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

(JSOnline)   Federal Judge Strikes down Wisconsin GOP's attempt to pre-stuff the ballot box in 2014 and 2016 ruling that "it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes"   (jsonline.com) divider line 53
    More: Spiffy, Republican Party of Wisconsin, Voter ID Laws, Pre, Wisconsin, ballot stuffing, ballot boxes, federal judges, Wisconsin Supreme Court  
•       •       •

2536 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2014 at 9:12 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-29 06:11:36 PM  
11 votes:
"The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

The law isn't meant to stop fraud.  It's meant to stop legitimate voters from voting.  In that sense, it works exactly as designed.

/as do all voter id laws
2014-04-29 09:35:29 PM  
6 votes:

KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?


It's not.

Why is my ID required to open a bank account?

Opening a bank account is not a constitutional right
  Why do I need an ID / license to drive?

Driving is not a constitutional right.

Why do I need proof of insurance?

Assuming you're talking about auto insurance, driving is not a constitutional right.

Why do I have to register for W-9s at work?

That is a condition of employment, a choice, and again, not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Why do people need licenses to do particular jobs?

That is a condition of employment, a choice, and again, not a constitutionally guaranteed right.
2014-04-29 05:48:30 PM  
6 votes:

fusillade762: I'm sure SCOTUS will take care of that eventually.


alas, it will be QUITE interesting to watch how SCOTUS decides this.
Because the logic of this decision is irrefutable, you are harming a MUCH larger number of citizens than you are preventing from committing fraud.

the net effect of the law is to clearly do harm, not prevent harm
2014-04-30 12:38:53 AM  
5 votes:
"Because virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin and it is exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become a problem in Wisconsin in the foreseeable future, this particular state interest has very little weight," he wrote.

"The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

"The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

"The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."


"The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

"THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT POINT TO A SINGLE INSTANCE OF KNOWN VOTER IMPERSONATION OCCURRING IN WISCONSIN AT ANY TIME IN THE RECENT PAST."


I thought I'd repeat this a few times. Of course the paid shills will keep lying about the purpose of "voter id" laws, but the fact remains that they never, ever have an answer to this: Their "solution" is to a problem that doesn't exist, and by pure coincidence happens to directly harm large numbers of legitimate voters who largely don't vote GOP.

Voter impersonation is nonexistent because it is, how to put this gently, farking stupid: Hey, I'll lie about who I am at the voting booth and risk thousands of dollars in fines and a felony conviction to adulterate one lousy vote! Hey, I'll organize a criminal conspiracy which must involve hundreds, possibly thousands, of conspirators to have any possibility of success! Nobody that stupid would ever be put in a charge of a vote fraud operation.
2014-04-29 10:15:22 PM  
5 votes:

Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?


Goddamn but you gun nuts will just leap at the chance of grinding your pet axe at the slightest provocation regardless of whether it has anything to do with the topic at hand.
2014-04-29 06:58:16 PM  
5 votes:
"But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes."

That's the judge saying your legislation sucks.

"The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

Ouch. That's like getting kicked in the 'nads.

"However, I also note that, given the evidence presented at trial showing that Blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites to lack an ID, it is difficult to see how an amendment to the photo ID requirement could remove its disproportionate racial impact and discriminatory result," he wrote.

PLEASE HAMMER DON'T HURT 'EM!
2014-04-29 09:26:45 PM  
4 votes:

KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?

Why is my ID required to open a bank account?

Why do I need an ID / license to drive?

Why do I need proof of insurance?

Why do I have to register for W-9s at work?

Why do people need licenses to do particular jobs?


Why do people start talking about Voter ID shortly before elections where there's barely a handful of provable cases of voter fraud?
2014-04-29 11:27:37 PM  
3 votes:
All the abstract arguments in the world about voter fraud don't matter - at all - as long as empirical reality continues to show that voter fraud is an incredibly minor issue, and voter ID laws actually disenfranchise people. Period. The abstract theory behind it, whether sincere or not, is pretty much irrelevant.

