What is so evil about requiring id to vote?

[jcd11235 0]

rushmc

******to legally carry a photo id permit is required in most states.

Could you name some?

There are states in which it is an arrestable offense to refuse to identify oneself. i.e., say who you are, to police if asked. I'm not aware of any states where everyone is required to carry photo identification. Certainly that isn't true in most states, as you claim it to be. if you are carrying you need a permit in most states to do this legally. And in most states that is a photo id permit. The iowa and utah permits i carry have a passport quality photo required along with finger prints for them

That's much different from your original claim.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

there is no right to vote without an id in the constitution

Nice wordplay. Can you show us where the Consitution says that everyone must have ID to vote?

Jerry Baumchen

i took his words and turned them back on him so


Ask him

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

there is no right to vote without an id in the constitution

As you know (or should know) full well, the constitution does not grant us rights, it places limits on the ability of the government to take away rights. The constitution does not have to say "you can vote, but only with a photo ID" for us to have the right to vote.

Of course the whole argument is also silly on the grounds that photography (and so photo ID) did not exist in the Founding Father's day, and indeed I doubt that people normally carried any form of ID. Why would they? Most people were illiterate, you didn't need a license to ride a horse, and so on, so there would have been little or no need for paperwork to establish your identity. Also the entire population of the country was surprisingly small, just a couple of million, and the biggest cities had only 20-30,000 people, so virtually everybody was known by sight by a large segment of their home communities. It's just stupid to expect the founding fathers to have anticipated a need that didn't exist and was not technologically possible in their day, and say that because they failed to specifically state we don't need photo IDs to vote the right does not exist.

Don

but it does for other rights??

Nice try

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

jcd11235

***there is no right to vote without an id in the constitution

Actually, there is, since the courts have determined that ID requirements are equivalent to poll taxes.SOME courts. Not yet fully settled

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday temporarily reinstated Texas' tough voter ID law, which the U.S. Justice Department had condemned as the state's latest means of suppressing minority voter turnout.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allows the law to be used in the November election, despite a lower judge's ruling that the law is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit did not rule on the law's merits; instead, it determined it's too late to change the rules for the election.

The judge said the Supreme Court has repeatedly told courts to be cautious about late-hour interruptions of elections. Early voting starts Oct. 20.

"It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the state to adequately train its 25,000 polling workers at 8,000 polling places" in time for the start of early voting, the appeals court wrote.

While some voters may be harmed, the greater harm would come in potentially disrupting an election statewide, the court said.

Not anymore

[muff528 3]

AndyBoyd

The idea that Judge Posner is somehow in "lockstep" with liberal Democrats is laughable. Why don't you read, or at least skim, Judge Posner's opinion? If you don't like the author of the article, fine. Read the actual opinion. I'll give you the link:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1312285/posner.pdf

It states that there was ZERO evidence of voter fraud in Wisconsin. NONE. In addition, it states that requiring voter ID does nothing to deter numerous types of voter fraud such as ballot stuffing and vote buying. So, requiring voter ID does nothing to solve a problem that does not exist. What does it do, then? Posner explains that it imposes a significant enough burden on low-income, minority, and elderly citizens that it would disenfranchise nearly 10% of the population.

As to your suggestion that democrats are trying to encourage or mask voter fraud, please cite your evidence for such a ridiculous assertion. As the opinion clearly states, there is no voter fraud in Wisconsin. The attorneys for the State of Wisconsin could not point to one instance of voter fraud in the recent past, and one of the State's expert witnesses testified that there were ZERO cases of in-person voter fraud since 2004. Your assertion that democrats are trying to commit voter fraud is completely unfounded and, frankly, nuts.

You may want to read Posner's opinion before you post again. There may well be reasonable grounds to disagree with it. You just haven't given any so far.

