Yahoo/AP: Tough ID laws could block thousands of 2012 votes

Technically this topic is about eventually getting voter id:
ID.. that thing that is going to be handy as we move at lightning speed into the future of Online / Virtual / One cash card kind of thing.

I understand you think its about suppression because 12% want it to be that way. The rest of us just want it to be fair.
If someone doesn't have an ID get them one..
*Kinda like drilling in Anwar, every 7 years we say its not worth it as it takes 7 years to do. If we would just do, 7 years from now we would be better off".
its not going away.

The reason it won't go away is because of Larry's post above Thiebear's. If you've got all that, and still can't register to vote, something is definitely wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thiebear

Technically this topic is about eventually getting voter id:
ID.. that thing that is going to be handy as we move at lightning speed into the future of Online / Virtual / One cash card kind of thing.

I understand you think its about suppression because 12% want it to be that way. The rest of us just want it to be fair.
If someone doesn't have an ID get them one..
*Kinda like drilling in Anwar, every 7 years we say its not worth it as it takes 7 years to do. If we would just do, 7 years from now we would be better off".
its not going away.

---

1) I do agree with you. I think that we really need a good form of ID. For all kinds of reasons. (Identity theft, immigration enforcement.)

Me, I consider me to be pretty libertarian. But to me, a national ID is one of those functions that the federal government is obligated to perform.

IO also look at from an IT perspective, where you really want for every person to have one, and only one, ID.

I would really like for there to be a reliable national ID. (If it's done the way I'd like it done. Always those pesky details.)

2) I think it's glaringly obvious that the current fight over ID is solely about suppression.

Prosecution's first piece of evidence, to support this charge, is the fact that these restrictions are being sought for in-person voting (where vote fraud is virtually non-existent), but not for absentee and early voting (where fraud is still really small. But I suspect, a much bigger really small number. And where fraud is so much easier.)

3) What about people who think that, if we had drilled in Anwar 7 years ago, then we'd be worse off, now? (Or, at least, not any better.)

we have a reliable national ID it's called a passport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prosperity

we have a reliable national ID it's called a passport

---

But a passport isn't good enough to vote. Or to get a Driver's License.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry

But a passport isn't good enough to vote. Or to get a Driver's License.

---

it's good enough for me

if it's not good enough for Texas, then why would a national id be any better?

I received a voter ID card from Virginia. Granted it didn't have a photo, but it was issued to me after I registered at DMV when I changed my official domicile from FL to VA. It was a government issued ID, and accepted at my polling place for years. It was also issued to me before I changed my domicile to FL from VA, and I used it for years to vote. If a government issued ID is no longer good, then there is something really wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prosperity

it's good enough for me

if it's not good enough for Texas, then why would a national id be any better?

---

It may be good enough for you, but is it good enough for your DMV?

It isn't good enough for Florida, either.

(Both Texas and Florida will recognize a US Passport. They just demand additional paperwork, too. The way I looked at it, a passport wasn't good enough, but a passport and a cable bill is.)

Photo voter suppression legislation shot down in Texas today by Federal Courts!

Wooooooot woooooot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...elections-2012

Quote:

---

Ohio Voting: Secretary Of State Refuses To Expand Weekend Voting Until Appeals Court Rules


Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Tuesday that the state would not comply with a court ruling and restore early voting in the final weekend before the election until an appellate court rules on the matter.

"Announcing new hours before the court case reaches final resolution will only serve to confuse voters and conflict with the standard of uniformity," Husted, a Republican, wrote in a memo. "Therefore, there is no valid
reason for my office or the county boards of elections to set hours for in-person absentee voting the last three days before the election at this time."

Obama For America and the national and state Democratic parties sued Husted to restore in-person voting to all voters in the final three days before the election, which a 2011 state law had restricted to members of the military and their families. A federal district court judge sided with their arguments and ordered an injunction against the law last Friday. State Attorney General Mike DeWine filed notice for an appeal of the ruling Tuesday.

About 93,000 Ohioans voted in the final three days of the 2008 election, a disproportionate number of whom were black voters. A study by Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates found blacks accounted for 56 percent of all in-person early votes in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, while they accounted for 26 percent of votes overall. In Franklin County, which includes Columbus, African-Americans cast 31 percent of early votes and 21 percent of votes overall.

---

Can you do that? Just refuse to acknowledge a federal injunction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Can you do that? Just refuse to acknowledge a federal injunction?

---

As I understand it, it depends on the injunction.

Some of them basically say that you must either comply or appeal. Others say that you're allowed to appeal if you want, but you have to comply, until the appeal says otherwise.

A Philadelphia Democratic legislator is mad about "highly offensive, demeaning so-called public service ad" that aired on TV this week in PA.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind..._river_default

Here is the "offensive" video:

http://www.pacast.com/players/cmspla...ID_English.m4v

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ed-backs-down/

Quote:

---

BREAKING: Ohio Secretary Of State Backs Down, Allows Local Officials To Set Early Voting Hours


After previously trying to restrict early voting, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) today reversed course on his decision to block county boards of elections from setting their own early voting hours in the days leading up to the November election.

Last month, Husted and Ohio Republicans led an effort to limit early voting hours in Democratic counties, including those with major cities like Columbus and Cleveland, while expanding early voting in Republican counties. After the ensuing uproar, Husted moved to restrict voting hours across the state, only to have his cuts to early voting restored by a federal court.

Husted responded to the ruling by refusing to comply with the court order. Expanding voting hours, he claimed in Directive 2012-40, will “only serve to confuse voters.” Therefore, the directive read, he was “prohibit[ing] county boards of elections from determining hours for the Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday before the election.” The move led Judge Peter Economus to set a hearing for September 13: “The Court ORDERS that Defendant Secretary of State Jon Husted personally attend the hearing,” his release read.

Facing a direct court order, Husted has chosen instead to back down. This afternoon, Husted’s office released Directive 2012-42 with a brief message: “Directive 2012-40 is hereby rescinded.” As a result, county boards of elections will now be allowed to set their own hours, pending Husted’s appeal of the Obama for America v. Husted decision.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BRAVEONAWARPATH

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ed-backs-down/

---

Haha. Even judges know: If you want to get your message across...USE CAPS.