It's as if someone decided that we need to license newspapers because failing to do so would result in an imminent alien invasion. Whether or not you can form an abstract argument around that is irrelevant - there are no aliens.
2014-04-29 11:03:45 PM  
3 votes:

Robin Hoodie: Photo IDs are free in Wisconsin, not having one just seems weird.

also the 7th circuit will probably overturn Adelman for the thousandth time


One difficulty for some poor people is having the supporting documentation to get one.  A birth certificate is typically the main way to do so for your first one at least, and you'd be amazed how many people don't have theirs or lost it.  Getting your birth certificate replaced is *not* free.  Also, check this shiat out, from the CDC.gov site, for Wisconsin residents who need a copy of their birth certificate:

Customers should use a state birth certificate application form to apply.  A copy of a valid photo ID and a signature is required of the applicant. Personal check or money order should be made payable to State of Wisconsin Vital Records.

So to get your birth certificate so you can get a photo ID, you require... a valid photo ID.
2014-04-29 10:25:49 PM  
3 votes:

Flashlight: JosephFinn: Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer.

Buying a gun is not a constitutional right, unlike voting.

JosephFinn: Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer.

Buying a gun is not a constitutional right, unlike voting.

I am pretty sure it is.


No. Possessing a gun is a constitutional right.
2014-04-29 10:12:42 PM  
3 votes:

Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?


I know you're a known trolling shiat, but since real life right wingers use this argument...

Guns:  For obvious reasons, insane criminals aren't allowed to purchase weapons.  ID is required to prevent them from killing people.

Voting:  ID's are wanted by Republicans to keep people from voting for Demoncrats.

Now, one of these goals is a compelling public interest.  And one is just unAmerican bullshiat that you should be ashamed of.
2014-04-29 09:37:00 PM  
3 votes:

KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?

Why is my ID required to open a bank account?

Why do I need an ID / license to drive?

Why do I need proof of insurance?

Why do I have to register for W-9s at work?

Why do people need licenses to do particular jobs?


Scared white person-like typing detected.

Why don't these apples taste anything like these oranges?
2014-04-29 08:01:57 PM  
3 votes:
namatad: it will be QUITE interesting to watch how SCOTUS decides

No it won't. The SCOTUS will endorse Scotty's law, 5-4.  Kennedy hasn't been a swing vote for years.  He has presumably been watching the same Fox News shows that has turned your parents into fascists.

And don't give me any bull about how Roberts might be "reasonable".  He only "sided" with Obama on Obamacare because he thought it would cost him re election.  Upholding it as a tax was a troll decision, and nothing more.
2014-04-29 06:21:48 PM  
3 votes:
Score one for democracy.
2014-04-30 03:09:40 AM  
2 votes:
A fresh ID in the lefty state 'o' California costs something like 25 bucks these days, AKA a weeks worth of grub, roll 'o' toilet paper & cat food for the furry bastard.

I renewed it via DMV website and got it snail mailed to me within a week.

I am fortunate in that I actually have an operational pooter, a semi-operational local post office, and can afford to pay the bill for my ISP.

The last time I renewed it, it cost me SIX dollars and I'd gone in person to one of the local DMV offices. Yeah, it's been a while.

In addition to that noise, I have a silly little card someplace that I got for free when I sent in my voter's registration form waaaayyy back in 2003 that says I'm a registered voter in whatever blah whoopdeedoo party.

In Cali I have the opportunity to absentee-vote by mail, if I wish. There have been times when I have hand carried the sealed envelope to a physical polling place, went through the piddling check of voter records, and placed my paper vote in the lockbox.

I have also used those infernal Diebold electronic gadgets to vote.

It is WRONG to deprive American citizens of the right to vote, and I don't give a tinker's damn whether they vote for Pussy Galore or Richard Sh*t Nixon.
2014-04-29 11:38:04 PM  
2 votes:

KIA: Triple Oak: The process of obtaining a gun is not a constitutional right.

Fascinating.  So, your right to free speech is conditional on not having your mouth glued shut?


Speech comes in more forms than just the words that come from your mouth. Stop being obtuse or show me where the Constitution says your right to vote is dependent on having an ID.
2014-04-29 11:28:47 PM  
2 votes:
Either we allow Voter ID and issue National ID cards free of charge or we don't have any Voter ID at all. That's my view on the whole thing. Seems like a sensible one to me.
2014-04-29 11:14:14 PM  
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Mr. Coffee Nerves: Ahh, yes, Voter ID. It's like hearing a story from your aunt's plumber's cousin's Facebook about how one house down the block has a termite and then burning the entire town to the ground

If the Democrats were smart they'd propose a Voter ID law that provides state-issued ID cards at birth starting this year and goes fully into zero-exception, no card no vote effect in 2032. How could the GOP object? It would definitely solve their unsupported-by-fact claims of rampant "in person" voter fraud, so any other reason to move faster would be proof they're only worried about the "wrong" people voting.