I did skim through the opinion earlier. There are a couple of things that stand out and a few things that I could agree with. If I have time I'll read more carefully ...but you missed my point which really only was in reference to the paragraph you quoted from the article. Specifically, if Judge Posner automatically makes the leap that the motivation for Republican support of voter ID laws must be grounded in racism and bigotry (an unfounded position that most certainly is in "lock-step" with liberal Dems' claims and also falls into the "nuts" category and is intentionally, IMO, incendiary) then I can make the unfounded, "nutty" claim that opposition by Dems to voter ID requirements "appears to be aimed" at masking their criminal activity with regard to voting and voter fraud. Obviously there are those on both sides who can be fit into either category ...some right here on this forum. But we can recognize that neither "nutty" claim is the real, mainstream "truth" for either side.

There are good arguments "for" and "against" voter ID requirements. I could support some kind of compromise. For example, apply ID requirements with the notion that the people are who should be the focus and that the role of the Governments, local and state, is to serve the people. Help citizens with verifying their status to eventually ensure confidence in the voter rolls. At the same time help lawfully resident non-citizens toward the correct path to citizenship if they wish to vote. The yang for that yin could be application of heavier fines and more severe punishment for voter fraud violations of all kinds. Maybe even mandatory. Less government oversight would require more personal responsibility, including acceptance of more serious consequences for election shenanigans.

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

Quote

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday temporarily reinstated Texas' tough voter ID law, which the U.S. Justice Department had condemned as the state's latest means of suppressing minority voter turnout.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allows the law to be used in the November election, despite a lower judge's ruling that the law is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit did not rule on the law's merits; instead, it determined it's too late to change the rules for the election.

The judge said the Supreme Court has repeatedly told courts to be cautious about late-hour interruptions of elections. Early voting starts Oct. 20.

"It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the state to adequately train its 25,000 polling workers at 8,000 polling places" in time for the start of early voting, the appeals court wrote.

While some voters may be harmed, the greater harm would come in potentially disrupting an election statewide, the court said.

Not anymore

You do understand what a temporary stay is, right? The ruling has not been overturned.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[cvfd1399 0]

You do understand that I'm just messing with you about that right....
I'm sure ASAP it will be confirmed, but for now it's not how you said it was so I get to point that out to you.

[jcd11235 0]

cvfd1399

You do understand that I'm just messing with you about that right....
I'm sure ASAP it will be confirmed, but for now it's not how you said it was so I get to point that out to you.

No, for now the stay allows the state to charge a poll tax.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AndyBoyd 0]

Judge Posner didn't make the claim that voter ID laws are grounded in racism and bigotry. That was my take from the article. You've already expressed your disdain for the author of the article, so feel free to disregard that.

If you look at page 18 of Posner's opinion, he explains that these laws are passed in conservative states with the goal of suppressing voters who tend to lean democratic. He also states that more liberal states try to make it easier for the poor and minorities to vote. (That's a long way from encouraging voter fraud.) Politics as usual. The problem is, there is an asymmetrical effect, because there is very little voter fraud, and voter ID laws suppress large numbers of voters. The net effect, Posner explains, is that voters who tend to vote democratic are impeded from voting. On page 28, he explains that in the absence of actual voter fraud, the only plausible explanation for voter ID laws is that they are intended to suppress the vote of people likely to vote against those people imposing the laws. So, like I said, Posner didn't make the claim that these laws were motivated by racism. That was my take on the article. My apologies for misleading you.

You still haven't provided any evidence that democrats are supporting voter fraud.

[muff528 3]

AndyBoyd

Judge Posner didn't make the claim that voter ID laws are grounded in racism and bigotry. That was my take from the article. You've already expressed your disdain for the author of the article, so feel free to disregard that.

If you look at page 18 of Posner's opinion, he explains that these laws are passed in conservative states with the goal of suppressing voters who tend to lean democratic. He also states that more liberal states try to make it easier for the poor and minorities to vote. (That's a long way from encouraging voter fraud.) Politics as usual. The problem is, there is an asymmetrical effect, because there is very little voter fraud, and voter ID laws suppress large numbers of voters. The net effect, Posner explains, is that voters who tend to vote democratic are impeded from voting. On page 28, he explains that in the absence of actual voter fraud, the only plausible explanation for voter ID laws is that they are intended to suppress the vote of people likely to vote against those people imposing the laws. So, like I said, Posner didn't make the claim that these laws were motivated by racism. That was my take on the article. My apologies for misleading you.

