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.
There are no conditions that have to be qualified for a citizen to vote. Any pre-condition you put is levying an unnecessary burden on voters. The 24th Amendment includes literacy tests that were used to disenfranchise blacks and poor voters that were uneducated. Unconstitutional.
Are we moving back in time, Republicans?
Giving away free voter IDs disenfranchises blacks? This to you is the same as literacy tests?
The ironic thing is that any person who wanted to enter that judge's court room to hear his ignorant verdict, was required to show a photo ID.
First tell me how requiring a voter ID would only represses democratic party voters. I'll wait.
Those poor people in urban areas more likely to be Democrat than those in rural areas would be forced to use public transportation to get to the license center... wait a minute... this is going to disenfranchise poor republicans in rural areas.
Those poor people in urban areas more likely to be Democrat than those in rural areas would be forced to use public transportation to get to the license center... wait a minute... this is going to disenfranchise poor republicans in rural areas.
The shtick from the democrats is that poor people and brown skinned people are too stupid or lazy to spell DMV much less find it on a map. It's insulting and demeaning, but it's what the dems believe, and as someone living in a mixed race family, who grew up dirt poor, it freaking infuriates me.
Truth is they could not have passed many of these ID laws in places like Texas, a few minutes after key provisions of the Voter Rights Act were removed many of these states started the legislation rolling. They couldn't defend it under the prior act but now it gave them license, if it clearly didn't disenfranchise voters whey do you suppose that had to wait, it should have been passed years ago.
Truth is they could not have passed many of these ID laws in places like Texas, a few minutes after key provisions of the Voter Rights Act were removed many of these states started the legislation rolling. They couldn't defend it under the prior act but now it gave them license, if it clearly didn't disenfranchise voters whey do you suppose that had to wait, it should have been passed years ago.
They passed it in South Carolina prior to that SCOTUS decision. The DOJ took them to court to try and block it and South Carolina won. Same arguments were used by DOJ as so many on here have used over and over. DOJ lost, just as SCOTUS decided getting a Voter ID was not too much of a burden in Crawford v Madison County.
As I've stated before, there is nothing wrong with Voter ID as long as it's done right. Some states have done this well and others have not but to come out unilaterally against Voter ID makes me think it's not about disenfranchisement and whatever other argument used but rather maintaining a voting process that is vulnerable to fraud.
They passed it in South Carolina prior to that SCOTUS decision. The DOJ took them to court to try and block it and South Carolina won. Same arguments were used by DOJ as so many on here have used over and over. DOJ lost, just as SCOTUS decided getting a Voter ID was not too much of a burden in Crawford v Madison County.
As I've stated before, there is nothing wrong with Voter ID as long as it's done right. Some states have done this well and others have not but to come out unilaterally against Voter ID makes me think it's not about disenfranchisement and whatever other argument used but rather maintaining a voting process that is vulnerable to fraud.
I don't know the exact timing of all the states but TX, waited until right after the act was removed. Some ID laws have been approved while some have been struck down. I don't understand the defense that there may fraud, we already have BOE's in place and proving that fact should be an easy task with the current technology.
It really goes beyond just voter ID's but that is off topic, things like reduced voting hours seems like a move in the wrong direction for a country that already has an anemic voting record.
I don't know the exact timing of all the states but TX, waited until right after the act was removed. Some ID laws have been approved while some have been struck down. I don't understand the defense that there may fraud, we already have BOE's in place and proving that fact should be an easy task with the current technology.
It really goes beyond just voter ID's but that is off topic, things like reduced voting hours seems like a move in the wrong direction for a country that already has an anemic voting record.
Yes, I tend to slightly hijack every voter ID thread because I do agree in this day and age that our technology should allow us easy methods to ensure a secure voter process which does not disenfranchise anyone. So, while I like the idea of Voter ID, if done right, it's not as important to me as other parts of our voting process that need serious attention.
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.
