deny the privilege of voting. It's not saying that there's an overall right to vote...otherwise, what would be the point of the amendment? "Everyone has the right to vote, but you can't deny people the right to vote because of XYZ." Doesn't make much sense, does it?

This may help. Wik - 15th Amendment
 
2012-07-17 09:23:24 PM  

Silly Jesus: Really? The amendment is specifying reasons that can't be used to deny the privilege of voting


It doesn't call it a privilege. It calls it a right. "The right to vote," it says. Please explain to me how "right" can mean "privilege"
 
2012-07-17 09:23:36 PM  

ahasp: consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.
One of the main targets of this were college students (because anyone with more education than Walker won't vote for him). Not only did it include the photo ID, but also required you to live at the address for a minimum amount of time. Many college students move from year to year and would have to get new IDs each year or they didn't meet the time for the residency requirements and wouldn't have been able to vote.


College ID does not denote residency moron. Out of country students have college ID, it does not mean they should be able to vote.
 
2012-07-17 09:24:19 PM  

KidneyStone: She can get a license without the SS card. She can bring a certified birth certificate, which can be obtained surprisingly easily online at vitalcheck.com (think I got the web site right). And since her license is expired she'll have to take the driving test. http://www.dmvnv.com/newresident.htm#Tests

Really, this shiat isn't that hard. But I'm cool with people not voting if they're too stupid to figure out how to get a drivers license.


facts are hard

One from column A, one from column B.... she hasn't worked in years, not sure on the 1099 angle though might be something there
 
2012-07-17 09:24:37 PM  

MorrisBird: Silly Jesus: What's the point of the ID then? How would it stop those people from voting in the first place, asshat?

There is no point to the ID other than voter suppression. My son is currently serving this country in Kuwait. He lacks a drivers license at this point. Are you going to cut him off too?


Dammit. You are making me take his side.

If he's in the military, he is issued a photo ID. Unless I'm mistaken, military ID is included in the list of acceptable ID in all these stupid laws.
 
2012-07-17 09:25:16 PM  

Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".


2006 ussc ruling. Sorry that you are so ignorant.
 
2012-07-17 09:25:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: RyogaM: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

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 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Obviously none of that says it's a right. Because some Congressman wrote a position paper ignoring it. Welcome to the world of Silly Jesus.


Read. Enlighten yourself, oh naive one.

What, exactly, would be the purpose of having all of these amendments listing reasons that you can't deny people the "right" to vote if it's a "right" to begin with?

As I said above. "Everyone has the right to vote, but this amendment guarantees that group X has the right to vote." That makes sense to you?
 
2012-07-17 09:25:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.

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?

Really? The amendment is specifying reasons that can't be used to deny the privilege of voting. It's not saying that there's an overall right to vote...otherwise, what would be the point of the amendment? "Everyone has the right to vote, but you can't deny people the right to vote because of XYZ." Doesn't make much sense, does it?

This may help. Wik - 15th Amendment


First sentence: The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote
 
2012-07-17 09:25:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.

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?

Really? The amendment is specifying reasons that can't be used to deny the privilege of voting. It's not saying that there's an overall right to vote...otherwise, what would be the point of the amendment? "Everyone has the right to vote, but you can't deny people the right to vote because of XYZ." Doesn't make much sense, does it?

This may help. Wik - 15th Amendment


From your link, the first paragraph:

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (for example, slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

Huh, looks like it says "denying a citizen the right to vote"

Guess that did help!
 
2012-07-17 09:26:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Burn_The_Plows: Silly Jesus: People get ID's all the time so that they can enjoy the amazing privilege of driving a car...or so they can enjoy the privilege of buying a beer. But ask someone to get an ID to enjoy the privilege of voting and you've suddenly burdened them beyond comprehension.

I'm 40 years old and haven't driven a car since I was 15 (Driver's Ed) because I have very poor depth perception. I also don't smoke and have been sober for almost 2 and a half years.

Please explain to me why I need to pay $28 for an ID to vote.

Because even though the 15th amendment explicitly calls it a right, it's somehow not a right because DC and Presidential Elections are different.


Well, what about State elections? County? City? Block Captain? At what level should I not have to pay the state $28 for an ID that I don't use just to vote?
 
2012-07-17 09:26:54 PM  

MorrisBird: Silly Jesus: What's the point of the ID then? How would it stop those people from voting in the first place, asshat?

There is no point to the ID other than voter suppression. My son is currently serving this country in Kuwait. He lacks a drivers license at this point. Are you going to cut him off too?


Lol. How infantile you are. He has a military id.
 
2012-07-17 09:27:05 PM  

djkutch: Silly Jesus: 12349876: Silly Jesus: 12349876: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.

Then let's do a completely free photo National ID card.

Alrighty.

You're not going to get a lot of Republicans to agree with you.

Am I trying to?

What's your point, then? ID required for voting? Fine, just make it free and accessible. It seems only Republicans have a problem with the cure for all the so-called voting fraud occurring.


Sounds good to me.

I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.
 
2012-07-17 09:27:14 PM  

cmunic8r99: If he's in the military, he is issued a photo ID. Unless I'm mistaken, military ID is included in the list of acceptable ID in all these stupid laws.


citation needed
 
2012-07-17 09:27:58 PM  

Ryan2065: Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.

15th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


2006 supreme court ruling states identification is not an undue burden. Try again.
 
2012-07-17 09:28:20 PM  

Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.


Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?
 
2012-07-17 09:28:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.

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?

Really? The amendment is specifying reasons that can't be used to deny the privilege of voting. It's not saying that there's an overall right to vote...otherwise, what would be the point of the amendment?


What would be the point of the amendment? Maybe to overturn state laws which prevented people of color from voting. Just because they specifically biatchslapped one particular restriction doesn't mean any others are legal.
 
2012-07-17 09:28:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: The act merely lists some specific reasons why you can't deny someone the ability to vote.

Then why does it call it the "right to vote"? You have yet to answer thy the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights act of 65 both call it a right. Like, specifically. The words "right to vote" are right in there, no pun intended.


You can't see the forest for the trees. I've tried to explain it twice, I've provided articles and position papers, both of which have numerous sources listed. I don't know what else I can do.
 
2012-07-17 09:29:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.


I hit that link by accident, and all I had to see was the 'word' "Fairvote".

I'm going with: since it says fair right in the title, it is grotesquely unfair.

See also: Fairtax.
 
2012-07-17 09:31:03 PM  

Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.


Millions of people will be disenfranchised to prevent a handful of potential cases of voter fraud. This is admitted by even the governors signing these laws. That's your definition of asinine?
 
2012-07-17 09:31:38 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Silly Jesus: How do they get out to vote if they can't get out to get an ID? Temporarily healed?

Polling locations here are open 7AM to 8PM.

The DMV? 9AM to 4:30PM

See the problem, troll?


And the operating hours have what exactly to do with the invalids not being able to leave their house?
 
2012-07-17 09:32:33 PM  

Silly Jesus: Ryan2065: Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.

15th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Read this...I promise it's interesting.


Here, allow me to point out the glaring fallacy upon which this entire paper rests:

he 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the word "vote" appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, the so-called right to vote is a "state right." Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote.

Sorry, that's not going to fly. The state's cannot restrict the right to vote willy-nilly without some sort of Federal Supreme Court oversight. Like all rights there will be balancing considerations to determine if a state's interest is balanced by the right espoused. For example, you have a right to freedom of speech, but, the state can infringe on the freedom to prevent you from advocating imminent, unlawful, dangerous, acts.

In the same way, there IS a right to vote. This right cannot be summarily taken away from you through state action without some overwhelming state interest being put forth. And a state restriction based on failure to show I.D., absent some compelling interest should be voted down as a unconstitutional infringement of the right to vote. The only question is: is preventing voter fraud a compelling interest. In the absence of evidence of wide-spread voter fraud, I would think no. But, really, with this court, who knows? That does not mean, however, that there is no Right to Vote, just that we are trying to understand where the edges of this right are, just like the right to free speech, own a gun, practice a religion, etc.
 
2012-07-17 09:33:31 PM  

Silly Jesus: You can't see the forest for the trees. I've tried to explain it twice, I've provided articles and position papers, both of which have numerous sources listed. I don't know what else I can do.


You could somehow find a definition of the word "right" that means "privilege" I guess.
 
2012-07-17 09:34:14 PM  

djkutch: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.

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?

Really? The amendment is specifying reasons that can't be used to deny the privilege of voting. It's not saying that there's an overall right to vote...otherwise, what would be the point of the amendment? "Everyone has the right to vote, but you can't deny people the right to vote because of XYZ." Doesn't make much sense, does it?

This may help. Wik - 15th Amendment

First sentence: The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote


Um, you cut off the important part of the sentence.

Also, since cameron is so confused, please explain how, if it is a Right, as you argue, there need to be amendments giving people that right again.
 
2012-07-17 09:34:21 PM  

MorrisBird: cmunic8r99: If he's in the military, he is issued a photo ID. Unless I'm mistaken, military ID is included in the list of acceptable ID in all these stupid laws.

citation needed


About being issued an ID or about the laws?
 
2012-07-17 09:34:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?


Dude, I had a knock-down, drag-out with Silly Jesus in a recent Zimmerman thread. He is being paid very well, because he will not admit when he is wrong or illogical or clearly silly. You could hand him an apple and he'll call you a communist for handing him a flag with a hammer and sickle.
 
2012-07-17 09:34:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

You do know that the birth certificate and the ID both would cost money. Additionally no, there are free rides to the polling place that are organized in your area. Take advantage of them, if you wish. Contact your local party headquarters and they'll pick you up, no charge.

1. The cards that I've heard about are free.
2. They should see about getting a free ride to get an ID.


Sooo... the anti-welfare crowd will be ok with the government giving free trips to people to get their free ID?

Right.