Or we could do what every other country does and have an ID card issued free of charge on the national level.

But that would make too much sense.


I wonder how many people screaming for Voter ID laws would scream equally as loud against "the gubbmint" issuing national ID cards?
2014-04-29 06:28:47 PM  
2 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Score one for democracy.


THIS THIS AND MORETHIS
2014-04-29 05:42:00 PM  
2 votes:
I'm sure SCOTUS will take care of that eventually.
2014-04-30 04:33:40 PM  
1 votes:
If the SCOTUS over turns this it will rank with Dread Scott as one of their worst rulings ever.
2014-04-30 10:24:11 AM  
1 votes:

Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?


Because, as the judge ruled if you'd bothered to read TFA voter fraud is a non-problem , the state could point to zero cases of it happening in recent memory,  therefore the "compelling state interest" in preventing voter fraud was far too small to justify the infringement on people's right to vote.

Now felons and other ineligible people attempting to Purchase guns DOES happen, and that state has a very large compelling interest in protecting its citizenry from harm done by people deemed too dangerous to own a weapon.  Moreover, the scenario in which you would be too poor to afford an ID but had the resources to spend $500 on a gun is highly unlikely.  Making the infringement on this right vanishingly small, while the state's compelling interest high, making it essentially the reverse of this situaion
2014-04-30 10:01:46 AM  
1 votes:
The Ohio GOP can't even get the voter fraud myth correct. They also cut early voting and mail in ballots. It's so painfully obvious what these sleazebags are trying to pull that everybody, the right included, should say something. But they're so goddamn seized with "stick it to the libs" that they refuse to think about what this means for politics as a whole.
2014-04-30 03:18:31 AM  
1 votes:

Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?


People committing voter fraud don't leave dozens of children dead in voter fraud rampages?
2014-04-30 02:39:53 AM  
1 votes:
Why do republicans want to suppress minority votes? Well the answer is obvious if you are thinking of the leadership. But what about the average republican citizen? Based on the anecdotal evidence I have gathered from my conservative relatives, my suspicion is that it doesn't have nearly as much to do with fear of fraud as it does a desire to punish those they feel are deserving of it.

If someone can't be bothered to get a proper ID, they must be lazy. Therefore no vote for you!

It seems bonkers, but listening to my relatives pontificate, and knowing them the way I do, that's the conclusion I've reached. Think about it, it certainly fits with their other reactions to various issues.

Drug addict? Why should they get treatment instead of jail time?

Terrorists? Why shouldn't we torture them?

Birth control? Why should women be able to avoid pregnancy?

That's just off the top of my head. But it's clear republicans generally have a fixation on punishing those they perceive as having moral failings, regardless of whether it's helpful or harmful to society.

/My apologies if that was not particularly coherent, I've been awake too long and I've been drinking.
2014-04-30 02:25:29 AM  
1 votes:

moothemagiccow: The question we really should be asking is "how can we improve turnout?" and "how can we make voting more convenient"



A good start would be to do what every other civilized country has done: make voter registration automatic and universal, and make Election Day a federal holiday.

Won't ever happen though, because if everyone voted Republicans could never win any election ever again.
2014-04-30 02:06:24 AM  
1 votes:

zenobia: Georgia's law was upheld after they put in a provision for elections offices to make free voter photo IDs for anyone who wants one.


And then you gotta spend a bunch of money to get to the DMV and back home again (if you're poor, you might not have a car).  And then there's the expense for the birth certificate.

At least that's how it is in NC.  I applied for a copy of my birth certificate.  It took $39, a pay stub and an electric bill, and they sent it by snail mail.  You can skip the $15 "expedite fee" and pay only $24, but they'll take their sweet time if you do that.  YMMV if you were born in another state.

The transportation cost might actually favor the Democrats.  Democrats are more likely to live in cities and have access to a bus system.

NC offers a "free" voter ID.  But if you can swing $39 for a birth certificate and maybe $30 for round trip cab fare, you can probably come up with the $10 for the regular ID card that you can use to buy beer and such.  (A driver's license is closer to $30.)

