Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they literally cannot ever leave the facility, they can always use absentee ballots if someone can witness they are indeed who they are. However, most states (for sure SC) is accounting for those who cannot travel on their own and are offering transportation to the DMV to obtain the ID. In addition, if you cannot afford the ID, one will be provided for you free of cost.
And how can we forget the Massive Fraud that the SEIU thugs were pulling when they went to these 'homes' and had them vote for the Dems?
Wonder if the Thugs allowed the 'Seniors' to wear their glasses when signing?
IF they are doing all these things & making the proper accomodations, then I am less incined to find disfavor with such a requirement.
HOWEVER, I am also a firm believer in "If It AInt Broke, Don't Fix It," and I doubt the people living in nursing homes are very involved in any widespread voter fraud.
Any fraud that is out there (I cut my teeth in Philly Politics) is really related to FAKE ID's. SInce fake ID's are so easy to obtain, how will such a requirement prevent voter fraud? It won't. It will only make it more difficult for the poor, mainly the working poor, and the elderly, to cast a vote.
Actually they might be involved without even knowing it. Voter rolls are public. Not the vote - just the roll. There was a case of a guy who scoured the rolls looking for elderly registered voters. He made a calculated guess that if they were old they wouldn't show up at the poll. He sent a proxy voter. I didn't remember all the details but it was pretty interesting how easily he was able to get a couple hundred extra votes with basic public information.
IF they are doing all these things & making the proper accomodations, then I am less incined to find disfavor with such a requirement.
HOWEVER, I am also a firm believer in "If It AInt Broke, Don't Fix It," and I doubt the people living in nursing homes are very involved in any widespread voter fraud.
Any fraud that is out there (I cut my teeth in Philly Politics) is really related to FAKE ID's. SInce fake ID's are so easy to obtain, how will such a requirement prevent voter fraud? It won't. It will only make it more difficult for the poor, mainly the working poor, and the elderly, to cast a vote.
At least in SC, the IDs are scanned at the polling location. There's a bar code on the back so law enforcement, polling places, etc can verify the ID is real and belongs to the face on the front of the license. Made voting this past election very quick and easy!
I can see where it would be an issue if there weren't accommodations made for these types of cases you are questioning. However, when these laws do indeed take this into account, then I do not see the issue with the ID requirement. I also do not believe those in nursing homes are engaged in widespread fraud but should be accommodated even if they are not as agile as they once were.
I think an ID requirement is not outside the norms as expected in everyday life. For some, it will be incredibly easy. For others, it might take a small amount of effort but will not be an impossible tax nor will it rise to the level of a poll tax or anything of that ilk.
States require a driver to have license to drive. Yes those are 'papers'. But, passengers or people walking down the street are not required to show 'papers' even to police unless, there is probable cause of a crime having or being committed. That is called right to privacy and you do not have to give up that right, in order to exercise your right to vote. Well, unless you live in one of the States that has decided the Constitution is not applicable to their 'inferior' people.
So you have to give up that right to get a job or buy liquor or open a bank account or enroll in school but for some reason it's completely totalitarian to do it in order to vote. Hmmm...Nope, sorry. Doesn't wash.
I think getting to determine who is going to lead our government is a little more important than buying a beer. If you can require ID to buy a beer then you can require it to vote.
At least in SC, the IDs are scanned at the polling location. There's a bar code on the back so law enforcement, polling places, etc can verify the ID is real and belongs to the face on the front of the license. Made voting this past election very quick and easy!
I can see where it would be an issue if there weren't accommodations made for these types of cases you are questioning. However, when these laws do indeed take this into account, then I do not see the issue with the ID requirement. I also do not believe those in nursing homes are engaged in widespread fraud but should be accommodated even if they are not as agile as they once were.
I think an ID requirement is not outside the norms as expected in everyday life. For some, it will be incredibly easy. For others, it might take a small amount of effort but will not be an impossible tax nor will it rise to the level of a poll tax or anything of that ilk.