And how will the government pay for these new services? Maybe with a tax increase?

Right.
 
2012-07-17 09:34:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?


I swear some of the trolls who post here post only to muddy the waters and convince stupid people that things are not clear-cut when they are.
 
2012-07-17 09:35:31 PM  
You know what's ironic? The fact that the GOP fought tooth and nail against Motor Voter legislation that would require states to allow people to register to vote when they got or renewed their driver's license. The GOP will actively oppose any increase in the size of the voting rolls. They know demographic trends are slowly working against them and their "small tent" philosophy and they're trying to delay the inevitable for as long as possible.
 
2012-07-17 09:36:02 PM  

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

750,000 in Pennsylvania
Can't find the link, but according to the republican governor of South Carolina, 250,000 citizens of that state do not have photo ID.

How many cases of voter fraud that would have been stopped by requiring ID can you cite? I bet it's less than a million.


Less than a million? It's probably less than 100. In PA they looked back for years and struggled to find 10.

If you really think blocking a group of people from their right to vote because they don't vote the way you do is a good idea, you truly don't deserve to call yourself an American or a patriot. People did not fight in the Revolution, the War of 1812, two World Wars and the Cold War just so you could spit on all they fought for.
 
2012-07-17 09:36:07 PM  

Silly Jesus: Um, you cut off the important part of the sentence.

Also, since cameron is so confused, please explain how, if it is a Right, as you argue, there need to be amendments giving people that right again


That doesn't even make sense. The original constitution affirmed voting as a right for white men aged 21. The 15th amendment merely assigned that right to everyone regardless of color or other discrimination. Maybe you should educate yourself as to the history of voting rights in this country. And, again, come up with a definition of the word "right" that legally means "privilege"
 
2012-07-17 09:36:33 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: Silly Jesus: People get ID's all the time so that they can enjoy the amazing privilege of driving a car...or so they can enjoy the privilege of buying a beer. But ask someone to get an ID to enjoy the privilege of voting and you've suddenly burdened them beyond comprehension.

I'm 40 years old and haven't driven a car since I was 15 (Driver's Ed) because I have very poor depth perception. I also don't smoke and have been sober for almost 2 and a half years.

Please explain to me why I need to pay $28 for an ID to vote.


Are you blah?
 
2012-07-17 09:37:19 PM  

cmunic8r99: MorrisBird: cmunic8r99: If he's in the military, he is issued a photo ID. Unless I'm mistaken, military ID is included in the list of acceptable ID in all these stupid laws.

citation needed

About being issued an ID or about the laws?


About the laws, which vary wildly from state to state.

/Here in PA, they'll accept a college ID
//The ID I had in college could be faked at Kinkos for under $10
///Small school
 
2012-07-17 09:41:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?


Please explain why several amendments were needed to give people rights that they already had.
 
2012-07-17 09:43:11 PM  

Karac: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Millions of people will be disenfranchised to prevent a handful of potential cases of voter fraud. This is admitted by even the governors signing these laws. That's your definition of asinine?


I think that if you can leave your house to vote, you can leave your house to pick up a free ID. I don't see it as being the insurmountable burden that it's being portrayed as.
 
2012-07-17 09:44:19 PM  

sigdiamond2000: revrendjim: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.

And in those countries everyone has a national ID card issued by the national government. When that was suggested for Americans after 9/11 the conservatives blew a gasket.

That's the true irony of all this. Had Republicans (save for a few NeoCons), not gone batsh*t insane over the Real ID Act after 9/11, they'd actually have a leg to stand on in this argument. The fact that they did just proves that their end goal is to disenfranchise poor voters.


Yes...those damn Republicans at the ACLU damn near killed Real ID.
 
2012-07-17 09:44:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?

Please explain why several amendments were needed to give people rights that they already had.


Please explain where I said they already had those rights? Additionaly, please explain why we even need a constitution if you think they don't need to be codified? Thirdly, please explain to me how "right" does not mean "right," something I've asked you several times to do now and which you have not done.
 
2012-07-17 09:45:02 PM  

RyogaM: Silly Jesus: Ryan2065: Silly Jesus: Ambivalence: cchris_39: If getting a photo ID is really a "substantial impairment" in your world, you really shouldn't be voting.

On another tract, since when has it been a legal requirement to get identification? Voting isn't like driving, it's not a privlage, it's a right. It's a right whether you're homeless (and don't have an official address), elderly, mentally disabled, or just don't have proper photo ID. it's not a privlage that you have to "earn".

It's not a right.

15th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Read this...I promise it's interesting.

Here, allow me to point out the glaring fallacy upon which this entire paper rests:

he 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the word "vote" appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, the so-called right to vote is a "state right." Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote.

Sorry, that's not going to fly. The state's cannot restrict the right to vote willy-nilly without some sort of Federal Supreme Court oversight. Like all rights there will be balancing considerations to determine if a state's interest is balanced by the right espoused. For example, you have a right to freedom of speech, but, the state can infringe on the freedom to prevent you from advocating imminent, unlawful, dangerous, acts.

In the same way, there IS a right to vote. This right cannot be summarily taken away from you through state action without some overwhelming state interest being put forth. And a state restriction based on failure to show I.D., absent some compellin ...


SCOTUS, among others, disagrees with you.
 
2012-07-17 09:45:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?

Please explain why several amendments were needed to give people rights that they already had.


That one's easy! The United States, at its beginning, had laws that were deliberately contrived to keep blah people and other minorities in a permanent underclass. Further amendments to the Constitution were made to ensure that those minorities were no longer treated as less than human or less than American.

Isn't it sad that right-wingers hate those amendments and want to roll back progress?
 
2012-07-17 09:45:26 PM  

Silly Jesus: Karac: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Millions of people will be disenfranchised to prevent a handful of potential cases of voter fraud. This is admitted by even the governors signing these laws. That's your definition of asinine?

I think that if you can leave your house to vote, you can leave your house to pick up a free ID. I don't see it as being the insurmountable burden that it's being portrayed as.


Have you ever gone to the DMV? As far as I'm concerned, going there is cruel and unusual punishment.

But regardless, your trolling is blatant and not entertaining. Take a nap. Maybe you'll get a second wind.
 
2012-07-17 09:47:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?

Please explain why several amendments were needed to give people rights that they already had.


The Constitution does not 'give rights'.
 
2012-07-17 09:47:43 PM  
I remember "Sore/Loserman" being a hugely popular bumper sticker immediately following an election with serious, documented fark-ups and conflicts of interest. Now I'm an asshole for suggesting that the right to vote should not be subject to an effective poll tax, especially if based on virtually nothing except a desire to disenfranchise likely Democrats?

Which is it? Do you actually give a sh*t about the sanctity of voting or not?

/don't actually answer this question
 
2012-07-17 09:48:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Um, you cut off the important part of the sentence.

Also, since cameron is so confused, please explain how, if it is a Right, as you argue, there need to be amendments giving people that right again

That doesn't even make sense. The original constitution affirmed voting as a right for white men aged 21. The 15th amendment merely assigned that right to everyone regardless of color or other discrimination. Maybe you should educate yourself as to the history of voting rights in this country. And, again, come up with a definition of the word "right" that legally means "privilege"


"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)

Argue with SCOTUS.

/you can lead a horse to water....
 
2012-07-17 09:49:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: The act merely lists some specific reasons why you can't deny someone the ability to vote.

Then why does it call it the "right to vote"? You have yet to answer thy the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights act of 65 both call it a right. Like, specifically. The words "right to vote" are right in there, no pun intended.

You can't see the forest for the trees. I've tried to explain it twice, I've provided articles and position papers, both of which have numerous sources listed. I don't know what else I can do.


You seem to be conflating the right to vote with the government's ability to restrict the right to vote. There are a lot of rights we have that governments can restrict. For example, we have the right to bear arms, but many states place restrictions on that right based on age, felony status, mental capacity, etc. Likewise, we have the right to vote, but governments have in the past, and continue today, to place restrictions on that right. For example, to this day, every state restricts the rights of minors to vote. Likewise, millions of Americans are restricted from voting based on their criminal records.

In other words, governments (at least local and state governments) are allowed to infringe upon our rights unless we specifically tell them not to (usually throught constitutions). What the Bill of Rights is, for the most part, is a list of the rights that the federal government (and also the state governments) is not allowed to infringe upon. The government cannot infringe upon your right to free speech, to peacably assemble, to bear arms, etc. The 15th amendment is a list of some reasons that state governments are not allowed to deny you the right to vote. This list does not preclude the government from restricting your right to vote for other reasons, but the Supreme Court has been pretty strict about what reasons governments can use.
 
2012-07-17 09:50:17 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: Silly Jesus: People get ID's all the time so that they can enjoy the amazing privilege of driving a car...or so they can enjoy the privilege of buying a beer. But ask someone to get an ID to enjoy the privilege of voting and you've suddenly burdened them beyond comprehension.

I'm 40 years old and haven't driven a car since I was 15 (Driver's Ed) because I have very poor depth perception. I also don't smoke and have been sober for almost 2 and a half years.

Please explain to me why I need to pay $28 for an ID to vote.


If I were you, I'd just go get one of the free ID's.
 
2012-07-17 09:50:34 PM  

Silly Jesus: djkutch: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.

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?

Really? The amendment is specifying reasons that can't be used to deny the privilege of voting. It's not saying that there's an overall right to vote...otherwise, what would be the point of the amendment? "Everyone has the right to vote, but you can't deny people the right to vote because of XYZ." Doesn't make much sense, does it?

This may help. Wik - 15th Amendment

First sentence: The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote

Um, you cut off the important part of the sentence.

Also, since cameron is so confused, please explain how, if it is a Right, as you argue, there need to be amendments giving people that right again. I can't be sure, but he


I'm no legal eagle, but giving people the right again may beg your own question.