Officially, NC won't require voter ID until 2016, though word is they'll ask when you go to vote this year and just let you through if you say no.

Bottom line:  if you need ID, *get it now*.  Don't wait until the election is next week.
2014-04-30 01:39:22 AM  
1 votes:

FloridaFarkTag: Considering we need ID to do just about everything, it is a joke, and, direct attempt to commit vote fraud, by not requiring ID to vote.



1.  Decide to commit in-person voter fraud.
2.  Go to polls.
3.  Know the name and address of someone who is already registered.
4.  Say you are that person.
5.  Hope that person has not already voted.
6.  Repeat frequently enough to make a difference, committing a felony each time.


It's just so simple and totally plausible.

And apparently foolproof, since there have never been any reports of someone showing up to vote and discovering that an impersonator has already voted using their name.
2014-04-30 01:38:40 AM  
1 votes:
I find it interesting that Walker has said before that Voter ID laws is his number 1 priority, and will have a special session just to try and create another Voter ID law.

But jobs? Economy? nope, not worth the time
2014-04-30 12:27:32 AM  
1 votes:

KIA: So, it is -a- problem


Again, just to emphasize, nothing you posted proves that an ID would prevent alleged fraud related to the laws in place. More of your links suggest that states are being negligent with who's on the ledger when they have the information to make a change, and yet they would rather focus on something they can't prove. And there's a post earlier in the thread showing how hard it is to get an ID in Wisconsin in certain situations, like not having a birth certificate (and subsequently needing an ID to get a birth certificate copy to get an ID to vote).

Also, while this debate extends nationwide, none of what you've debated relates to this law in Wisconsin and the potential fraud here.
2014-04-30 12:22:08 AM  
1 votes:

KIA: Triple Oak: Speech comes in more forms than just the words that come from your mouth. Stop being obtuse or show me where the Constitution says your right to vote is dependent on having an ID.

Actually, you need to review where your alleged right to vote comes from.


And then whargarbll where the Constitution doesn't say you require an ID to vote. So you still haven't answered your question.

As for your links before, 1 is a debate on the subject, 2 shows problems that stretch far beyond "did they use an ID to vote" (like states not taking dead people from their voting ledgers), 3 demonstrates the same point (also starts with "Liberals" which, when you debate a non-partisan subject that happens to have mostly partisan splits, is a great way to captivate a certain kind of audience), 4 says maybe that amount (when originally they wanted to tout 35,000+ cases of "potential fraud" [and see there, potential is also not proving that it exists, but that it may exist, so actually prove those numbers and we'll see]), 5 has no details on what they did to be considered fraud (and also doesn't show whether they were found guilty or by what manner they "illegally" did anything), and 6 appears to be still investigating using means that aren't at all affected by whether or not the person has ID (also, who tries to fax in a vote? Is that still a thing?).

How about the states that have dead eligible voters go through their internal information and get rid of the dead people's names as eligible? That would solve way more problems that you haven't presented for fraud, right? Especially because two of your links confirm that (and one shows people knowingly breaking the law).
2014-04-30 12:07:51 AM  
1 votes:

KIA: t's that last one, the poll tax, which is being touted as the reason why voter ID laws cannot be enforced, because there is a cost to getting some IDs so people are claiming it is a poll tax.

However, you don't even get there if the person isn't a citizen in the first place because the right only exists for citizens, see the first clause of the sentence.


It's not a poll tax? Why should people have to pay an ID to vote?

I mean I guess if we started offering ID's on a national level like we wanted to do a few years back, but I guess that makes too much sense.
2014-04-30 12:05:30 AM  
1 votes:

KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?

Why is my ID required to open a bank account?

Why do I need an ID / license to drive?

Why do I need proof of insurance?

Why do I have to register for W-9s at work?

Why do people need licenses to do particular jobs?


You have to show ID when you register to vote. You are then issued ann ID card that says you can vote. When you go to vote, you have to sign the book, also a form of ID, before you can vote.

I think it's pretty well covered already/
2014-04-30 12:04:36 AM  
1 votes:

KIA: Triple Oak: Voter ID law supporters SHOULD have to prove how rampant a problem this is (it isn't) and then prove that the proposed laws would stop it completely (stop something already pretty much non-existent).