Any material hurdle which must be over come is a poll tax. If aquiring a voter ID can be construed as an undue burden (which it was in Georgia the first time), it can be struck down as a poll tax.
I'll repeat my prior statements. The VoterID laws are designed to disenfranchise specific subgroups of the population--notably those who cannot afford, cannot get, or do not want voter IDs. These are overwhelmingly students, the poor, racial minorities, the elderly, and these groups tend to vote liberal.
Republicans have backed VoterID laws under the guise of "voter fraud" prevention, despite there being nill evidence on widespread, problematic, in-person fraud. In fact, Georgia was reamed for their first attempt at passing Voter ID laws because it tightened in-person voting with the ID law, while loosening absentee ballot voting, which did have evidence of fraud.
You can hide behind the facade of "preventing voter fraud" all you want, but research into the issue using legitimate sources, not the Heritage Foundation, has yielded so little evidence of voter fraud, the only conclusion that can be reached for these laws is voter suppression. The Courts even acknowledge it repeatedly in their statements and opinions.
Any material hurdle which must be over come is a poll tax. If aquiring a voter ID can be construed as an undue burden (which it was in Georgia the first time), it can be struck down as a poll tax.
I'll repeat my prior statements. The VoterID laws are designed to disenfranchise specific subgroups of the population--notably those who cannot afford, cannot get, or do not want voter IDs. These are overwhelmingly students, the poor, racial minorities, the elderly, and these groups tend to vote liberal.
Republicans have backed VoterID laws under the guise of "voter fraud" prevention, despite there being nill evidence on widespread, problematic, in-person fraud. In fact, Georgia was reamed for their first attempt at passing Voter ID laws because it tightened in-person voting with the ID law, while loosening absentee ballot voting, which did have evidence of fraud.
You can hide behind the facade of "preventing voter fraud" all you want, but research into the issue using legitimate sources, not the Heritage Foundation, has yielded so little evidence of voter fraud, the only conclusion that can be reached for these laws is voter suppression. The Courts even acknowledge it repeatedly in their statements and opinions.
What material hurdles? If you can't afford an ID, you get one for free. If you can't get to the DMV to get the ID, a ride will be provided for you. So, your prior statements have no standing when these options are afforded to these specific subgroups of the population you cited. So, if you can neither afford an ID nor get to the DMV on your own, that does require two additional phone calls. Do you think that constitutes a poll tax?? I doubt 99.9% of people would think it does.
Have you any knowledge of what I have and have not read on the issue? Point that out where I said such a thing in this thread. I can tell you I did read the report put out by SC on this issue and I saw enough troubling situations to fully support the SC Voter ID law. Not only will the SC Voter ID law prevent voter fraud at the polls, it will assist the state and the election office to reduce the number of clerical errors that do more to disenfranchise voters than any ID would do.
What material hurdles? If you can't afford an ID, you get one for free. If you can't get to the DMV to get the ID, a ride will be provided for you. So, your prior statements have no standing when these options are afforded to these specific subgroups of the population you cited. So, if you can neither afford an ID nor get to the DMV on your own, that does require two additional phone calls. Do you think that constitutes a poll tax?? I doubt 99.9% of people would think it does.
The ID itself can represent a material hurdle. People would potentially have to take time off work, travel long distances, pay for documentation, etc. That is of course, when states aren't charging fees for the IDs in the first place, and then not telling people they're free. (I believe it was Wisconsin that did that. I'll double-check later). Courts have found that both primary and secondary costs to voting can be construed as a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.
Quote:
Have you any knowledge of what I have and have not read on the issue? Point that out where I said such a thing in this thread.
With due respect, when I left this thread last night, it was at six pages. Now it's at 26. I don't have the time nor the energy to read through 20 pages of Nighttrain and Normander duking it out. The overwhelming theme of conservatives on here has been to "prevent voter fraud," specifically in-person voting, which no evidence has shown to be a problem.