I believe the amendment is now part of the Constitution. The Constitution that allowed for amendments.

You are entertaining!
 
2012-07-17 09:50:42 PM  
If they don't want any voter ID laws then I say we go back to popular votes and get rid of the electoral selections.


Make each and every vote count.
 
2012-07-17 09:51:28 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: Um, you cut off the important part of the sentence.

Also, since cameron is so confused, please explain how, if it is a Right, as you argue, there need to be amendments giving people that right again

That doesn't even make sense. The original constitution affirmed voting as a right for white men aged 21. The 15th amendment merely assigned that right to everyone regardless of color or other discrimination. Maybe you should educate yourself as to the history of voting rights in this country. And, again, come up with a definition of the word "right" that legally means "privilege"

"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)

Argue with SCOTUS.

/you can lead a horse to water....


I love you because you cite Bush v. Gore to justify the way you think elections should be run.

www.graphics99.com
 
2012-07-17 09:51:42 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)


"for electors for the President of the United States" - Is that the only kind of voting?

Silly Jesus: the right of all qualified citizens to vote"


Does the word "right" mean anything other than "right"? Apparently you think it does. What definition of "right" are you using in this sentence?
 
2012-07-17 09:51:56 PM  
Ironicly, the same people who don't want voter ID laws are also against piss testing for government handouts...

add that one up.
 
2012-07-17 09:52:31 PM  

rugman11: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: The act merely lists some specific reasons why you can't deny someone the ability to vote.

Then why does it call it the "right to vote"? You have yet to answer thy the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights act of 65 both call it a right. Like, specifically. The words "right to vote" are right in there, no pun intended.

You can't see the forest for the trees. I've tried to explain it twice, I've provided articles and position papers, both of which have numerous sources listed. I don't know what else I can do.

You seem to be conflating the right to vote with the government's ability to restrict the right to vote. There are a lot of rights we have that governments can restrict. For example, we have the right to bear arms, but many states place restrictions on that right based on age, felony status, mental capacity, etc. Likewise, we have the right to vote, but governments have in the past, and continue today, to place restrictions on that right. For example, to this day, every state restricts the rights of minors to vote. Likewise, millions of Americans are restricted from voting based on their criminal records.

In other words, governments (at least local and state governments) are allowed to infringe upon our rights unless we specifically tell them not to (usually throught constitutions). What the Bill of Rights is, for the most part, is a list of the rights that the federal government (and also the state governments) is not allowed to infringe upon. The government cannot infringe upon your right to free speech, to peacably assemble, to bear arms, etc. The 15th amendment is a list of some reasons that state governments are not allowed to deny you the right to vote. This list does not preclude the government from restricting your right to vote for other reasons, but the Supreme Court has been pretty strict about what reasons governments can use.


"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)
 
2012-07-17 09:52:33 PM  

MyRandomName: ahasp: consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.
One of the main targets of this were college students (because anyone with more education than Walker won't vote for him). Not only did it include the photo ID, but also required you to live at the address for a minimum amount of time. Many college students move from year to year and would have to get new IDs each year or they didn't meet the time for the residency requirements and wouldn't have been able to vote.

College ID does not denote residency moron. Out of country students have college ID, it does not mean they should be able to vote.


You can't possibly be this dumb. None of these non-eleigible folks you mention are ON the voting rolls. The ID is to show proof of who you are, not proof of where you are from.
 
2012-07-17 09:53:07 PM  

djkutch: Silly Jesus: djkutch: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: What's there to explain? It's all laid out there in the Congressman's position paper.

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?

Really? The amendment is specifying reasons that can't be used to deny the privilege of voting. It's not saying that there's an overall right to vote...otherwise, what would be the point of the amendment? "Everyone has the right to vote, but you can't deny people the right to vote because of XYZ." Doesn't make much sense, does it?

This may help. Wik - 15th Amendment

First sentence: The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote

Um, you cut off the important part of the sentence.

Also, since cameron is so confused, please explain how, if it is a Right, as you argue, there need to be amendments giving people that right again. I can't be sure, but he

I'm no legal eagle, but giving people the right again may beg your own question.

I believe the amendment is now part of the Constitution. The Constitution that allowed for amendments.

You are entertaining!


"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)
 
2012-07-17 09:53:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?

Please explain why several amendments were needed to give people rights that they already had.


Because they were simply arguing over the people who had the right:

First: White, Males over the age of 21, had the right to vote.

Second: All males over 21 had the right to vote.

Third: All citizens over 21 had the right to vote.

Fourth: All citizens over 18 had the right to vote.

Think for a second, and stop thinking because you read one position paper you have all the answers. Do you really think a state could restrict the ability to vote only to people with 20/20 vision? Or all people who are members of the YMCA? Or all people who have blue cars? It's ridiculous. That's because the right to vote is a RIGHT, that, absent some compelling state interest cannot be infringed.
 
2012-07-17 09:53:47 PM  

Silly Jesus: Also, since cameron is so confused, please explain how, if it is a Right, as you argue, there need to be amendments giving people that right again.


Rights aren't "given", they are inherent. But since there are no federal voting laws (even national elections are, in fact, local elections), the federal government had to pass the 15th amendment in order to protect certain classes right to vote from being infringed upon by the state governments.
 
2012-07-17 09:54:08 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)

"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)


Please see my rebuttal above, and stop posting this as evidence that voting is not a right. I mean, for crying out loud that second section even affirms voting as a right!
 
2012-07-17 09:54:15 PM  

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

add that one up.


People who are against piss testing for welfare are against wasteful government spending. Florida lost a lot of money on that policy and all of those tax dollars were funneled to private companies.

Why aren't you against wasteful public spending? Why aren't you against politicians funneling tax money to private companies?
 
2012-07-17 09:54:22 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: cmunic8r99: MorrisBird: cmunic8r99: If he's in the military, he is issued a photo ID. Unless I'm mistaken, military ID is included in the list of acceptable ID in all these stupid laws.

citation needed

About being issued an ID or about the laws?

About the laws, which vary wildly from state to state.

/Here in PA, they'll accept a college ID
//The ID I had in college could be faked at Kinkos for under $10
///Small school


Yes, they vary wildly from state to state. But those states with a Voter ID law like the one in TFA (requiring photo ID), a military ID is accepted.

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

Link.
 
2012-07-17 09:55:12 PM  

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.
 
2012-07-17 09:55:34 PM  

Silly Jesus: I think that if you can leave your house to vote, you can leave your house to pick up a free ID. I don't see it as being the insurmountable burden that it's being portrayed as.


I don't know how to explain this w/o shouting... IT'S NOT FREE IF YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN ISSUED AN ID IN WISCONSIN! It will cost me $28 for an ID to vote. Please answer the question I asked you earlier in this thread.

Re:

MFAWG: Burn_The_Plows: Silly Jesus: People get ID's all the time so that they can enjoy the amazing privilege of driving a car...or so they can enjoy the privilege of buying a beer. But ask someone to get an ID to enjoy the privilege of voting and you've suddenly burdened them beyond comprehension.

I'm 40 years old and haven't driven a car since I was 15 (Driver's Ed) because I have very poor depth perception. I also don't smoke and have been sober for almost 2 and a half years.

Please explain to me why I need to pay $28 for an ID to vote.

Are you blah?


Just FYI, I'm very Caucasian and my weekly food budget is around $20 (up from $16 last summer because of increasing food prices.) That makes the $28 ID more expensive than a weeks worth of food. Yes, I could afford it, but why should I pay the state that much just to vote?
 
2012-07-17 09:56:11 PM  

Scerpes: Yes...those damn Republicans at the ACLU damn near killed Real ID.


Uh, no. The ACLU said they'd challenge it legally if it passed, but it was the right wing in Congress who shot it down, even though Bush said we needed it and he would sign it.

/I will give you points that in was something the loony left and right agreed on (both because they think it will lead to chips implanted in our brains)
 
2012-07-17 09:56:23 PM  

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?
 
2012-07-17 09:56:35 PM  

Silly Jesus: rugman11: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: The act merely lists some specific reasons why you can't deny someone the ability to vote.

Then why does it call it the "right to vote"? You have yet to answer thy the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights act of 65 both call it a right. Like, specifically. The words "right to vote" are right in there, no pun intended.

You can't see the forest for the trees. I've tried to explain it twice, I've provided articles and position papers, both of which have numerous sources listed. I don't know what else I can do.

You seem to be conflating the right to vote with the government's ability to restrict the right to vote. There are a lot of rights we have that governments can restrict. For example, we have the right to bear arms, but many states place restrictions on that right based on age, felony status, mental capacity, etc. Likewise, we have the right to vote, but governments have in the past, and continue today, to place restrictions on that right. For example, to this day, every state restricts the rights of minors to vote. Likewise, millions of Americans are restricted from voting based on their criminal records.

In other words, governments (at least local and state governments) are allowed to infringe upon our rights unless we specifically tell them not to (usually throught constitutions). What the Bill of Rights is, for the most part, is a list of the rights that the federal government (and also the state governments) is not allowed to infringe upon. The government cannot infringe upon your right to free speech, to peacably assemble, to bear arms, etc. The 15th amendment is a list of some reasons that state governments are not allowed to deny you the right to vote. This list does not preclude the government from restricting your right to vote for other reasons, but the Supreme Court has been pretty strict about what reasons governments can use.

"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)


Repetitive troll is repetitive.
 
2012-07-17 09:57:47 PM  

RyogaM: Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: I'm not necessarily pro ID, I just think that many of the arguments against it are asinine.

Unlike your argument that the word "right" doesn't mean "right"?

Please explain why several amendments were needed to give people rights that they already had.

Because they were simply arguing over the people who had the right:

First: White, Males over the age of 21, had the right to vote.

Second: All males over 21 had the right to vote.

Third: All citizens over 21 had the right to vote.

Fourth: All citizens over 18 had the right to vote.

