Vote No On Disenfranchising Minnesotans (Ramsey: felon, homes, university)

[Ghengis]

only people that have served in the military or provided some other public service like the Peace Corps or Habitat For Humanity should be allowed to vote. The rest, the majority of who know little of the issues they vote on, should stay home as they really haven't earned a right to take part in the process.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Oh, a problem exists all right -- a very BIG problem. You see, the problem is that minorities vote. And low-income people vote. And college students vote. And renters vote. And women vote. And people who are not white, male landowners vote.

That is the problem. And that is why we need voter ID; we need more restrictive voting laws; we need more laws restricting voter registration; we need more laws restricting WHEN you are allowed to vote; we need more laws making it easier for military members to vote, but to also make it harder (and perhaps illegal) for anyone who would conceivably vote Democratic. And we also need a bizarre patchwork of voting laws across the country, because for some reason, each state should be allowed to decide who gets to vote.

Do you understand the problem now? Do you understand why we have a voting crisis in this country? The very foundation of our democracy is at stake if anyone darker-skinned than the descendants of Leif Ericsson are allowed to vote!!

I appreciate your honesty in describing your concern. Personally I try not to ascribe bad motives to people I don't know, but maybe that's just the way you are. In any event, if your fear is that voter ID requirements will lead to lower turnouts among as you so artfully put it "dark skinned" people, then the real life experience in Georgia should put your mind at rest.

Despite voter ID law, minority turnout up in Georgia | www.ajc.com

[Thegonagle]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Perhaps, but the Federal government demands that you show a government issued ID to get on a plane, or enter the Federal courthouse, and a passport to re-enter the country. The state demands that you carry a government issued card if you want to drive a car. Retailers often demand that you show a government issued ID if you want to write a check or use a credit card, banks want to see your ID before they'll open an account for you, and most hotels want to see ID if you want to rent a room. So while there may technically be no requirement to carry any, ID is required for certain activities, and voting should be added to the list.

False equivalency, friend. Those aren't constitutionally protected rights--Voting is. That's why they allow for alternative forms of identification. As far as I know, most of the above offer alternatives as well. For example, if a store is asking for ID to take my money (against guidelines offered by the CC companies, BTW), and I feel like taking my business elsewhere, I can, and if I'm missing my ID, I will. (I'll let them restock the shelves, too.)

The return on investment is high enough on electronic poll books to justify their use--as I said, these would be integral to improved protection from felons or dead people voting once, live people voting twice, and whatever else that doesn't happen often, but theoretically could.

The other stuff, like provisional ballots, and providing free photo IDs--not so much. With free ID, we not only lose our revenue from everyone who currently pays a fee for a non-driver state ID, we'll have to process, manufacture, and mail out 200,000+ more of them than we already do.

And just what are provisional ballots going to do for us? Not a thing, IMO--but they will cost, and they will be targeted for court review in every recount going forward until we get some precedent cases under our belts. They're unnecessary, and a complete waste of time and money.

[Globe199]

Then oblige me. What happens if the GOP *still* loses big-time in November despite their best efforts to disenfranchise voters? There're all sorts of interesting shenanigans going on especially in OH, PA and FL. What if they still lose? What in the world will they do for 2016?

Lindsey Graham just said they can't continue to be the party of angry white men. That constituency is dwindling by the day; they appear to understand that the demographic war is not winnable. As I see it, they have two options: (A) begin moving the middle to entice more voters, thereby abandoning the extreme right fringe they have occupied since at least 1980; or (B) continue to dream up new, creative ways of blocking the "wrong" people from voting.

What's it going to be?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Thegonagle

False equivalency, friend. Those aren't constitutionally protected rights--Voting is. That's why they allow for alternative forms of identification. As far as I know, most of the above offer alternatives as well. For example, if a store is asking for ID to take my money (against guidelines offered by the CC companies, BTW), and I feel like taking my business elsewhere, I can, and if I'm missing my ID, I will. (I'll let them restock the shelves, too.)

The return on investment is high enough on electronic poll books to justify their use--as I said, these would be integral to improved protection from felons or dead people voting once, live people voting twice, and whatever else that doesn't happen often, but theoretically could.

The other stuff, like provisional ballots, and providing free photo IDs--not so much. With free ID, we not only lose our revenue from everyone who currently pays a fee for a non-driver state ID, we'll have to process, manufacture, and mail out 200,000+ more of them than we already do.

And just what are provisional ballots going to do for us? Not a thing, IMO--but they will cost, and they will be targeted for court review in every recount going forward until we get some precedent cases under our belts. They're unnecessary, and a complete waste of time and money.

