State can't force voters to prove citizenship

[CHERIE.T]

Which explains the last 8 years! Evil geniuses those folks.

wtf ever.... I need to stay away from this thread.:twocents:

 

[Nova]

Just realize...Gay Rights are NOT a big thing in Latin America or Africa or the Middle East or even Asia.

Gay rights are a big thing here in the United States. A country currently run by White Males...and most adult White Males are still Republican.

You might want to think on that. Seriously. Choose your friends carefully.

As a matter of fact, Mexico City and Buenos Aires legalized gay marriage and the supreme courts of Mexico and Argentina, respectively, ruled that the entire country must recognize gay marriages performed in the capital.

Columbia seems to be next in line to legalize gay marriage.

Unfortunately, former colonies in Africa and Asia absorbed the homophobia of their colonial masters and lag behind in the area of gay rights. It may be decades before changes can be made in those places.

But the Unites States actually lags behind many other countries in the area of marriage equality. Shame on us (and those white males who vote Republican)!

 

[Nova]

Okay, but here's the thing... that Republican (I prefer the term neo-conservative because not all Republicans are alike, but okay) effort can be distinguished from the idea of voter ID cards or national ID cards. It's unfortunate that the debate has been reduced to thinking of it strictly in terms of the politicians who want to hold people back from the polls. I'll have nothing to do with different standards for different citizens when it comes to the right and privilege (and duty) to vote, fyi. BUT a standardized form of ID could streamline the process and possibly make it easier for the groups who currently have trouble with documentation, like a DL, while upholding the requirement of citizenship. I know some people get their backs up about the concept of a national ID because "omg Big Brother!" but these are often the same people with an SSN, passport, internet connection, etc. If you're worried about Big Brother, you really need to live off the grid... in which case you won't register to vote. (I'm using "you" in the general sense, not you Nova.)

It's an option worth exploring and considering (imo) exclusive of shenanigans that have targeted disadvantaged segments.

HG, I'm not particularly bothered by the idea of a national i.d. card. But the same people who are behind requiring photo i.d.'s to vote are the ones who scream bloody murder when national i.d. cards are proposed!

They don't really want universal photo i.d.'s. They want to exclude poor people (who can't afford cars and don't need drivers licenses) from voting.

 

[Nova]

As a staunch supporter of the Republican Party I'm insulted by your post. I'm ready for non legal citizens and dead uncles to be exempt from voting. To say the GOP is anti-democracy is not only insulting but ignorant. :banghead: :stormingmad:

Take a walk in the real world. The Tea Party wing of the GOP isn't just anti-democracy but openly fascist. At the moment that wing has the rest of the party intimidated.

 

[Trident]

Yesterday it took me over half an hour to get my signature notarized. The notary had to write, write, and write again in her ledger filled with writing and signatures. I had to prove my address, my driver's license, my everything. OMG, said I, I have to go through this carp to have my SIGNATURE notarized, and people can VOTE without proving they are citizens of this country.

"Nothing wrong here," said the professor in the ad campaign from Cujo.

Mad dogs and Englishmen. . . Some times you have to wonder which is what, and why.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Take a walk in the real world. The Tea Party wing of the GOP isn't just anti-democracy but openly fascist. At the moment that wing has the rest of the party intimidated.

You poor boy, perhaps one follows democrats for one particular reason. And an FYI,
You may be young but please research before labeling the GOP as fascist.:banghead: PERSONALLY,

I do not follow the political party which applauds abortion and is anti religion.

 

[Reader]

You poor boy, perhaps one follows democrats for one particular reason. And an FYI,
You may be young but please research before labeling the GOP as fascist.:banghead: PERSONALLY,

I do not follow the political party which applauds abortion and is anti religion.

Not speaking for Nova, but regarding the BBM:

I don't either. I'm registered as independent but usually vote Democratic.

There are many Christians and people of other faiths in the Democratic party.

And I don't think anybody on this earth 'applauds' abortion but some of us believe a woman has the right to make her own health decisions.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Oh I've friends from differing party beliefs , trust me some certainly applaud abortion as a right and as a late term form of birth control.

With that I bid this thread adieu.
Moo

 

[Linda7NJ]

Quietly backing out of thread.....