Think for a second, and stop thinking because you read one position paper you have all the answers. Do you really think a state could restrict the ability to vote only to people with 20/20 vision? Or all people who are members of the YMCA? Or all people who have blue cars? It's ridiculous. That's because the right to vote is a RIGHT, that, absent some compelling state interest cannot be infringed.


I'm gonna have to go with SCOTUS on this one.
 
2012-07-17 09:58:02 PM  

Silly Jesus: Please explain to me why I need to pay $28 for an ID to vote.

If I were you, I'd just go get one of the free ID's.


Sorry, I was typing and didn't see this comment. But please see what I typed above.
 
2012-07-17 10:01:37 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)

"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.
 
2012-07-17 10:01:38 PM  
Oh look, a partisan hack judge made a ruling that represents his partisan hackery. Shocking!

/Justice isn't blind is his courtroom, she signs and distributes petitions!
 
2012-07-17 10:03:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: I'm gonna have to go with SCOTUS on this one.


So, you believe that Presidential Elections are the only ones in which voting occurs? Interesting. Stupid, but interesting.
 
2012-07-17 10:04:30 PM  

soy_bomb: Oh look, a partisan hack judge made a ruling that represents his partisan hackery. Shocking!

/Justice isn't blind is his courtroom, she signs and distributes petitions!


So now participating in the electoral process makes you a partisan hack? Do you think that someone should lose the right to such actions if they sit on the bench? How about if they work for a union? How about if they work as an aide to Gov Walker?
 
2012-07-17 10:05:06 PM  
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.
 
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.
 
2012-07-17 10:46:32 PM  

Hobodeluxe: 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.


I saw one here in St. Louis for Todd Akin in which Mike Huckabee said something like "Missouri is blessed to have a conservative like Todd Akin"

*barf*

That one was by far the stupidest one I've seen so far.
 
2012-07-17 10:47:10 PM  

Solchie: 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.


This is sarcasm, right? Or do you need a history lesson?
 
2012-07-17 10:47:17 PM  

Silly Jesus: 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


The 15th Amendment was racist?
 
2012-07-17 10:47:42 PM  

coeyagi: 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."


I'm cool with that. You post the pertinent parts of the fifteenth, point and laugh a at the moran, and then move on. Playing the "nuh uh, ya huh" game for thirty or forty posts only encourages them.
 
2012-07-17 10:48:27 PM  

phaseolus: 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.



How about how you could get an ID for free, so it wasn't a poll tax, but the Walker Administration instructed the DMV that they were not allowed to tell people about the free ID unless they directly asked for it and also specified that they would only use it for voting, nothing else.
 
2012-07-17 10:48:34 PM  

Alphax: 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.


It sure isn't the fact he whores himself to Boeing "The defense budget has been cut too much already" while pretending to be a Fiscal Conservative.
 
2012-07-17 10:48:49 PM  

Tor_Eckman: coeyagi: 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."

I'm cool with that. You post the pertinent parts of the fifteenth, point and laugh a at the moran, and then move on. Playing the "nuh uh, ya huh" game for thirty or forty posts only encourages them.


No argument there.
 
2012-07-17 10:49:50 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Solchie: 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.

This is sarcasm, right? Or do you need a history lesson?


Welfare recipients perform the community service of not performing as many petty crimes as they would if they did not receive welfare.
 
2012-07-17 10:50:27 PM  

Silly Jesus:

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 ...


Let's look at it a different way. You have the right to liberty. It's even in the Declaration of Independence. We allow, however, the government to take away your right to liberty if you commit a crime. That doesn't mean you no longer have the right to liberty, just that we've allowed our government (as part of our social contract) to infringe upon that right under certain circumstances. Likewise, you have the right to vote. No government gives you the right, you just have it. The 15th amendment and other laws and court decisions simply lay out the reasons why a government can not infringe upon your right to vote.

The right to vote presumes that there is an election. What the Bush v. Gore and Alexander v. Daley decisions mean is that, just because you have the right to vote, that doesn't mean that state governments are forced to hold elections. If a state legislature decides to appoint its electors rather than holding an election, you are not being deprived of our right to vote because there is no election. Likewise, if your locale does not have a US Representative (Alexander v. Daley), your right to vote is not being infringed because there is no election. If we decided to appeal the 17th amendment (direct election of Senators) that would not be an infringement of our right to vote because there would now be no election for Senators.

Please, please try to refute my actual points rather than just spouting the same quotations.
 
2012-07-17 10:53:41 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: 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

The 15th Amendment was racist?


I said that we shouldn't allow stupid people to vote...you implied that the 15th amendment provides for the ability of stupid people to vote, thus making my idea not doable.
 
2012-07-17 10:55:12 PM  

Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: 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

The 15th Amendment was racist?

I said that we shouldn't allow stupid people to vote...you implied that the 15th amendment provides for the ability of stupid people to vote, thus making my idea not doable.


IQ and literacy tests were used as ways to supress blacks in the South from voting prior to the 15th Amendment.

Don't know how much more clear I can make this.
 
2012-07-17 10:56:23 PM  
Most people seem to have forgotten this happening in Wisconsin right after the law was passed.

Link
 
2012-07-17 10:57:41 PM  

Mrtraveler01: IQ and literacy tests were used as ways to supress blacks in the South from voting prior to the 15th Amendment.

Don't know how much more clear I can make this.


You can't make it more clear, but he'll certainly try to claim you didn't.
 
2012-07-17 10:57:57 PM  
Let's try this again:

Link
 
2012-07-17 10:58:07 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?


I get it, I do. But, have you considered Francis Galton? I'll let wiki tell the story:

At a 1906 country fair in Plymouth, eight hundred people participated in a contest to estimate the weight of a slaughtered and dressed ox. Statistician Francis Galton observed that the mean of all eight hundred guesses, at 1197 pounds, was closer than any of the individual guesses to the true weight of 1198 pounds.

Even if it's the moral thing to do to allow all members of society to have a say in the government that they consent to be governed by, but, what Galton realized, is that the crowd, even full of morons, arrived at the right answer. This is because, theoretically, morons are evenly distributed among the voting population, and, for every moron that votes "wrongly" due to his stupidity, there will also be a moron who votes "correctly" due to his stupidity. So, stop trying to "enhance" the voting pool. It cannot be done in the way you describe and will only lead to the immorality of people being governed without their consent.
 
2012-07-17 11:03:50 PM  

dave2198: 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?


I never used the word punishment. To quote myself:

"The community is going to help you out, you should do something to give back to the community."

Welfare is not something we pay into, like unemployment. The community is helping you out, if you are truely grateful for that assistance, paying back the community with a few hours of your time shouldn't be a problem at all.

Criminals sentenced to community service are paying back the community for wrongs they have committed against the community.

If I write a check to pay a parking ticket, or to pay off a credit card bill, even though I'm paying debts in the same manner does not mean that the types of debts are the same, now does it?
 
2012-07-17 11:06:00 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Good job Wisconsin.

We should make it as easy as possible for every eligible citizen to vote. Period. Full stop.


After Saturday's training I'll be able to register voters in Milwaukee county. Between me and all the other volunteers, we'll be working our asses off to register tens of thousands of county residents before November.

We were prepared to assist people getting hooked up with I.D. if courts had ruled differently, but now we can target our efforts to new voter registrations before the election, and find out if they could use I.D. assistance in the future, if/when things change. Thanks, Judge!
 
2012-07-17 11:12:51 PM  

rugman11: Silly Jesus:

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 ...

Let's look at it a different way. You have the right to liberty. It's even in the Declaration of Independence. We allow, however, the government to take away your right to liberty if you commit a crime. That doesn't mean you no longer have the right to liberty, just that we've allowed our government (as part of our social contract) to infringe upon that right under certain circumstances. Likewise, you have the right to vote. No government gives you the right, you just have it. The 15th amendment and other laws and court decisions simply lay out the reasons why a government can not infringe upon your right to vote.

The right to vote presumes that there is an election. What the Bush v. Gore and Alexander v. Daley decisions mean is that, just because you have the right to vote, that doesn't mean that state governments are forced to hold elections. If a state legislature decides to appoint its electors rather than holding an election, you are not being deprived of our right to vote because there is no election. Likewise, if your locale does not have a US Representative (Alexander v. Daley), your right to vote is not being infringed because there is no election. If we decided to appeal the 17th amendment (direct election of Senators) that would not be an infringement of our right to vote because there would now be no election for Senators.

Please, please try to refute my actual points rather than just spouting the same quotations.


I see it as the states having a list of qualifications for the privilege to vote and the feds have a list of qualifications that the states can't use (race, sex etc.) to restrict that privilege. The court rulings show that it's not a right because the president can be elected without consideration of the vote that you cast. You sort of laid this out in your post. If you had some inherent right to have your vote counted, then they couldn't just ignore your vote at all. This was the argument in Florida...if you truly had a right to vote then they would have been obligated to count all of the votes. As a result, states' rights reigned over individual rights because there is no citizenship right to vote in the Constitution. A federal right to vote in the Constitution would have required all the votes to be counted because an individual right to vote would have taken precedence over Florida's law.

The amendments, such as the 15th also speak to this. The right to vote, which you only get if you are qualified, can't be taken away (through a change in the qualifications) because of race etc. There's no affirmative right to vote.

"Relying on the 15th Amendment alone, however, is not enough to guarantee all Americans the constitutional right to vote. Unlike the First Amendment which guarantees the right to free speech, the 15th Amendment, like the 19th Amendment, protects citizens only in the negative: a state cannot deny or abridge the right to vote on the basis of race or sex.

This leaves one of the fundamental elements of democratic citizenship tethered to the whims of local officials. Rather than the rights of states vis-à-vis one another, the real question is why all American citizens do not enjoy an affirmative constitutionally protected right to vote. This is the question that we dodge at our collective peril."
- Lani Guinier - Professor, Harvard Law School
 
2012-07-17 11:12:52 PM  

phaseolus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Good job Wisconsin.

