National registration with a biometric ID.

Central control and eliminate individual privacy. No thanks.

Central control and eliminate individual privacy. No thanks.

So we stick with state control, and eliminate voter rights? So much for working together.

Biometric cards would be as safe as a credit card, or debit card.

Breaking NEWS

The National Memo Pennsylvania Supreme Court Demands Review Of Voter ID Restrictions (http://www.nationalmemo.com/pennsylvania-supreme-court-demands-review-of-voter-id-restrictions/)

SCOTUS has already said the MINIMAL burden of presenting ID is constitutional once, what makes you think it's going to do anything to reverse that from whatever viewpoint you think they're going to consider?Hello again, Steve:

Remember that concept that you couldn't get.. Here's how the judges on the state Supreme Court SIMPLIFIED the issue.
The high court has requested Judge Simpson’s opinion by October 2. If Simpson finds that the ID’s can be easily obtained, and voters will have no difficulty casting a ballot on Election Day, then the state Supreme Court will let the law stand.

As we've been saying, it's NOT the ID... It's the PROCESS.

Excon

So we stick with state control, and eliminate voter rights? So much for working together.

Biometric cards would be as safe as a credit card, or debit card.

Yes, voter fraud and voter suppression are two sides of the same coin.

I know some people are ideologically opposed to the idea, but the only solution to Federal elections is a top down approach.

Tut

Because central controlled governments never have issues with the integrity of the franchise ?

What?

What?


Hi Clete,

I think he means that under the current system there exists the opportunity for the states to favour one candidate over another. Tom is skeptical that a centralized system would eliminate this problem.



Tut

Reference Hugo Chavez

Hi Clete,

I think he means that under the current system there exists the opportunity for the states to favour one candidate over another. Tom is skeptical that a centralized system would eliminate this problem.



Tut

What? What problem? When you eliminate that state bias your elections become fairer because that local sectarism is eliminated, everyone is then subject to the same laws and the same implementation

What we have learned that if you let a central authority preside over the federal elections, the state elections, local elections and even union elections you get a fairer outcome. The candidates can get on with their contact with the public, etc and not worry about issues of who is qualified, etc. You have to remember who is talking to you, the people who essentially brought you unions, female suffrage and compulsory voting, the quality of democracy has not been reduced by such things

So we stick with state control, and eliminate voter rights? So much for working together.

Biometric cards would be as safe as a credit card, or debit card.

We are a republic of 50 states, unless you're Obama then its 57 or something, it was designed for states to have control but you know that. As for your eliminating voter rights line, no one is eliminating any voter rights. That's a completely dishonest an argument.

Hello again, Steve:

Remember that concept that you couldn't get.. Here's how the judges on the state Supreme Court SIMPLIFIED the issue.

As we've been saying, it's NOT the ID... It's the PROCESS.

excon

I know this, and apparently there is no process that would satisfy you.

I know this, and apparently there is no process that would satisfy you.
Have you asked him?

I know this, and apparently there is no process that would satisfy you.Hello again, Steve:

Sure there is... It really depends on what you think the role of government IS... Personally, I believe it's to PROTECT rights, NOT to throw down a gauntlet in front of them...

excon

Then explain it for us.

Then explain it for us.Hello again, tom:

If it was ME that was requiring an ID for MY citizens to vote, I'd make SURE that every voter had one. What's so difficult about that?

Of course, I believe it's the DUTY of the state to PROTECT its citizens rights..

excon

I'm still not tom, and it seems to me you balked at this even with free IDs because someone might have to lift a finger.

I'm still not tom.... lift a finger.Hello Fred:

I did NOT give you the finger...

excon

No, Alvin, that's an Obama move.

I'm still not tom, and it seems to me you balked at this even with free IDs because someone might have to lift a finger.

Why can't it be the state?

Maybe there should be limo service to the polls

maybe there should be limo service to the polls

Hi Tom,

There wouldn't be an ulterior motive operating here?

Is it the case that Republicans are more likely to overcome minor inconveniences and cast a vote? Could it also be the case that poorer Democrat supporters are less tolerant of such inconveniences and are more likely to give up?

Tut

That would be true if you go under the false assumption that Democrats are poor and Repubics are rich . There are plenty poor Repubilican leaning voters who go to the polls . This business of trying to tie it to suppression has been debunked so many times on this op ;it is getting tedious to respond.

Funny how you conservatives have debunked everything from the left, and keep losing in those pesky courts.

that would be true if you go under the false assumption that Democrats are poor and Repubics are rich . There are plenty poor Repubilican leaning voters who go to the polls . This business of trying to tie it to suppression has been debunked so many times on this op ;it is getting tedious to respond.

No, I'm actually tying it to suppression and fraud. As I have been doing for a few posts so far.

Tut

Funny how you conservatives have debunked everything from the left, and keep losing in those pesky courts.

Losing to a county judge after Wisconsin's Supreme Court upheld it? Yeah, I'm real concerned about that.

Why can't it be the state?

What, do you really want the state to pay for people to personally go out door to door and make sure every eligible voter has an ID if they want one? So you really think some citizens have no obligation to lift a finger to help themselves?

You changed the rules, you make it happen. The courts agree, your process is very flawed!! Fix it!!

So you really think some citizens have no obligation to lift a finger to help themselves?Hello again, Steve:

You'd LIKE it to be about that. But it isn't.. It's NOT about how much effort a CITIZEN puts in, but how many roadblocks the state puts in his way...