I think the argument that voting is a right is a fair point, but I don't think anyone's right to vote will be infringed upon by this amendment.

Since you yourself advocate incurring most of the costs in converting poll books to electronic form, the remaining costs are small in comparison making your cost based arguments even less persuasive.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Then oblige me. What happens if the GOP *still* loses big-time in November despite their best efforts to disenfranchise voters? There're all sorts of interesting shenanigans going on especially in OH, PA and FL. What if they still lose? What in the world will they do for 2016?

Lindsey Graham just said they can't continue to be the party of angry white men. That constituency is dwindling by the day; they appear to understand that the demographic war is not winnable. As I see it, they have two options: (A) begin moving the middle to entice more voters, thereby abandoning the extreme right fringe they have occupied since at least 1980; or (B) continue to dream up new, creative ways of blocking the "wrong" people from voting.

What's it going to be?

You're way off topic. Start another thread if you want to discuss party strategy with someone. I have no interest.

[Beenhere4ever]

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A tough Texas law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls discriminates against low-income blacks and Hispanics, a federal court ruled Thursday, wiping out for the November election a measure championed by conservatives and setting up a potential U.S. Supreme Court showdown.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...-.html?_r=1&hp

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...-.html?_r=1&hp

Round 1.

[GBCommenter]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Oh, a problem exists all right -- a very BIG problem. You see, the problem is that minorities vote. And low-income people vote. And college students vote. And renters vote. And women vote. And people who are not white, male landowners vote.

That is the problem. And that is why we need voter ID; we need more restrictive voting laws; we need more laws restricting voter registration; we need more laws restricting WHEN you are allowed to vote; we need more laws making it easier for military members to vote, but to also make it harder (and perhaps illegal) for anyone who would conceivably vote Democratic. And we also need a bizarre patchwork of voting laws across the country, because for some reason, each state should be allowed to decide who gets to vote.

Do you understand the problem now? Do you understand why we have a voting crisis in this country? The very foundation of our democracy is at stake if anyone darker-skinned than the descendants of Leif Ericsson are allowed to vote!!

Ahhh, yes...the shrill cries of racism and sexism...just scream the demogoguery enough times and maybe it will somehow become actual truth, right? I mean, we all hear about how everyday someone walks on into MNDOT and the clerk behind the counter says "BLACK MAN! NO ID FOR YOU! LITTLE LADY! NO ID FOR YOU EITHER! AND I DON'T LIKE YOUR SHABBY LOOKIN' CLOTHES SO NO ID EITHER!" (and, in an nod to Seinfeld - "NO SOUP FOR YOU!")

Sheesh...is it REALLY that tough to get an ID? The great irony is the ones howling the loudest false cries of racism and sexism are saying, at its core "minorities, women, lower-income (pick your favorite "disadvantaged" status) are just too darn stupid and incompetent to do something that all those white people are able to do. In fact, us very liberal and concerned individuals - who happen to be predominantly white - will take care of you minorities because, again, you're just too incompetent in your minority status to do basic things like go get an ID". Like it or not, that is what you're saying and perpetuating - total victim mentality.

It's $17.25, at most, for an ID. I get money can be tight, but in the course of the next year (considering if the vote passes the first likely time to show ID to vote would be a year minimum from now), that many people will be absolutely unable to come up with $17.25? And, if it is a problem, there are absolutely no resources to help out? No private charity anywhere in the state will come up with $17.25? And, the law and vote says there is a means to help provide a free ID for those who have truly no other source?

Me thinks doth protest too much - and suspects the real reason behind it is to sell the political snake oil that all Republicans are big and bad to "minorities" and all Democrats are good and saintly.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by GBCommenter

It's $17.25, at most, for an ID. I get money can be tight, but in the course of the next year (considering if the vote passes the first likely time to show ID to vote would be a year minimum from now), that many people will be absolutely unable to come up with $17.25? And, if it is a problem, there are absolutely no resources to help out? No private charity anywhere in the state will come up with $17.25? And, the law and vote says there is a means to help provide a free ID for those who have truly no other source?

Just to be clear, the amendment provides for ID to be issued at no charge, so cost to the voter is not a barrier. The text of the first paragraph of the amendment reads:

(b) All voters voting in person must present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot. The state must issue photographic identification at no charge to an eligible voter who does not have a form of identification meeting the requirements of this section. A voter unable to present government-issued photographic identification must be permitted to submit a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot must only be counted if the voter certifies the provisional ballot in the manner provided by law.