We should make it as easy as possible for every eligible citizen to vote. Period. Full stop.

After Saturday's training I'll be able to register voters in Milwaukee county. Between me and all the other volunteers, we'll be working our asses off to register tens of thousands of county residents before November.

We were prepared to assist people getting hooked up with I.D. if courts had ruled differently, but now we can target our efforts to new voter registrations before the election, and find out if they could use I.D. assistance in the future, if/when things change. Thanks, Judge!


And thank you. Seriously.

You are a true American.
 
2012-07-17 11:13:33 PM  
Nobody has mentioned the DA going after the SEIU people that claimed residence in a hotel in Glendale, WI and did the same day registration?
There needs to be more poll worker training for acceptable proof of residency, especially after what was "claimed" went on in Racine.
 
2012-07-17 11:15:29 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: 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

The 15th Amendment was racist?

I said that we shouldn't allow stupid people to vote...you implied that the 15th amendment provides for the ability of stupid people to vote, thus making my idea not doable.

IQ and literacy tests were used as ways to supress blacks in the South from voting prior to the 15th Amendment.

Don't know how much more clear I can make this.


The 15th amendment was ratified in 1870. The first IQ test came about in France in the early 1900's. Time machine?
 
2012-07-17 11:18:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mrtraveler01: IQ and literacy tests were used as ways to supress blacks in the South from voting prior to the 15th Amendment.

Don't know how much more clear I can make this.

You can't make it more clear, but he'll certainly try to claim you didn't.


You have a time machine too?

Literacy tests were used...not IQ tests. IQ tests weren't invented until 30+ years later.

I was proposing an IQ test of sorts...which, incidentally, can be taken by illiterate folks. Some general knowledge questions about government / issues wouldn't necessarily require one to be literate either.
 
2012-07-17 11:22:13 PM  

Solchie: Welfare is not something we pay into, like unemployment. The community is helping you out, if you are truely grateful for that assistance, paying back the community with a few hours of your time shouldn't be a problem at all.


Good Lord, you're serious.

You're seriously suggesting that poor people should be forced into servitude in return for food and shelter.

You're seriously suggesting slavery.

I... I can't even wrap my head around that one. I'll let somebody else take the wheel from here.
 
2012-07-17 11:24:11 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Solchie: Welfare is not something we pay into, like unemployment. The community is helping you out, if you are truely grateful for that assistance, paying back the community with a few hours of your time shouldn't be a problem at all.

Good Lord, you're serious.

You're seriously suggesting that poor people should be forced into servitude in return for food and shelter.

You're seriously suggesting slavery.

I... I can't even wrap my head around that one. I'll let somebody else take the wheel from here.


Lol

5/10
 
2012-07-17 11:32:41 PM  

ggowins: Let's try this again:

Link


Yep, that's what I was remembering.

Good news is the outcry forced him into changing course on the DMV hours/locations -- Link. Doesn't completely make it less of a PITA for some, but at least it didn't get worse.
 
2012-07-17 11:35:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: I see it as the states having a list of qualifications for the privilege to vote and the feds have a list of qualifications that the states can't use (race, sex etc.) to restrict that privilege.


I believe this to be a misinterpretation of Alexander v. Daley. That case had nothing to do with individual voter requirements, but whether the Equal Protection Clause applied to DC residents and their ability to vote for a Representative. The court held, as I said, that voting presumes an election. If there is no election, then your right to vote is not being infringed. "Qualified citizens", in this case, does not refer to a person's age, sex, or race, but to whether or not he or she lives in a qualifying district, that is, a district that has been granted representation in Congress, which DC has not been.

The court rulings show that it's not a right because the president can be elected without consideration of the vote that you cast. You sort of laid this out in your post. If you had some inherent right to have your vote counted, then they couldn't just ignore your vote at all. This was the argument in Florida...if you truly had a right to vote then they would have been obligated to count all of the votes. As a result, states' rights reigned over individual rights because there is no citizenship right to vote in the Constitution. A federal right to vote in the Constitution would have required all the votes to be counted because an individual right to vote would have taken precedence over Florida's law.

Again, this is a misinterpretation. Later in the same paragraph you quote in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court ruling states:

"When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter."

The question before the court was whether the Florida Supreme Court's order of a recount based on voter intent was lawful. The Supreme Court determined that, because not all districts were treating hanging chads and dimpled chads and multiple votes the same way, that the recount as dictated by the Florida Supreme Court was unlawful. They did not hold that there was no right to vote, rather they affirmed that the right to vote "is fundamental" and that each vote most be treated equally.

The amendments, such as the 15th also speak to this. The right to vote, which you only get if you are qualified, can't be taken away (through a change in the qualifications) because of race etc. There's no affirmative right to vote.

"Relying on the 15th Amendment alone, however, is not enough to guarantee all Americans the constitutional right to vote. Unlike the First Amendment which guarantees the right to free speech, the 15th Amendment, like the 19th Amendment, protects citizens only in the negative: a state cannot deny or abridge the right to vote on the basis of race or sex.

This leaves one of the fundamental elements of democratic citizenship tethered to the whims of local officials. Rather than the rights of states vis-à-vis one another, the real question is why all American citizens do not enjoy an affirmative constitutionally protected right to vote. This is the question that we dodge at our collective peril." - Lani Guinier - Professor, Harvard Law School


This is just crap. The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to free speech. It merely prevents the government from infringing upon that right. If the First Amendment guaranteed the right to Free Speech then a private business would not be allowed to kick me out if I went into their offices and started screaming at the top of my lungs. The Constitution grants no affirmative rights. Rather, it lays out a series of guidelines by which the government is allowed, or not allowed, to infringe upon our rights.

I fail to see how "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is any different from "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State..."

Neither of these is an "affirmative Constitutionally protected right." Rather, the rights are assumed, and the amendment lays out what protections the government is obliged to maintain.
 
2012-07-17 11:36:12 PM  
How come people that oppose voter ID think only white people have IDs?
 
2012-07-17 11:40:19 PM  

phaseolus: After Saturday's training I'll be able to register voters in Milwaukee county. Between me and all the other volunteers, we'll be working our asses off to register tens of thousands of county residents before November.

We were prepared to assist people getting hooked up with I.D. if courts had ruled differently, but now we can target our efforts to new voter registrations before the election, and find out if they could use I.D. assistance in the future, if/when things change. Thanks, Judge!


You're making it easier. Thank you. Boots on the ground mister falcon.
 
2012-07-17 11:42:23 PM  

Silly Jesus: cameroncrazy1984: Mrtraveler01: IQ and literacy tests were used as ways to supress blacks in the South from voting prior to the 15th Amendment.

Don't know how much more clear I can make this.

You can't make it more clear, but he'll certainly try to claim you didn't.

You have a time machine too?

Literacy tests were used...not IQ tests. IQ tests weren't invented until 30+ years later.

I was proposing an IQ test of sorts...which, incidentally, can be taken by illiterate folks. Some general knowledge questions about government / issues wouldn't necessarily require one to be literate either.


It's the same basic idea as what the South used pre-1960's Captain Obtuse.
 
2012-07-17 11:47:52 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: cmunic8r99: MorrisBird: cmunic8r99: If he's in the military, he is issued a photo ID. Unless I'm mistaken, military ID is included in the list of acceptable ID in all these stupid laws.

citation needed

About being issued an ID or about the laws?

About the laws, which vary wildly from state to state.

/Here in PA, they'll accept a college ID
//The ID I had in college could be faked at Kinkos for under $10
///Small school


Not always. The university in my hometown has IDs that aren't valid under the state law because they don't have an expiration date. That's it. Photos are on there, it's clearly a valid form of identification, but because they don't have an expiration date, they won't be accepted at the polls. This is something that can shape up to be a very big problem.
 
2012-07-17 11:49:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It's the same basic idea as what the South used pre-1960's Captain Obtuse.


Also, there's the issue that IQ is an abstract value that means nothing when gauging one's right to vote. It doesn't even have the pretext of being worthwhile.
 
2012-07-17 11:49:12 PM  

EnviroDude: How come people that oppose voter ID think only white people have IDs?


I'm white as can be and, after February of next year, will not have a valid state issued ID. I oppose the law because I don't want to pay the State of Wisconsin $28 for a piece of plastic just so I can vote.

I'm still waiting for Silly Jesus to explain to me why I should be required to pay $28 to vote.
 
2012-07-17 11:51:21 PM  

Tor_Eckman: phaseolus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Good job Wisconsin.

We should make it as easy as possible for every eligible citizen to vote. Period. Full stop.

After Saturday's training I'll be able to register voters in Milwaukee county. Between me and all the other volunteers, we'll be working our asses off to register tens of thousands of county residents before November.

We were prepared to assist people getting hooked up with I.D. if courts had ruled differently, but now we can target our efforts to new voter registrations before the election, and find out if they could use I.D. assistance in the future, if/when things change. Thanks, Judge!

And thank you. Seriously.

You are a true American.


It's my pleasure.

I have plenty of free time and this seems like a productive, positive contribution I could make that I'll be able to be proud of, unlike ... I dunno, playing a troll on the internet, to pick a hobby that would leave most normal people feeling ashamed of all the wasted time and effort with nothing of real value to show for it.
 
2012-07-17 11:52:16 PM  

Burn_The_Plows: EnviroDude: How come people that oppose voter ID think only white people have IDs?

I'm white as can be and, after February of next year, will not have a valid state issued ID. I oppose the law because I don't want to pay the State of Wisconsin $28 for a piece of plastic just so I can vote.

I'm still waiting for Silly Jesus to explain to me why I should be required to pay $28 to vote.


You can get it for free, silly goose. I already provided the link up thread.