 

[Reader]

Yesterday it took me over half an hour to get my signature notarized. The notary had to write, write, and write again in her ledger filled with writing and signatures. I had to prove my address, my driver's license, my everything. OMG, said I, I have to go through this carp to have my SIGNATURE notarized, and people can VOTE without proving they are citizens of this country.

"Nothing wrong here," said the professor in the ad campaign from Cujo.

Mad dogs and Englishmen. . . Some times you have to wonder which is what, and why.

We've gone through the same procedures to buy property or make some other kind of personal contract, which is needed for your own and the other party's protection.

For such an enormous task as federal elections in which a potential 300 million people could be voting some other systems had to be set up. Please refer to Betty P's excellent explanation of how those systems work and cross check each other to make as sure as possible that only citizens vote. As she shows, if someone's information is in question, they are individually required to present verification and if they cannot, are not allowed to vote.

And as some of the links I posted show the percentage of actual voter fraud (the person actually voting with fraudalent information) is very low.

I think the SC made the right decision and one of their most fervent conservatives agreed. This was a non-existent problem from the first time it was brought up as discussed above.

 

[Deleted member 96356]

HG, I'm not particularly bothered by the idea of a national i.d. card. But the same people who are behind requiring photo i.d.'s to vote are the ones who scream bloody murder when national i.d. cards are proposed!

They don't really want universal photo i.d.'s. They want to exclude poor people (who can't afford cars and don't need drivers licenses) from voting.

That's why I said it's too bad these ideas can't be explored exclusive of the reasons some politicians have, e.g. attempting to preclude segments of the population from voting. The conversation has been co-opted and so politicized that one can't even try to raise it without being accused of neo-con motives.

 

[Nova]

That's why I said it's too bad these ideas can't be explored exclusive of the reasons some politicians have, e.g. attempting to preclude segments of the population from voting. The conversation has been co-opted and so politicized that one can't even try to raise it without being accused of neo-con motives.

That's because nobody has found any evidence that voter fraud is a significant problem. Find that and the rest of us may take the conversation more seriously.

Any time a solution is proposed for a non-existant problem, we should all be suspicious.

 

[Deleted member 96356]

That's because nobody has found any evidence that voter fraud is a significant problem. Find that and the rest of us may take the conversation more seriously.

Any time a solution is proposed for a non-existant problem, we should all be suspicious.

Those who don't take the conversation seriously needn't engage in it. IMX, though, the issue is more along the lines of "those who don't like the conversation don't want anyone else to have the conversation".

 

[Nova]

Those who don't take the conversation seriously needn't engage in it. IMX, though, the issue is more along the lines of "those who don't like the conversation don't want anyone else to have the conversation".

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Legitimate voters are being disenfranchised (which, of course, is the real point of the phony "voter fraud" hysteria).

That is a fundamental issue of democracy and one that should concern all of us.

No one has stopped the conversation. But experts have shown time and time again that there is no significant voter fraud. The problem in the U.S. is too few voters, not too many.

 

[Elley Mae]

Not about citizenship but about voting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?hp&_r=0

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Changes in voting procedures that had required advance federal approval, including voter identification laws and restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.

“With today’s decision,” said Greg Abbott, Texas’ attorney general, “the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

 

[Betty P]

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Legitimate voters are being disenfranchised (which, of course, is the real point of the phony "voter fraud" hysteria).

That is a fundamental issue of democracy and one that should concern all of us.

No one has stopped the conversation. But experts have shown time and time again that there is no significant voter fraud. The problem in the U.S. is too few voters, not too many.

National ID's for voting are redundant, too. Citizens already have to show birth-certificate-proven photo IDs in order to register to vote. Those ID's are cross checked for fraud or duplication with SS and BMV databases before you're allowed to vote.

 

[Betty P]

Not about citizenship but about voting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?hp&_r=0

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Changes in voting procedures that had required advance federal approval, including voter identification laws and restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.

“With today’s decision,” said Greg Abbott, Texas’ attorney general, “the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

Gerrymandering now becomes legal.

 

[Elley Mae]

Ex-poll worker sentenced to prison for illegal voting

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...entenced-prison-illegal-voting?nclick_check=1

She became the third person convicted this year of illegal voting in Hamilton County.

Three others also have pending charges of illegal voting in Hamilton County.

Well evidently there are ways. They got caught, but they were able to do it.