You still haven't provided any evidence that democrats are supporting voter fraud.

This was taken directly from the LA Times article (and was included in the paragraph you referenced in your original post:

More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

And this from the opinion itself:

"...and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

Sounds to me like prejudicial charges of racism and bigotry by Judge Posner.

But, again you miss my point. I'm not claiming that Dems are "supporting voter fraud". I'm only saying that Posner's claims, quoted above", are no more or less nutty than if I were to claim that it appears that Dems are "supporting voter fraud". Moreover, it appears more and more evident that common ground is not going to be found on this issue.

[kallend 1,644]

airdvr

*** Even as a permanent resident I was not allowed to purchase a gun.

So you aren't actually a citizen of the US?

Didn't they teach about verb tenses where you went to school?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

rushmc

******

Quote

Last time I checked there were some 300,000 guns added to the "illegal guns" numbers every year. Some 30+ Americans are murdered by criminals with guns every day. Compared with a tiny handful of voter fraud cases, it seems you have your priorities wrong.

You can have that argument in another thread.
It does not pertain to the argument you have brought up in that there should not be an ID requirement for a constitutionally protected right. I brought up one that does require ID, and you cannot provide any reply other than changing the subject.

YOU brought up guns. I don't have to justify continuing the discussion and providing reasons. The Supreme court, not Anvil, is the arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation.

The Supreme Court stated unambiguously that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT unlimited. Therefore it isn't.

They have also stated that it is a right to keep and carry arms
So, in many states, becasue they do not have an ID, they are being denied their rights

How is this any different?

In most states you don't need an ID to buy a gun even at a gun show. You only need one if buying from a licensed dealer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AndyBoyd 0]

It's pretty clear that voter ID laws are intended to suppress the vote of the poor, minorities, and the elderly, who tend to vote Democratic. Judge Posner did point that out. I don't think the logical extension of that is that he meant to say these laws were motivated by racism, rather, he said they were meant to help Republicans win elections, and in the process, many blacks and others were disenfranchised. That's not a "nutty" claim, it's clearly supported by the data he cites. I don't know whether the Republicans who promulgated these laws, or those who support these laws, are racist. But it is undeniable that these laws disenfranchise minorities in large numbers. I'm not comfortable with that. Posner's reasoning seems sound to me. It's clear that lots of people, namely Republicans, are comfortable with disenfranchising large numbers of minority voters. So I guess you're right about one thing -- there's no common ground here. Until the courts put a stop to it, Republicans will continue to systematically disenfranchise large numbers of voters in an attempt to win more elections.

[cvfd1399 0]

Your telling me 11% of Americans (the estimated ammount)have never needed to cash a check at the bank? Or do ANYTHING that requires an ID? The way you say it we are talking the poor/elderly/etc who are probay on governmental assistance. Does one not need ID for welfare services?

[kallend 1,644]

cvfd1399

Your telling me 11% of Americans (the estimated ammount)have never needed to cash a check at the bank? Or do ANYTHING that requires an ID? The way you say it we are talking the poor/elderly/etc who are probay on governmental assistance. Does one not need ID for welfare services?

I believe it's a federal appeals court judge appointed by a Republican president who is telling you this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

muff528

***Judge Posner didn't make the claim that voter ID laws are grounded in racism and bigotry. That was my take from the article. You've already expressed your disdain for the author of the article, so feel free to disregard that.

If you look at page 18 of Posner's opinion, he explains that these laws are passed in conservative states with the goal of suppressing voters who tend to lean democratic. He also states that more liberal states try to make it easier for the poor and minorities to vote. (That's a long way from encouraging voter fraud.) Politics as usual. The problem is, there is an asymmetrical effect, because there is very little voter fraud, and voter ID laws suppress large numbers of voters. The net effect, Posner explains, is that voters who tend to vote democratic are impeded from voting. On page 28, he explains that in the absence of actual voter fraud, the only plausible explanation for voter ID laws is that they are intended to suppress the vote of people likely to vote against those people imposing the laws. So, like I said, Posner didn't make the claim that these laws were motivated by racism. That was my take on the article. My apologies for misleading you.