I like the straw man though.

If you're so intent on getting rid of $28 dollars for some made up reason, I'll just say that you owe me $28 and that should solve your dilemma.
 
2012-07-17 11:55:07 PM  
clarityinfusion.com

LULZ
 
2012-07-17 11:57:30 PM  

somedude210: If we had everyone who could go out and vote, our country would be a far different and freer place.


While I prefer democracy to dictatorship and I'm glad that the Republicans were not able to get away with their fascist bullshiat

What would be better is a voting general strike where people stopped trying to put someone in power to govern other people's affairs.
Saying that voting is the height of freedom is silly, you're only free when casting your vote, and then you're not. Having a choice of masters is not freedom, it's just more flexible hierarchy. It's not freedom to choose a master, it is not freedom to delegate your autonomy to someone else.
Our forebears overthrew kings and dictators, but they didn't abolish the institutions by which kings and dictators ruled. They democratized them. Yet, whoever operates these institutions-whether it's a king, a president, an electorate-the experience on the receiving end is roughly the same. Laws, bureaucracy and police came before democracy; they function the same way in a democracy as in a dictatorship. The only difference is that, because we can cast ballots about how they should be applied, we're supposed to regard them as ours even when they're used against us.
Democracy means police
Democracy doesn't just mean public participation in making decisions. It presumes that all power is legitimately invested in one decision-making structure, and it requires a way to impose those decisions. As long as anyone might defy them, there have to be armed personnel to regulate, to discipline to control. Without police there would be anarchy, people would act on their own initiative, only implementing decisions they felt to be in their best interest. Conflicts would have to be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved, not suppressed by a gang with a monopoly on force.
Democracy means prisons
Those who don't accept the authority of the state must be isolated, lest their disobedience spread to the rest of the population. We're told that prisons protect us, but the only constant since their invention has been that they protect the state from those who might threaten it. In practice, by breaking up communities and fostering antisocial tendencies, they only endanger us--even those of us who aren't behind bars. Without prisons there would be anarchy. People would have to work out conflicts directly rather than calling in the authorities, and it would no longer be possible to sweep the inequalities of this society under the rug.
Democracy means borders
Democracy presumes a line between participants and outsiders, between legitimate and illegitimate. Only a fraction of the men could vote in ancient Athens; the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Citizenship still imposes a barrier between included and excluded, shutting over 10 million undocumented residents out of the decisions that shape their lives. The liberal answer is to expand the lines of inclusion, extending rights and privileges until everyone is integrated into one vast democratic project. But as long as all power must flow through one bottleneck, there are bound to be imbalances and outsiders. The alternative would be anarchy. Abolishing centralized power structures and all the borders they impose. Without borders, people would only live and work together of their own free will, flowing freely between communities without top-down control.
Democracy means surveillance
Democracy presumes transparency. A free marketplace of ideas, in which decisions are made in the open. Of course, in an unequal society, transparency puts some people at risk--the employee who could be fired for expressing the wrong opinion, the immigrant who fears deportation--while the powerful can feign transparency as they make back-room deals. In practice, political transparency simply equips intelligence agencies to monitor the populace, preparing reprisals for when dissidents get out of hand--and what government could maintain its authority without intelligence agencies?
Without surveillance, there would be anarchy. People would say and do what they really believe in. Those who defend centralized power fear nothing more than privacy--the keeping of secrets--which they call conspiracy.
Democracy means war.
Democracy means constant competition. Just as corporations contend for resources in the marketplace, politicians and governments vie for power. When power is centralized, people have to attain domination over others in order to determine their own destinies. Those in power can only hold on to it by waging war perpetually against their own populations as well as foreign peoples. Hence the National Guard troops brought back from Iraq to suppress domestic protests.
As long as we remain at a distance from our own potential, being governed rather than acting freely, being represented rather than acting on our own interests, people will seek power over each other as a substitute for self-determination. The alternative is anarchy. A world in which people fight only for themselves-not for empires, flags, or gods-and conflicts cannot produce hierarchy and oppression.
 
2012-07-18 12:02:14 AM  

Silly Jesus: Burn_The_Plows: EnviroDude: How come people that oppose voter ID think only white people have IDs?

I'm white as can be and, after February of next year, will not have a valid state issued ID. I oppose the law because I don't want to pay the State of Wisconsin $28 for a piece of plastic just so I can vote.

I'm still waiting for Silly Jesus to explain to me why I should be required to pay $28 to vote.

You can get it for free, silly goose. I already provided the link up thread.

I like the straw man though.

If you're so intent on getting rid of $28 dollars for some made up reason, I'll just say that you owe me $28 and that should solve your dilemma.


It's only free if you need the ID only for voting. It's NOT FREE if you previously purchased an ID either for driving or ID purposes. The State of Wisconsin feels that if you needed one before for something else, you should still need it. I explained above why I no longer need one (I don't drive, and no longer drink or smoke.) And there are other older people that have let them lapse for the same reason. Because we have previously purchased them, we are ineligible for the free one.

Again, why should I pay $28 to vote?
 
2012-07-18 12:05:11 AM  

Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.


Belgium and Malta are insignificant.
Spain, Greece, and Italy have all been looted by bankers, and Greece and Italy have had their democracy literally stolen and put in the hands of technocrats/autocrats/private banker hands pretty much.
And Mexico is a corrupt narco-state.
 
2012-07-18 12:11:15 AM  

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


Recalling from past articles about people who have run afoul of these laws...

* Old people who were finally persuaded to quit driving a few years ago

* People who for one reason or another never were able to drive

* Nuns who don't engage in a lot of commerce

* Recently discharged veterans who don't have a current drivers license for the state they live in yet

Note that some of these people had some form of ID, picture or otherwise, only to find out that it was expired/not on the list/not good enough.
 
2012-07-18 12:18:37 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Not having photo ID isn't shorthand for "being brown" or "being a Democrat". It's usually shorthand for beIng poor and uneducated.


Or elderly, or a very "traditional" housewife who has never worked outside of the home. (You'd be surprised how many women don't drive, and don't want to learn.)
 
2012-07-18 12:19:57 AM  

Jim_Callahan: I think the voter ID laws are unnecessary more than actively counterproductive. They won't actually stop anyone from voting, they just won't really impact fraud in any way and thus all they do is create a minor hassle for a few people.

//In Texas we've had the option to present photo ID instead of the registration card for a couple decades now, I haven't even bothered to hang onto the reg card since the first year after I moved here, DL just being massively easier.


Well, the bolded part is certainly true, in the same sense that an umbrella won't do anything to keep the rain off you in the middle of the Sahara desert.

Hmm... I actually like that analogy.

Republican-backed voter ID laws have as much to do with voter fraud as an umbrella does to do with keeping you dry in the Sahara Desert. And like someone wandering through the Sahara thinking they need an umbrella for the coming rainstorm, nearly all their supporters are frighteningly and dangerously misinformed about what's going on.

Though in truth the Atacama desert is a better analogy... Most parts of the Sahara get at least some rain every year, so at some point an umbrella will actually prove a good thing to be carrying, whereas there are parts of the Atacama desert that have literally recorded no measurable amount of rain in more than 100 years of records. But everyone knows what the Sahara is, so...
 
2012-07-18 12:29:45 AM  

EnviroDude: How come people that oppose voter ID think only white people have IDs?


You know what.... this rearrangement....

Come people voter oppose that ID only think white how people IDs have.

... only makes slightly less sense than what you wrote.
 
2012-07-18 12:39:47 AM  

MyRandomName: ahasp


In Wisconsin, college IDs that have expiration dates can be used as identification at polling places, moron.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/wisconsin-voter-id-law-colle g es_n_1269585.html


Oh, and following is a link on how the date requirements disenfranchised graduating college students, moron.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/05/494926/republicans-disenf r anchise-wisconsin-college-students/?mobile=nc
 
2012-07-18 12:46:50 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Good Lord, you're serious.

You're seriously suggesting that poor people should be forced into servitude in return for food and shelter.

You're seriously suggesting slavery.

I... I can't even wrap my head around that one. I'll let somebody else take the wheel from here.



Yes, that is what he's suggesting. But given what the world is like, it's not too outlandish.
What's the difference in that and the citizen paying his taxes and serving his government under the threat of force or the employee serving his boss under the threat of force?
 
2012-07-18 12:48:43 AM  
The Democrats really need this if they have any prayer of even keeping their paper-thin majority in the Senate. Two seats are up this fall in La Crosse and Steven's Point and if the college kids aren't allowed in Schilling and Lassa might be screwed.

/Then it could get REALLY ugly for Democrats on the state level.
 
2012-07-18 01:14:51 AM  

Silly Jesus: [clarityinfusion.com image 605x328]

LULZ


That's what we've come to? Comparing a financial contract vote to one cast for who represents you in government?

Apples and oranges being sold in the same section of the store doesn't make them the same thing. Man, you are one of the nastiest trolls I've seen. This week.
 
2012-07-18 01:21:26 AM  
Good.
 
2012-07-18 01:42:24 AM  
Here's why Voter ID is bullshiat: It impairs people from voting. Voting for who they want to be placed in power over them, write laws and the like that affect them. Making it harder or impossible for them to do so is pure farking evil.
 
2012-07-18 02:00:48 AM  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the current laws require proof of residency? You signed for the acceptance of a ballot with a serial # at the top of it that was then entered into a field next to your signature. A utility bill, bank statement, or any article of proof of residency was permissible. They know what vote you picked. Now the adversary can attempt to deny more citizens their vote because "how do we REALLY know that's where you live"?
 
2012-07-18 02:16:25 AM  

Fista-Phobia: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the current laws require proof of residency? You signed for the acceptance of a ballot with a serial # at the top of it that was then entered into a field next to your signature. A utility bill, bank statement, or any article of proof of residency was permissible. They know what vote you picked. Now the adversary can attempt to deny more citizens their vote because "how do we REALLY know that's where you live"?