I keep hearing everyone say that (yes, I understand that this particular judge said it too) but seems to be a hotly contested issue.  There have been a number of instances of referrals for prosecution and even convictions, deportations, ect.:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem

http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-f ac ts-figures

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-pr oo f-its-easy-john-fund

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/04/study-finds-765-cases-of -n c-voter-fraud-in-2012-election

There have been indictments of public officials in charge of registration and voting:

http://www.walb.com/story/16104533/12-indicted-for-voter-fraud

Sheriffs have called people to interfere with the voting process:

http://theadvocate.com/news/applatestnews/8757760-123/investigation- la unched-into-voter-fraud

So, it is -a- problem but you contend it isn't severe enough to merit public action.  Statistically, there are a lot of things that aren't large enough to actually merit public action - mass shootings, texting while driving deaths, drownings in swimming pools - but people try to force action anyway.  Are they villains for trying to solve a problem even if it is a small one?


Doesn't help that you use right-wing sources like National Review (John Fund) and True The Vote to back up your claims.

The other claims you cited were very small and most likely would not have been prevented with Voter ID because the fraud happened with absentee ballots (like the one in Georgia). But this bit from the Daily Tar Heel was my favorite:

"With a voter ID requirement, anyone who wanted to commit this type of fraud would have to go out of her way to get forged identification to go along with the transplanted voter's name and address," Kokai said. "The fraud still could take place, but the voter ID would serve as a deterrent."

Sounds like a worthwhile effort to take if even the advocates of Voter ID admit that it might not stop voter fraud.
KIA
2014-04-29 11:58:13 PM  
1 votes:

Triple Oak: Voter ID law supporters SHOULD have to prove how rampant a problem this is (it isn't) and then prove that the proposed laws would stop it completely (stop something already pretty much non-existent).


I keep hearing everyone say that (yes, I understand that this particular judge said it too) but seems to be a hotly contested issue.  There have been a number of instances of referrals for prosecution and even convictions, deportations, ect.:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem

http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-f ac ts-figures

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-pr oo f-its-easy-john-fund

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/04/study-finds-765-cases-of -n c-voter-fraud-in-2012-election

There have been indictments of public officials in charge of registration and voting:

http://www.walb.com/story/16104533/12-indicted-for-voter-fraud

Sheriffs have called people to interfere with the voting process:

http://theadvocate.com/news/applatestnews/8757760-123/investigation- la unched-into-voter-fraud

So, it is -a- problem but you contend it isn't severe enough to merit public action.  Statistically, there are a lot of things that aren't large enough to actually merit public action - mass shootings, texting while driving deaths, drownings in swimming pools - but people try to force action anyway.  Are they villains for trying to solve a problem even if it is a small one?
2014-04-29 11:57:52 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: "The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

The law isn't meant to stop fraud.  It's meant to stop legitimate voters from voting.  In that sense, it works exactly as designed.

/as do all voter id laws


Georgia's law was upheld after they put in a provision for elections offices to make free voter photo IDs for anyone who wants one.

Oddly enough, you don't have to show a picture ID to get the picture ID required for you to vote. My head hurts.
2014-04-29 11:38:47 PM  
1 votes:
Voter ID laws suffer from this most basic issue of governance. Let's make it extremely abstract.

Let's say I want to pass a law to prevent X from happening. Everyone agrees that X is a bad thing. The unintended (let's assume unintended) consequence of passing this law is that certain people will no longer be able to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

Here's the most basic question I can ask - does the state have any obligation at all to prove X is a real world problem rather than a theoretical one?
2014-04-29 11:35:23 PM  
1 votes:

KIA: Triple Oak: It is my right as an American citizen to be able to vote

Agreed.  Show you're a citizen living by the rules paying taxes etc. and vote in every election.


I already do. But I'm not the target of disenfranchisement. Voter ID law supporters SHOULD have to prove how rampant a problem this is (it isn't) and then prove that the proposed laws would stop it completely (stop something already pretty much non-existent). They should also prove where in the Constitution it says your right to vote comes with an asterisk that says you need an ID as requested in these laws.

I will watch to see this go all the way to the SCOTUS but right now we already have a judge's ruling on why it won't work as they say it will. That's a damn great start.
KIA
2014-04-29 11:32:21 PM  
1 votes:

Triple Oak: The process of obtaining a gun is not a constitutional right.


Fascinating.  So, your right to free speech is conditional on not having your mouth glued shut?
2014-04-29 11:26:15 PM  
1 votes:

KIA: Why do I have to go through a background check to buy a gun?