Quote:
I can tell you I did read the report put out by SC on this issue and I saw enough troubling situations to fully support the SC Voter ID law. Not only will the SC Voter ID law prevent voter fraud at the polls,
But there isn't any voter fraud--that's the problem! It's a solution to something that doesn't exist. The very law itself causes more problems by disenfranchising legitimate voters for the possibility of preventing fraudulent voters--which don't exist!
Quote:
it will assist the state and the election office to reduce the number of clerical errors that do more to disenfranchise voters than any ID would do.
Ah, and here's the kicker. You can tie this great piece, enfranchising more voters who incorrectly filled out paperwork, to bad law, like the voter ID bills. We see this kind of rider all the time. Georgia tried it their first time with Voter ID laws and were *****-slapped for it.
If you want to pass good law, I applaud you for it. But VoterID laws aren't good law. They disenfranchise a specific subgroup of the population, notably those that tend to vote liberal--it's the reason why the GOP is so in favor of the magical bullet to a magical problem.
The ID itself can represent a material hurdle. People would potentially have to take time off work, travel long distances, pay for documentation, etc. That is of course, when states aren't charging fees for the IDs in the first place, and then not telling people they're free. (I believe it was Wisconsin that did that. I'll double-check later). Courts have found that both primary and secondary costs to voting can be construed as a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.
With due respect, when I left this thread last night, it was at six pages. Now it's at 26. I don't have the time nor the energy to read through 20 pages of Nighttrain and Normander duking it out. The overwhelming theme of conservatives on here has been to "prevent voter fraud," specifically in-person voting, which no evidence has shown to be a problem.
But there isn't any voter fraud--that's the problem! It's a solution to something that doesn't exist. The very law itself causes more problems by disenfranchising legitimate voters for the possibility of preventing fraudulent voters--which don't exist!
Ah, and here's the kicker. You can tie this great piece, enfranchising more voters who incorrectly filled out paperwork, to bad law, like the voter ID bills. We see this kind of rider all the time. Georgia tried it their first time with Voter ID laws and were *****-slapped for it.
If you want to pass good law, I applaud you for it. But VoterID laws aren't good law. They disenfranchise a specific subgroup of the population, notably those that tend to vote liberal--it's the reason why the GOP is so in favor of the magical bullet to a magical problem.
Actually, SC voters have shown overwhelming support, both Dems and GOP, for this Voter ID law. It wasn't until national interests got involved that SC made the 'news' so to speak. I think the reason the law was both desired and welcomed in a bipartisan fashion here is the issues we have seen time and again with the voting process here. This, at least on its face, seems to solve many of those issues. Without getting too into detail, it has a lot to do with the way the local election commission offices are ran and managed and how they interface with the DMV for vital records stats (e.g alive/dead/legal residence).
Some things that made this a bipartisan effort here was that proper and easy to reach transportation would be available for those needing a ride to the DMV. In addition, there is a $5 SC ID (not DL) but in order to ensure satisfaction with the law, SC made sure people could get that ID for free if needed.
For me, personally, it's a common sense thing. I was conversing back and forth with someone from Hawaii and they have a very similar law. The major difference is they have a caveat that if you absolutely cannot get an ID, then there are alternatives to an ID. Wonder if SC enacted the exact same law as Hawaii, would we still be blocked by DOJ? I will say, with Hawaii being so liberal, I do not think this is just a conservative versus liberal issue. From the sounds of it, it's much, much harder to register to vote in Hawaii than here, for example. Guess that would constitute a poll tax based on your rather broad definition.
This has been framed as a conservative issue by certain people but it's not. We're not the only state doing this and some are quite liberal. The DOJ went after the Southern states because they both wanted to make this a campaign issue and the VRA allows them to do so. This is why you do not see the DOJ having anything to do with the Hawaii voting laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
