Voter ID Laws: Racist or Reasonable?

[grggngll]

There’s been much said lately about election integrity and voter identification laws. Both sides of the American political spectrum have raised concerns over polls and potential abuses in the American voting process. In fact, due to the serious voter registration irregularities identified by groups like True the Vote in Texas, along with the numerous voter fraud convictions across the nation involving workers from politically motivated groups like the failed organization ACORN, many states are pursuing photo identification as a means of addressing such assaults on election integrity.

Texas, South Carolina, and Florida have all taken steps to mandate photo identification as a requirement for voting. In general, Americans holding left-of-center perspectives tend to characterize these as organized racist efforts to suppress low-income Americans or minorities from voting. DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz went so far in condemning several recent initiatives to protect against voter fraud as to suggest Republicans want to push voters back to the days of Jim Crow.

Americans with right-of-center perspectives tend to claim the Left defies these laws to facilitate voter fraud and register dead or nonexistent people. The Right has also suggested in some cases that efforts to allow Democrats to vote twice or more are in play, as was discovered near Houston, Texas, during the 2010 midterm elections.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-or-reasonable

[can you hear me now!]

third choice and the truth-- not needed because no problem exists except in the minds of a slowly fading and aging white male majority desperately trying to hang on to power as long as possible....

[cprenegade]

It seems unreasonable that you need a picture id to drive a car, to buy alcohol, and to buy cigarettes, but not to vote. Voting affects everyone in the nation. The myth is that requiring a voter id will disenfranchise anyone who wants to vote. The two parties will go out of their way to insure that all of their party members can get a voter id. Much the same way they go out of their way to insure anyone who wants to get to the polls has a way to do so. Requiring a voter id only helps to insure the integrity of an election. There is no reason why the world's greatest democracy should not take these steps to help validate the vote and prevent even the appearance of fraud.

[can you hear me now!]

It seems unreasonable that you need a picture id to drive a car, to buy alcohol, and to buy cigarettes, but not to vote. Voting affects everyone in the nation. The myth is that requiring a voter id will disenfranchise anyone who wants to vote. The two parties will go out of their way to insure that all of their party members can get a voter id. Much the same way they go out of their way to insure anyone who wants to get to the polls has a way to do so. Requiring a voter id only helps to insure the integrity of an election. There is no reason why the world's greatest democracy should not take these steps to help validate the vote and prevent even the appearance of fraud.

how long has this country be holding elections? the right to vote doesn't come with strings attached. how were elections conducted before motorized conveyances? no IDs required then...of course back then the vote was limited to white guys only....

it's funny how the party of small government only wants small government when it suits them...hmmmm....

the real myth is that there is voter fraud...exhaustive investigations have yielded ZERO instances of organized fraud.....if it ain't broke don't fix it....

this country has a well documented history of suppressing and disenfranchising voters, hence the need to amend the constitution to allow women to vote... poll taxes and tests for certain groups is what lead to the voting rights act...the methods to suppress the vote always require plausible denial.....requiring IDs is just another method aimed at a suppressing the votes casts certain portion of the population.....

the answer is quite simple...if they weren't needed in the 19 and 20th century, they aren't needed now....unless you've got proof picture ID's were used in the 1800's and 1900's....

[cprenegade]

how long has this country be holding elections? the right to vote doesn't come with strings attached. how were elections conducted before motorized conveyances? no IDs required then...of course back then the vote was limited to white guys only....

it's funny how the party of small government only wants small government when it suits them...hmmmm....

the real myth is that there is voter fraud...exhaustive investigations have yielded ZERO instances of organized fraud.....if it ain't broke don't fix it....

this country has a well documented history of suppressing and disenfranchising voters, hence the need to amend the constitution to allow women to vote... poll taxes and tests for certain groups is what lead to the voting rights act...the methods to suppress the vote always require plausible denial.....requiring IDs is just another method aimed at a suppressing the votes casts certain portion of the population.....

the answer is quite simple...if they weren't needed in the 19 and 20th century, they aren't needed now....unless you've got proof picture ID's were used in the 1800's and 1900's....

People used to vote by writing their candidates names on a slip of paper and putting it into a box. As technology improved, we moved on to automated voting machines. Once computer technology was available, we advanced even further. There was no belief that the original paper in the box system resulted in fraud, but we moved on with the technology. The technology now allows that a voter id with a bar code can easily be scanned and verify a voter's id. There is no proof that requiring an id would suppress voter participation anymore than moving from a paper based system to an automated system did. As methods of insuring correct and accurate vote counts improve, so should our use of them. Just because something has not happened does not mean we should not use higher technology to prevent them from possibly happening in the future.

[gps29070]

racist in South Carolina, as it's designed to keep blacks away from the polls and make it much harder to vote absentee.

No one needed voter ID back when the Constitution was written.....

And the same thing happened here with fraud, republicans claimed there was fraud, it was proven there was none.

[cprenegade]

racist in South Carolina, as it's designed to keep blacks away from the polls and make it much harder to vote absentee.

No one needed voter ID back when the Constitution was written.....

And the same thing happened here with fraud, republicans claimed there was fraud, it was proven there was none.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed fraud in Ohio in 2004 that allowed Bush to win re-election. None was proven there either. Voter id would help prevent both sides from making claims they can't support.

[gps29070]

More racism exposed from South Carolina voter ID

In the email, a constituent named Ed Koziul cautions Clemmons against providing an incentive for black voters to get ID cards.

“It would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon,” Koziul wrote.

Clemmons’ response?

“Amen, Ed.”

[bmore_ken]

third choice and the truth-- not needed because no problem exists except in the minds of a slowly fading and aging white male majority desperately trying to hang on to power as long as possible....

I'm a 47 yr old black man and I think there's a need for it

[banner1124]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed fraud in Ohio in 2004 that allowed Bush to win re-election. None was proven there either. Voter id would help prevent both sides from making claims they can't support.

Problem is that all the data shows that there is virtualy NO in person voter fraud taking place and that is the ONLY thing requiring an ID would address. If it's all about the integrity of the vote then why no rush to get these laws in place for the 2010 elections? Why all the changes to restrict and eliminate early voting where it just so happens that minorities are the largest users of the early voting process? Why the changes, esepcially in FL, to make voter registration so difficult that most organizations just quit... and it just so happens that in the places where they have toughened voter registration rules that all those registration efforts just so happen to end up registering a ton of Dem voters? I dont' care what anyone says all of the signs are pointing toward suppression of the vote being the ultimate goal of all these laws.

[banner1124]

I'm a 47 yr old black man and I think there's a need for it

Why exactly is there a need for it? Why is there a need for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? And, for argument's sake let's say there is a need for voter IDs, that still doesn't explain the push to restrict or end early voting, or the push to make voter registration so difficult.

[BiggSeth]

racist in South Carolina, as it's designed to keep blacks away from the polls and make it much harder to vote absentee.

No one needed voter ID back when the Constitution was written.....

And the same thing happened here with fraud, republicans claimed there was fraud, it was proven there was none.

you had to own property to vote back then. next straw man....

[BiggSeth]

Why exactly is there a need for it? Why is there a need for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? And, for argument's sake let's say there is a need for voter IDs, that still doesn't explain the push to restrict or end early voting, or the push to make voter registration so difficult.

unless you are infirmed or on military duty, there is no reason to vote early.

early and absentee ballots are rife with fradulent votes cast. deny all you want, but didn't ineligible felons and a box of absentee ballots get al franken elected?

[banner1124]

unless you are infirmed or on military duty, there is no reason to vote early.

early and absentee ballots are rife with fradulent votes cast. deny all you want, but didn't ineligible felons and a box of absentee ballots get al franken elected?

Oh please. If early or absentee ballots are rife with fraudulent votes cast then why aren't the folks pushing those restrictions plastering the airwaves with all the evidence of fraud as proof of why they are doing what they are doing? Because it doesn't exist that's why! There's no way in H-E-Double Hockey Sticks that these people would willingly take all this flak for restricting early voting if they were sitting on piles of evidence as to exactly why those restrictions are necessary.

Also, there are plenty of people who simply cannot afford to take half a day, or a whole day, off from work to vote on election day. Surely you must understand that.

And, once again we find ourselves in a position where Seth has thrown something out there with absolutely no proof to back it up. How about a little proof about your Al Franken claim? Or are you just lying yet again?

[sigmalady]

The board of elections should issue an id specifically for voting and be done with it.

[banner1124]

The board of elections should issue an id specifically for voting and be done with it.

There are plenty of solutions if this were truly all about the sanctity of the vote... but it's not and I'm pretty sure everyone knows it.

[BiggSeth]

Oh please. If early or absentee ballots are rife with fraudulent votes cast then why aren't the folks pushing those restrictions plastering the airwaves with all the evidence of fraud as proof of why they are doing what they are doing? Because it doesn't exist that's why! There's no way in H-E-Double Hockey Sticks that these people would willingly take all this flak for restricting early voting if they were sitting on piles of evidence as to exactly why those restrictions are necessary.

Also, there are plenty of people who simply cannot afford to take half a day, or a whole day, off from work to vote on election day. Surely you must understand that.

And, once again we find ourselves in a position where Seth has thrown something out there with absolutely no proof to back it up. How about a little proof about your Al Franken claim? Or are you just lying yet again?

1. I am getting tired of doing the legwork for you.

2. you are nothing but a diversionary force for the obama regime and a bad one at that

3. I expect an apology for besmerching me once again without merit. (of course I do not expect you to do the decent thing--that's not in the obamabot playbook)

for you and the rest of the deniers....

The latest revelations that illegal votes may have given Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) his 312-vote margin of victory in his 2008 Senate race—out of the nearly 3 million votes cast—gives one pause. The fact that 243 people have already been convicted or are awaiting trial on voter fraud underscores a persistent concern that, despite their small share of the vote, ineligible ballots can actually swing results.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrez...-to-reduce-it/

here's the link to the URL hyperlink that you will conveniently not see/use...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-w...rticle/2504163

In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

you can start a fresh thread with my apology...

[Brohan]

Problem is that all the data shows that there is virtualy NO in person voter fraud taking place and that is the ONLY thing requiring an ID would address. If it's all about the integrity of the vote then why no rush to get these laws in place for the 2010 elections? Why all the changes to restrict and eliminate early voting where it just so happens that minorities are the largest users of the early voting process? Why the changes, esepcially in FL, to make voter registration so difficult that most organizations just quit... and it just so happens that in the places where they have toughened voter registration rules that all those registration efforts just so happen to end up registering a ton of Dem voters? I dont' care what anyone says all of the signs are pointing toward suppression of the vote being the ultimate goal of all these laws.

Things change and you need to learn to adapt. I mean, how long did it take you to get rid of that racist avatar you used to have? Thank god you were shamed into changing that.

[LarryN]

The board of elections should issue an id specifically for voting and be done with it.

You mean like the voter card I got in the mail, stuck in my wallet, and have never been asked for?

[johnpolitics]

I support it BUT it could be argued that if you require a drivers license ID then it is a Poll Tax and that is illegal. Which could been eveyone could sue a state wanting there money back for paying for a license.