You must find a legal way to obtain a gun through the laws of this country. The process of obtaining a gun is not a constitutional right. Having that gun, once you have gone through the process of legally obtaining one, is a right.
KIA
2014-04-29 11:20:31 PM  
1 votes:

Almet: KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?

It's not.

Why is my ID required to open a bank account?

Opening a bank account is not a constitutional right
  Why do I need an ID / license to drive?

Driving is not a constitutional right.

Why do I need proof of insurance?

Assuming you're talking about auto insurance, driving is not a constitutional right.

Why do I have to register for W-9s at work?

That is a condition of employment, a choice, and again, not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Why do people need licenses to do particular jobs?

That is a condition of employment, a choice, and again, not a constitutionally guaranteed right.


Ok.  Why do I have to go through a background check to buy a gun?  That's a constitutionally guaranteed right.
2014-04-29 11:09:53 PM  
1 votes:

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Ahh, yes, Voter ID. It's like hearing a story from your aunt's plumber's cousin's Facebook about how one house down the block has a termite and then burning the entire town to the ground

If the Democrats were smart they'd propose a Voter ID law that provides state-issued ID cards at birth starting this year and goes fully into zero-exception, no card no vote effect in 2032. How could the GOP object? It would definitely solve their unsupported-by-fact claims of rampant "in person" voter fraud, so any other reason to move faster would be proof they're only worried about the "wrong" people voting.


Or we could do what every other country does and have an ID card issued free of charge on the national level.

But that would make too much sense.
2014-04-29 11:05:46 PM  
1 votes:
Ahh, yes, Voter ID. It's like hearing a story from your aunt's plumber's cousin's Facebook about how one house down the block has a termite and then burning the entire town to the ground

If the Democrats were smart they'd propose a Voter ID law that provides state-issued ID cards at birth starting this year and goes fully into zero-exception, no card no vote effect in 2032. How could the GOP object? It would definitely solve their unsupported-by-fact claims of rampant "in person" voter fraud, so any other reason to move faster would be proof they're only worried about the "wrong" people voting.
2014-04-29 10:18:48 PM  
1 votes:

JosephFinn: Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer.

Buying a gun is not a constitutional right, unlike voting.


JosephFinn: Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer.

Buying a gun is not a constitutional right, unlike voting.


I am pretty sure it is.
2014-04-29 10:10:40 PM  
1 votes:

Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer.


Buying a gun is not a constitutional right, unlike voting.
2014-04-29 10:10:06 PM  
1 votes:
Why is my ID required to prove my age to bartenders?

Why is my ID the best way to crush and snort lines?

Why is ID software no longer releasing Doom games?

Why do I need life insurance?

Why do I have to register before I can post on FARK?

Why does James Bond need a license to kill?

Why I laugh?
2014-04-29 09:50:11 PM  
1 votes:
I hate to you all this but I wouldnt be surprised if Gov Derpyhooves and his cronies in the state senate/assembly quick put something into place changing a word or two to fix this election in 2014 for ol Scooter. For sure in 2016 to make sure another Dem doesn't win the state again.
2014-04-29 09:49:06 PM  
1 votes:

KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?

Why is my ID required to open a bank account?

Why do I need an ID / license to drive?

Why do I need proof of insurance?

Why do I have to register for W-9s at work?

Why do people need licenses to do particular jobs?


Why did anyone ever tell you that you had any sense of how to compare things?
2014-04-29 09:39:10 PM  
1 votes:
Three Crooked Squirrels:

However, I disagree about Roberts. Seems to me he wants a legacy as much as anything else. Also seems to me that he wants the swing role Kennedy once had. A true swing justice wields a lot of power.

Not saying you are wrong, but what are some good examples of Roberts "legacy over ideology" votes?
2014-04-29 09:38:31 PM  
1 votes:
Jim Crow 2.0 is on hold in Wisconsin for at least a few months.
2014-04-29 09:28:39 PM  
1 votes:

KIA: Why is my ID used to force me to pay taxes?


Go home KIA, you're drunk.
2014-04-29 06:49:53 PM  
1 votes:
Wow.  Another win.
2014-04-29 06:28:58 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: It's meant to stop legitimate voters from voting.


Legitimate voters?  Since when are poor people and the elderly legitimate voters?
 
Displayed 53 of 53 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report