Precisely. This is why actual voter fraud of the type that these ID laws are allegedly designed to prevent is virtually non-existent. Anyone that was determined to attempt it could just get a fake ID anyway. It's not like they are hard to get. But there is very little to gain, and lots to lose if you were to get caught. It's a non-issue.

If there was any evidence that this type of voter fraud was rampant, I would probably be ok with these ID laws. But there is no such evidence.
 
2012-07-18 02:28:28 AM  
Good. As well it should.

Voter fraud is NOT a problem. *election* fraud...

/so effing glad my gov isn't so in the GOPs pocket
//Michigander
 
2012-07-18 02:32:43 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

You do know that the birth certificate and the ID both would cost money. Additionally no, there are free rides to the polling place that are organized in your area. Take advantage of them, if you wish. Contact your local party headquarters and they'll pick you up, no charge.


I did election work for a Dem in 08.

We found a ride for an elderly person who flat out told the caller they were voting straight Rep.

I'd like to think we changed her vote, but even if we didn't ... we had a van in that direction so we still picked her up.

/shrug
 
2012-07-18 02:35:35 AM  

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


We'll find out if the laws are still around in a few years as the only constitutional implementation is going to be to have the government offer IDs for 'free.'

Voter ID bills == spending bills
 
2012-07-18 02:51:23 AM  

KarmicDisaster: phaseolus: 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.


How about how you could get an ID for free, so it wasn't a poll tax, but the Walker Administration instructed the DMV that they were not allowed to tell people about the free ID unless they directly asked for it and also specified that they would only use it for voting, nothing else.


This still amazes me. The DMV allowed to tell what crap.

Seriously. The cojones on Walker..
 
2012-07-18 02:53:11 AM  

Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote, just to name a few. This is normal in much of the Western, and even non-Western world. Yet, here, it's OMG RACISMS.


And thus, the governments pay for them all. Why do you want to pay for everyone's ID?
 
2012-07-18 04:03:25 AM  
Voter ID laws are a part of a larger voter suppression strategy employed by the anti-democratic GOP.

Between suppressing student votes by making student ID cards invalid ID, caging poor and minority voters, ensuring NRA members can use their cards to vote and now, voter ID laws pushed by ALEC the GOP have shown themselves to be partisan beyond contempt.

Really can't emphasize that part too much here.

As to the whole "right or not a right" thing this thread seems to have fixated on?

Voting *is* a right.

And a responsibility.

It's serious business.
 
2012-07-18 04:22:26 AM  

Tor_Eckman: Fista-Phobia: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the current laws require proof of residency? You signed for the acceptance of a ballot with a serial # at the top of it that was then entered into a field next to your signature. A utility bill, bank statement, or any article of proof of residency was permissible. They know what vote you picked. Now the adversary can attempt to deny more citizens their vote because "how do we REALLY know that's where you live"?

Precisely. This is why actual voter fraud of the type that these ID laws are allegedly designed to prevent is virtually non-existent. Anyone that was determined to attempt it could just get a fake ID anyway. It's not like they are hard to get. But there is very little to gain, and lots to lose if you were to get caught. It's a non-issue.

If there was any evidence that this type of voter fraud was rampant, I would probably be ok with these ID laws. But there is no such evidence.


Bingo.

You'd have to get hundreds, if not thousands, of people to vote fraudulently for it to have any effect. And the more people involved, the higher the odds of getting caught are. On the other hand, having an election official tamper with the vote count minimizes the risk AND maximizes the reward.

Anyone who is A: inclined to cheat and B: has more than two brain cells to rub together is going to choose the latter.
 
2012-07-18 05:15:16 AM  

Old enough to know better: martissimo: Alphax: consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.

Millions of Americans.

My mom for one, moved and can't get a drivers license in NV without a social security card, can't get a social security card without a DL. Catch 22

/she has a expired DL from years ago that is no help

Having similar troubles. Like a fool I let mine expire more than five years ago, and since I've never rented or bought a house, or gotten a power bill in my name I'm having a tough time scrounging up enough proof that I'm a WA resident to get it updated. Ordered a copy of my birth certificate and am gonna try a third attempt to get it tomorrow.


I went through this a couple of years ago, since I just have a "walking license" (state ID, not a driver's) that only needs to be renewed every 10 years. Let it slip and it was a huge hassle.

I also don't receive any paper bills in my name and don't own or lease, plus my passport had also expired and SS card was long gone (my mother lost it when i was a teenager.) It turns out that there's a little-known clause that the SS office will accept life insurance paperwork as part of your proof of ID, and that was the only way I was able to make up the missing points. It's worth a try at the DMV.

My local DMV felt sorry for me and took my library card as part of the ID. Heh.
 
2012-07-18 06:05:54 AM  
"substantial impairment of the right to vote"

That's exactly right. There is no way that I'd be able to vote in Wisconsin if I had to produce a Wisconsin id.
 
2012-07-18 06:59:04 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: "substantial impairment of the right to vote"

That's exactly right. There is no way that I'd be able to vote in Wisconsin if I had to produce a Wisconsin id.


Considering that these bullshiat laws often coincide with moving DMV offices around to make it harder for poor people (who tend to vote Democratic because the official Republican policy is 'The poor can eat shiat') to get to the DMV? Yeah, it's a substantial impairment.
 
2012-07-18 07:06:01 AM  

Old enough to know better: martissimo: Alphax: consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.

Millions of Americans.

My mom for one, moved and can't get a drivers license in NV without a social security card, can't get a social security card without a DL. Catch 22

/she has a expired DL from years ago that is no help

Having similar troubles. Like a fool I let mine expire more than five years ago, and since I've never rented or bought a house, or gotten a power bill in my name I'm having a tough time scrounging up enough proof that I'm a WA resident to get it updated. Ordered a copy of my birth certificate and am gonna try a third attempt to get it tomorrow.


Had similar troubles in Ohio. Ended up unemployed for almost 5 years due to a physical disability, ended up having to move in with family. Took 3 years to fight the Social Security Administration to prove that yes, I really was disabled so I had no income at all. In that time my driver's license expired, couldn't afford to get a certified copy of my birth certificate, and couldn't afford to renew my driver's license. When it came time to vote, my only recourse was a utility bill or government document with my name and address on it. Since I had no utilities in my name, I didn't have a bill, and the local elections officials determined that letters with my name and address from both the VA and the Social Security Administration didn't qualify as government documents. So I didn't get to vote in one election.

I got smart the second time, though. I requested and absentee ballot, and all I had to do was sign the form stating that I was eligible to vote, so I was able to vote absentee, just not in person.

Such bullshiat.
 
2012-07-18 07:08:45 AM  
Good. None of these assholes hollering for these laws can point out any widespread voter fraud and unless the state is planning on issuing free IDs to any citizen, assist any citizen in obtaining the needed paper work free of charge, and help the elderly and poor get to the locations to obtain the ID, all these laws just smack of an attempt to disenfranchise large groups of people (who just happen to vote Democratic in general).
 
2012-07-18 08:02:20 AM  

Fista-Phobia: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the current laws require proof of residency? You signed for the acceptance of a ballot with a serial # at the top of it that was then entered into a field next to your signature. A utility bill, bank statement, or any article of proof of residency was permissible. They know what vote you picked. Now the adversary can attempt to deny more citizens their vote because "how do we REALLY know that's where you live"?


The first time you register, sure. The proposed bill, however, means you show ID every time.

It was freaky enough before the recall that some group sent a notice to my building that showed about two-thirds of the people here and if they'd vote in the past two cycles.
 
2012-07-18 08:06:16 AM  

MikeMc: Silly Jesus: Countries such as Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta and Mexico require a photo ID to vote,

ProTip: Wisconsin is in the United States of America not Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta or Mexico.

[againstlineofdance.files.wordpress.com image 325x214]


I believe he wants us to be more like Greece and Mexico; true bastions of freedom and justice. Not a bit of corruption either.
 
2012-07-18 08:17:09 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Not having photo ID isn't shorthand for "being brown" or "being a Democrat". It's usually shorthand for beIng poor and uneducated.


www.pewsocialtrends.org

www.project.org

i563.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-18 09:01:09 AM  

Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?


Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

Incase you are, can you show me the law that requires payment of gas and/or bus fare to vote? Or are you merely suggesting there should be such a tax?
 
2012-07-18 09:01:25 AM  
All you need to know about voter ID/poll tax laws is that if it didn't disenfranchise people republicans would not be taking it up as an issue.
 
2012-07-18 09:19:33 AM  

digistil: Silly Jesus: A poll tax...really? Because you need a birth certificate for the ID? Is my gas to get me to the voting booth a Poll Tax as well? What about the bus fare?

Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

Incase you are, can you show me the law that requires payment of gas and/or bus fare to vote? Or are you merely suggesting there should be such a tax?


I actually think free public transportation on election day is the way we should be heading, not finding ways to have less people vote. So, good idea!
 
2012-07-18 09:24:46 AM  
If Silly Jesus and cameron want to really read a concise and valid assessment of "voter fraud" laws, look no further:

Brennan Center Policy Brief.

For those who cannot take the time: There is no need for voter ID laws.
 
Bf+
2012-07-18 09:28:59 AM  

Sid_6.7: cameroncrazy1984: Woohoo! Since it was likely written by ALEC, I'm sure that it'll be struck down in about 16 other states soon.

FTFA:

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.

Depending on what the state's constitution reads like, and what the judge's decision is based on, it may or may not be applicable to the law in other states.




This.
Wisconsin constitution is pretty damn clear on the issue. Even partisans would have trouble defending VoterID laws against the Wisconsin constitutions. Other states... not so much.
What does help is the frequency of these getting shut down, the lack of evidence, and judges (and others) getting pissed off that this bullshiat keeps getting brought up.
 