You still haven't provided any evidence that democrats are supporting voter fraud.

This was taken directly from the LA Times article (and was included in the paragraph you referenced in your original post:

More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

And this from the opinion itself:

"...and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

Sounds to me like prejudicial charges of racism and bigotry by Judge Posner.



Sounds to me like telling it like it is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

I don't buy it. I've been in the worst run down neighborhoods of Louisiana with the poorest welfare dependent people in the nation, along with group/nursing homes. We require Pt information for all reports, and ask for insurance/ID on every call . I can't remember a single call in going on 19 years that we asked for an ID they could not produce one.

I just don't buy it. I would suggest the 11% of voters the dmv study are referring to are part of the 68% that do not vote. In stead of focusing on people who allegedly do not have an ID I would like to see the numbers of people who do not have ID but if they had the chance would vote.

[kelpdiver 2]

cvfd1399

Your telling me 11% of Americans (the estimated ammount)have never needed to cash a check at the bank?

For the past many years, the only person I write a check to is my dentist. We're in the 21st century, man. The ATM card and EFT option has killed the check. Add in that many government payments now go in the form of a reloadable debit card.

[Stumpy 256]

It amazes me that the US still uses cheques so much and I've never quite understood why. (there must be a reason?) I haven't owned a chequebook for probably 10 years now and I can't even remember the last time I had to pay one in. I do know that my company's US financial department deals with a lot of cheques and very little online transfers, and the UK and ANZ departments have the opposite. In Australia and NZ we had only one client out of hundreds who paid by cheque.
But I digress.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[airdvr 198]

kallend

****** Even as a permanent resident I was not allowed to purchase a gun.

So you aren't actually a citizen of the US?

Didn't they teach about verb tenses where you went to school?

Are you having trouble understanding my question or just trying to be obtuse?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 198]

In Ohio you must have at least a state issued ID to gain access to benefits.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 198]

kelpdiver

***Your telling me 11% of Americans (the estimated ammount)have never needed to cash a check at the bank?

For the past many years, the only person I write a check to is my dentist. We're in the 21st century, man. The ATM card and EFT option has killed the check. Add in that many government payments now go in the form of a reloadable debit card.

I'll wager you need an ID to get the debit card.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[cvfd1399 0]

We do not use a check book to pay people personally either, but my part time job pays in checks, and an insurance company just paid me in a check last week for a guy plowing over my mailbox. The fact is businesses still use them, and banks require ID to cash checks due to fraud period.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

******Judge Posner didn't make the claim that voter ID laws are grounded in racism and bigotry. That was my take from the article. You've already expressed your disdain for the author of the article, so feel free to disregard that.

If you look at page 18 of Posner's opinion, he explains that these laws are passed in conservative states with the goal of suppressing voters who tend to lean democratic. He also states that more liberal states try to make it easier for the poor and minorities to vote. (That's a long way from encouraging voter fraud.) Politics as usual. The problem is, there is an asymmetrical effect, because there is very little voter fraud, and voter ID laws suppress large numbers of voters. The net effect, Posner explains, is that voters who tend to vote democratic are impeded from voting. On page 28, he explains that in the absence of actual voter fraud, the only plausible explanation for voter ID laws is that they are intended to suppress the vote of people likely to vote against those people imposing the laws. So, like I said, Posner didn't make the claim that these laws were motivated by racism. That was my take on the article. My apologies for misleading you.

You still haven't provided any evidence that democrats are supporting voter fraud.

This was taken directly from the LA Times article (and was included in the paragraph you referenced in your original post:

More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

And this from the opinion itself:

"...and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks."

Sounds to me like prejudicial charges of racism and bigotry by Judge Posner.



Sounds to me like telling it like it is.

From your political perspective I suppose

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln