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

[Duckus]

This got buried in the Kilmer Daily Show derailment. Figured I would bump it since it is well . . . . terrible.

GOP Senate Candidate Suggests The Voting Rights Act Of 1965 Should Be Overturned

Rep. Todd Akin, the GOP’s candidate for U.S. Senate in Missouri, suggested in an interview that it was time to “look at or overturn” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Asked directly if seminal federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discriminatory voting proceedures needed to be modified or scrapped, Akin said that states — not the federal government — should set voting rules. According to Akin, elections “have historically always been a state thing” and that’s a “good principle.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...be-overturned/

Same guy (and I believe interview) who said the thing about "real" rape. The guy is a walking disaster, but I think his thoughts on the Voting Rights Act would be embraced by many on the right.

[Kilmer17]

This got buried in the Kilmer Daily Show derailment. Figured I would bump it since it is well . . . . terrible.



http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...be-overturned/

Same guy (and I believe interview) who said the thing about "real" rape. The guy is a walking disaster, but I think his thoughts on the Voting Rights Act would be embraced by many on the right.

Same guy. Same disaster.

I do think it's past time for certain states, and even more crazy, certain COUNTIES to have the Fed Govt overlooking their elections. 50 years. Things are different.

[Duckus]

Same guy. Same disaster.

I do think it's past time for certain states, and even more crazy, certain COUNTIES to have the Fed Govt overlooking their elections. 50 years. Things are different.

I disagree. If anything, the GOP has currently proven the need to keep those laws. After 50 years folks are still actively seeking ways to limit access to voting. I wish things were different and we didn't need to laws - clearly we do.

[Kilmer17]

I disagree. If anything, the GOP has currently proven the need to keep those laws. After 50 years folks are still actively seeking ways to limit access to voting. I wish things were different and we didn't need to laws - clearly we do.

My issue is that some states are covered, and others are not. And in some states, certain COUNTIES are covered, while others are not.

It's too arbitrary to base the current practice of the law on the norms established 50 years ago.

PA isnt covered by the law, yet that is one of the hotbeds of the voter controversy.

If it still needs to apply, then apply it everywhere.

[Jumbo]

In fairness. I was attacking Jumbo.
.

Sure, go after the easy targets.

[The Evil Genius]

Random question that I think will shine light on the situation.

In our form of elections...what's worse?

1 person illegally voting?

or...

1 person illegally being denied the right to vote?

[Kilmer17]

Random question that I think will shine light on the situation.

In our form of elections...what's worse?

1 person illegally voting?

or...

1 person illegally being denied the right to vote?

The latter. And it's not even close.

But that''s not what these laws are doing.

[Larry]

The latter. And it's not even close.

But that''s not what these laws are doing.

If the Republican government suppresses people from voting, it's not illegal.

---------- Post added August-20th-2012 at 02:30 PM ----------

Same guy. Same disaster.

I do think it's past time for certain states, and even more crazy, certain COUNTIES to have the Fed Govt overlooking their elections. 50 years. Things are different.

They are?

I could have sworn that this thread was about the GOP attempting to win power by coming up with artificial ways to suppress the minority vote. (And lying, and claiming that they have noble motives for doing it, and minority vote suppression is merely an accidental side effect).

[Larry]

Anecdotal story, from WinningProgressive.org. You have been warned.

I COULD NOT REGISTER TO VOTE! – The Voter Identification MANDATE

I have never bought into the whole voter ID scam because I know history and bull****. Doesn’t it strike anyone as hypocritical that the small government advocates, who hate mandates have mandated that everyone has to have a government ID? In light of the fact that voter fraud is virtually non-existent, there’s no reason to believe that the same identification process that has always worked will continue to serve us well. Still, there’s nothing like personal experience to give validity to one’s argument.

Let me give you my personal encounter with the voter identification process:

Some months ago, I moved to Kansas. As is required, I went to the Department of Motor Vehicles to exchange my driver’s license for a Kansas license, to make record of my new address and to register to vote. In order to make certain I would cover every possibility, I simply grabbed what I call “my identity packet” which contains the following:

My birth certificate
My social security card and my last social security statement that projects my benefits
A passport
Current 1099’s
My current tax return
My insurance policy
My Dependent Care Packet (a notarized, exhaustive packet issued by the military to anyone who will be responsible for the care of military children in the event of disability or death of a soldier)

I have credit cards and debit cards
A current driver’s license and automobile registration
A picture ID issued by the United States Armed Forces

To verify my new address I took mail I had received, since my relocation from:

The utility company
The Telephone company
My rental lease
A registered letter from the Internal Revenue Service

I COULD NOT REGISTER TO VOTE!

More at the link.

[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.

[skinsmarydu]

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.

[Larry]

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.)

[Prosperity]

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

[Larry]

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.

[Prosperity]

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?