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.
So we cannot write a law if it might possibly inconvenience one out of every 100,000 people?
600,000 sounds like more than one out of 100,000. I believe they said 600,000 legal voter in texas don't have a drivers licence. Seems like that number would overwhelm the system and thete would be lines miles long waiting at DMV sites miles from these peoples home. You don't see a problem? You want to deal with a line like that if you need to renew your licence this August?????
Nobody said they had to drive that distance to VOTE, they do have to travel that far to get am id. Why?
Good plan. Texas should make easier to get the required ID. How about the BOE issue ids locally.
I posted several links already about states providing FREE transportation to get FREE IDs. Texas is one of them as well as the other states that have passed Voter ID laws.
Here in Texas every county has a DMV if not multiple so no one should have to drive 176 miles to get an ID.
When I moved to a rural county it was a 30 minute drive to the DMV.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,140,525 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
600,000 sounds like more than one out of 100,000. I believe they said 600,000 legal voter in texas don't have a drivers licence. Seems like that number would overwhelm the system and thete would be lines miles long waiting at DMV sites miles from these peoples home. You don't see a problem? You want to deal with a line like that if you need to renew your licence this August?????
And of that 600,000 how many do you think would actually "fear" or "cry about" getting an ID? None... if their legal....
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,140,525 times
Reputation: 2677
As long as the ID is made financially viable for all our citizens there is absolutely no reason NOT to have one. The only people who should "fear" this are those who are not legal to possess one. Plain and simple.
It costs more to get a permit to purchase and/or carry a firearm. Why does the left not care about the cost for that. It is a right to keep and bear arms.
I can't say how it is in every state, but in Iowa you used to have to go to the court house and fill out a request for purchase permit, and pay a fee. Sometimes you would have to <gasp> wait in line. Then at the store, you have to show an ID and fill out more forms.
In Illinois you need a FOID. That costs money and takes time.
Why is Eric Holder not blocking those requirements?
So, please tell me why Democrats are so opposed to the photo ID requirement.
It doesn't.
There is no logical reason to fight it that is honest in its efforts.
The cost of one isn't an issue, many states offer programs for people to get them for free if they need and most state costs are extremely cheap (Texas costs 15 dollars for 6 years, 1 dollar to renew for under 60 and 60+ costs 5 dollars, 1 dollar renew).
Getting one is ridiculously easy, takes little time and effort (renewing them can be done online). Considering the amount of everyday interactions that require them, it is odd people may not have one.
/speculation
I think the entire reason it is fought against is because there really is a large amount of voter fraud going on. This would severely cut down such activity and those political organizations that object, do so because they know there is fraud going on... because they are the ones encouraging it.
The DOJ's rationale in opposing the Texas law is that it affects more Hispanics than whites. Yep, that's it. Apparently if more Hispanics got ID cards, then the law would be okay. According to Eric Holder, given a law that is otherwise fine, if the majority of people who decide to break that law are white that's okay but if they are in a minority the law then becomes unconstitutional. It's the same idea as those recent court cases where black people were awarded millions of dollars for failing to score high enough on the exams to become firemen. The solution isn't to improve the scores of blacks, it's to lower the requirements so that blacks already meet them. The "disparate impact" concept is self evidently irrational.
And according to the Wisconsin judge, it disenfranchises those without ID cards. Yep, that's his argument. This genius says you can't make someone show an ID card to vote because then if they don't show an ID card they can't vote. You read that right - the law is wrong because it discriminates against those who do not follow the law. Of course, there's no law in the world that this statement isn't true of. Like setting speed limits is discriminatory because it artificially creates a class of people who are driving illegally by going above the speed limit. But no joke - that's his reasoning.
Both of these positions are patently ridiculous. Just more cases of activist liberal judges deciding first what they want the outcome to be, and then inventing a legal justification for it.
Neither one of these is valid logical reasoning, much less a solid foundation upon which to judge the constitutionality of law.
So you are going to sit here and tell me that conservative judges don't decide what they want the outcome to be? Liberal judges have an agenda to protect minorities and the poor, and conserative judges try to harm the poor and minorities while helping out the rich. Each side has an agenda they want to enforce.
There is no logical reason to fight it that is honest in its efforts.
The cost of one isn't an issue, many states offer programs for people to get them for free if they need and most state costs are extremely cheap (Texas costs 15 dollars for 6 years, 1 dollar to renew for under 60 and 60+ costs 5 dollars, 1 dollar renew).
Getting one is ridiculously easy, takes little time and effort (renewing them can be done online). Considering the amount of everyday interactions that require them, it is odd people may not have one.
/speculation
I think the entire reason it is fought against is because there really is a large amount of voter fraud going on. This would severely cut down such activity and those political organizations that object, do so because they know there is fraud going on... because they are the ones encouraging it.
Requiring the payment of money to vote is against the CONSTITUTION OF THE US! You know, the document that most RWs spend an hour or so a day reading?
I don't think there is a "large amount of voter fraud going on" and NO ONE has shown any proof that there is.
If such a law wouldn't suppress votes, the Rs would not be proposing it.
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.