2012-07-18 09:34:09 AM  

Aldon: I actually think free public transportation on election day is the way we should be heading, not finding ways to have less people vote. So, good idea!


I like moving elections to Sunday, as well... Tuesday is a relic of our agricultural past and makes no sense in the modern world where most people are working on Tuesdays.
 
Bf+
2012-07-18 09:35:13 AM  

jrw8778: There is no need for voter ID laws.


Not according to GOP Senator Mike Turzai: "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania -- Done!"
Romney needs voter disenfranchisement.
 
2012-07-18 09:42:31 AM  

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


Illegal immigrants.
 
2012-07-18 09:47:09 AM  

dickfreckle: Silly Jesus: [clarityinfusion.com image 605x328]

LULZ

That's what we've come to? Comparing a financial contract vote to one cast for who represents you in government?

Apples and oranges being sold in the same section of the store doesn't make them the same thing. Man, you are one of the nastiest trolls I've seen. This week.


Nah, the picture was tongue in cheek. I just thought it was amusing considering most of the people voting in those union elections with their ID's are probably the same ones raising a stink about having an ID to vote. Things don't have to be exactly the same to be humorous.
 
2012-07-18 09:57:45 AM  

TIKIMAN87: consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.

Illegal immigrants.


How many illegal immigrants risk deportation to vote?
 
2012-07-18 09:59:08 AM  

quatchi: Voter ID laws are a part of a larger voter suppression strategy employed by the anti-democratic GOP.

Between suppressing student votes by making student ID cards invalid ID, caging poor and minority voters, ensuring NRA members can use their cards to vote and now, voter ID laws pushed by ALEC the GOP have shown themselves to be partisan beyond contempt.

Really can't emphasize that part too much here.

As to the whole "right or not a right" thing this thread seems to have fixated on?

Voting *is* a right.

And a responsibility.

It's serious business.


How serious?

guidosblog.com
 
2012-07-18 10:43:11 AM  

Mercutio74: TIKIMAN87: consider this: How many people don't have a photo ID? This shiat is so much about nothing.

Illegal immigrants.

How many illegal immigrants risk deportation to vote?


How can they get deportated when they DON'T HAVE TO SHOW A F*UCKING ID?!
 
2012-07-18 11:10:07 AM  

TIKIMAN87: How can they get deportated when they DON'T HAVE TO SHOW A F*UCKING ID?!


Any interaction with the gov't is a deportation threat.
 
2012-07-18 11:19:10 AM  

Silly Jesus: Mrtraveler01: Silly Jesus: Perhaps we can stop this nonsense soon and get something that really matters...like a standard of knowledge / intellect for voting. I propose the U.S. Immigration Test (basic history / general government concepts) and an IQ test (you can't vote for Potato anyway).

This is the post of a farktard who's completely ignorant of history.

Do tell. Is there a certain group that you feel would be disenfranchised by knowledge / intellect tests?


Perhaps you should do some reading. The right to vote is not explicitly defined in the original constitution.
But is has been very clearly defined in subsequent amendments and constitutionally upheld legislation.

Voting is a right you moran. And although states are allowed to run their own elections, there are minimal standards they are expected to meet as defined by constitutional amendments.
 
2012-07-18 12:03:54 PM  
Link

From the report:

More than 1 million eligible voters in these states fall below the federal poverty line and live more than 10 miles from their nearest ID-issuing office. These voters may be particularly affected by the significant costs of the documentation required to obtain a photo ID. Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax - outlawed during the civil rights era - cost $10.64 in current dollars.


YES...It Is A Poll Tax. A financial impediment to exercising the constitutional right to vote.
 
2012-07-18 12:43:01 PM  

Sid_6.7: cameroncrazy1984: Woohoo! Since it was likely written by ALEC, I'm sure that it'll be struck down in about 16 other states soon.

FTFA:

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.

Depending on what the state's constitution reads like, and what the judge's decision is based on, it may or may not be applicable to the law in other states.


The article reads like the judge based it on the Wisconsin constitution, which is bad and good. It's bad because it won't have any applicability outside Wisconsin. It's good, because if it's based on state law, in principle it can't be appealed to the federal courts, which are run by conservative activists pretending to be judges.
 
2012-07-18 12:51:58 PM  
Fluorescent Testicle: Solchie: Welfare is not something we pay into, like unemployment. The community is helping you out, if you are truely grateful for that assistance, paying back the community with a few hours of your time shouldn't be a problem at all.

Good Lord, you're serious.

You're seriously suggesting that poor people should be forced into servitude in return for food and shelter.

You're seriously suggesting slavery.

I... I can't even wrap my head around that one. I'll let somebody else take the wheel from here.


You have a strange understanding of the definition of the word "slavery". From Dictionary.com:

slav·er·y /ˈsleɪvəri, ˈsleɪvri/ Show Spelled[sley-vuh-ree, sleyv-ree] Show IPA
noun
1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3. a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
4. severe toil; drudgery.

I'm not suggesting anything like slavery at all. I'm suggesting a compromise (I know, I know, politics thread, what the hell am I thinking.) If you want ASSISTANCE from the community, which is what those programs are supposed to be, then you should be willing ASSIST your community with some of your time in return. No one would be making anyone do anything, and there are a slew of different activities that qualify as "Community Service". Help paint a classroom. Pull weeds on the grounds at a community center. Spend time with patients at the VA Hospital. Oh, look - CHOICES. Something that slavery doesn't offer.

The far left wants to provide for everyone, a community isn't functioning properly if it can't care for it's weakest, most deprived etc... the far right believes that everyone should be responsible for themselves, we need to stop giving free handouts, too many are taking advantage, etc.

Personally, I fall in the middle. We need those social programs. We as a community do need to be there to help members of our society who are struggling, but yes, there are people who abuse the system and take advantage. There needs to be a better check and balance system than we have right now, and having people who are being provided for by the community help repay that community for that assistance with a few hours of community service is not slavery. If you don't want to do the community service, then don't, but if you aren't willing to let the community know that you are grateful, you are willing to try to do your part, and you aren't just taking advantage, why should we help you? If you are taking advantage of welfare, WIC checks, food stamps, etc, you have a DUTY to the rest of us, who are assisting you in your time of need to show us that you will be grateful and responsible with the assistance we've providing.

But apparently you'd prefer we hand out free food and money to whoever has their hand out, including the women with Prada handbags and Jimmy Choo shoes who show up to the local WIC office saying things like "My baby don't have no milk, what are YOU gonna do about it?" Or the people we have all witnessed using the Quest cards to buy junk food and soda instead of healthy food for their children right?
 
2012-07-18 02:23:37 PM  

MikeMc: You know, we've been voting here in Wisconsin for over 150 years without photo I.D. and it's worked just fine. The GOP has yet to demonstrate that there have been enough fraudulent votes cast in Wisconsin over the last twenty years to swing a suburban school board race much less a statewide election. They just want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to keep darker folk from voting.


How is providing free IDs keeping people frOm voting?
 
2012-07-18 02:57:13 PM  

jaybeezey: MikeMc: You know, we've been voting here in Wisconsin for over 150 years without photo I.D. and it's worked just fine. The GOP has yet to demonstrate that there have been enough fraudulent votes cast in Wisconsin over the last twenty years to swing a suburban school board race much less a statewide election. They just want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to keep darker folk from voting.

How is providing free IDs keeping people frOm voting?


The underlying documents required to obtain that ID come with a cost. Obtaining that free ID isn't free at all.
And in Urban areas across the state of WI, the GoP legislature disingenuously closed hundreds of urban offices where that free ID can be obtained,
once one has the requisite underlying documents.

This is voter suppression, not vote protection.
 
2012-07-18 06:43:38 PM  

X-boxershorts: jaybeezey: MikeMc: You know, we've been voting here in Wisconsin for over 150 years without photo I.D. and it's worked just fine. The GOP has yet to demonstrate that there have been enough fraudulent votes cast in Wisconsin over the last twenty years to swing a suburban school board race much less a statewide election. They just want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to keep darker folk from voting.

How is providing free IDs keeping people frOm voting?

The underlying documents required to obtain that ID come with a cost. Obtaining that free ID isn't free at all.
And in Urban areas across the state of WI, the GoP legislature disingenuously closed hundreds of urban offices where that free ID can be obtained,
once one has the requisite underlying documents.

This is voter suppression, not vote protection.


Right. Normally you must have a birth certificate to get an ID, and many blacks who grew up in the South during Jim Crow never got one in the first place.

Same sh*t, different century.
 
2012-07-18 07:20:24 PM  

Silly Jesus:

Please explain why several amendments were needed to give people rights that they already had.


"People" already had those rights. Unfortunately for most of this country's history, only white "christian" males were considered "people". There are still some who want to return to that disgusting social paradigm.

The amendments were for everyone else.
 
2012-07-18 09:35:02 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.


Literacy tests are legal. There are specific applications of them that are not. They got a really bad name because they were used as a tool of discrimination in the past- testers would hold blacks to impossible standards, but would let whites, who would otherwise have failed miserably, pass. And the clauses that exempted certain classes (the grandfather clause, though there were others) were problematic too.

There really is no legal reason a test, fairly administered and designed, could not be required prior to voting. The constitution only prohibits poll taxes, though since poll taxes and literacy tests were pretty closely linked in the Jim Crow south, a lot of people (apparently including you) mistakenly think both are constitutionally prohibited.

Personally, I favor a small test.
Q1: Name two of your three representatives in Congress (DC residents are allowed to tell the examiner to fark themselves).
Q2: Name your Governor.
Q3: Name the Vice President.
Q4: Name an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Get three out of four right, you can vote.


If I really had my druthers, I'd make everybody pass the US Citizenship Test, but that's never gonna happen. 90% of native citizens fail it.
 
Displayed 337 of 337 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report