What if some local left wing legislature made it VERY, VERY difficult for you to buy a gun?? What if you had to travel 200 miles for 8 weekends in a row in order to attend a gun safety class that isn't available in your town? What if the state made you PAY for those classes, and they weren't cheap?

If THOSE roadblocks were placed in between you and your guns, I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that crap about citizens NOT willing to lift a finger...

excon

You changed the rules, you make it happen. The courts agree, your process is very flawed!!! Fix it!!!!

And when it gets court approval you'll still whine, yes?

Hello again, Steve:

You'd LIKE it to be about that. But it isn't.. It's NOT about how much effort a CITIZEN puts in, but how many roadblocks the state puts in his way...

What if some local left wing legislature made it VERY, VERY difficult for you to buy a gun??? What if you had to travel 200 miles for 8 weekends in a row in order to attend a gun safety class that isn't available in your town?? What if the state made you PAY for those classes, and they weren't cheap?

If THOSE roadblocks were placed in between you and your guns, I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that crap about citizens NOT willing to lift a finger...

excon

Yawn, who is going to have to drive 200 miles 8 weeks in a row to get an ID?

And when it gets court approval you'll still whine, yes?Hello again, Steve:

Of the three branches, the judiciary is the only one that works... If the PROCESS is given a fair hearing, and the Supreme Court says it's fair, I'll stop whining...

If they say it ISN'T, will YOU stop?

excon

Dude, as has been mentioned repeatedly we already have an example that's been upheld (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/#.UFsxca7pzKc), you and Tal have whined non-stop ever since I pointed it out and that Stevens wrote the majority opinion. The other states just need to make theirs mirror Indiana's and there you go. No?

The law was passed in 2005 in Indiana, and it took 3 years for the Supreme Court ruling. Using that as a time line, I doubt the laws of 2010 will take effect in time and most of them have already been struck down. Including in Texas, so specifically which state are YOU referring too?

Maybe Indiana had a better process I don't know, but its THIS election that's the focus, NOT 2008.

Dude, as has been mentioned repeatedly [the] supreme court upholds voter id law"Hello again, Steve:

Dude! As I've told you repeatedly, the issue ISN'T the ID.. That, as you've bored us with, has been upheld... The issue is the PROCESS, which has not yet been upheld, and I don't think it will be...

I don't know WHY that's so hard for you.

excon

Nothing like flogging a dead horse

Hello again, Steve:

Dude! As I've told you repeatedly, the issue ISN'T the ID.. That, as you've bored us with, has been upheld... The issue is the PROCESS, which has not yet been upheld, and I don't think it will be...

I dunno WHY that's so hard for you.

excon

Dude, I more than get your point. I believe I addressed that repeatedly.

Dude, I more than get your point. I believe I addressed that repeatedly.Hello again, Steve:

No, you don't.. You keep on saying the issue HAS been ruled upon, and it HASN'T.

excon

Time to change horses ex that one is dead

Hello again, Steve:

No, you don't.. You keep on saying the issue HAS been ruled upon, and it HASN'T.

excon


Hi Ex,

I agree with you on this one. How the I.D. laws are implemented hasn't been addressed. I would say this is because how the laws are introduced ( if this is the way the states eventually decide to go) cannot be addressed by reference to the Constitution.

Without actually seeing the majority decision handed down I would say that I.D. Laws are constitutional in principle.

In other words, it would be up to the states to decided the requirements for I.D. laws. This leaves open the possibility that I.D. laws ( depending on the state) can be easily obtainable or difficult to obtain.

If a state decided that all voters need to produce a letter from their great-grandmother to verify identity then this would satisfy the principle of the majority opinion handed down by Stevens.

As I have also pointed out many times before any such ruling is incapable of also addressing the important issue of equal access.

Another way of saying it would be that process is ignored because process is not being ruled upon.


Tut

Talk about a stupid process

Hello again, Steve:

No, you don't.. You keep on saying the issue HAS been ruled upon, and it HASN'T.

Excon

It has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board#Summary).


In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population, and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:


"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation:


"It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class."

What exactly are you not getting that the process has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS and if the others states do the same as Indiana that process will be cleared as well.

What exactly are you not getting that the process has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS and if the others states do the same as Indiana that process will be cleared as well.Hello again, Steve:

I agree. Only, I think the states are doing it DIFFERENTLY this time. This isn't only about ID's and one state... It's about the PURGING of the voter rolls by Republicans... It's about REDUCING early voting. It's about the INTENTION of the Republicans. Need I remind you what that Republican said in Pa... It's about the Total of the Republican effort.. Does it constitute voter suppression, or voter protection?

Now, if what you say is true, the Supreme Court won't even hear the case. But, I think they will. I think they'll HAVE to.

We'll see, won't we?

excon

And here I thought change was good. Turns out change isn't good if it means a fair election, eh? See I agree with the court, the state's compelling interest in the integrity of the election overrides the minimal burden placed on a few citizens. But your side works overtime making mountains out of molehills in the courts. It must suck living a life of perpetual, unnecessary outrage.

It must suck living a life of perpetual, unnecessary outrage.Yes, it must. :D

Yes, it must. :D

I wouldn't know.

I wouldn't know.
Hehe. (thanks for the laugh, carry on)

It must suck living a life of perpetual, unnecessary outrage.Hello again, Steve:

Need I remind you about your hysteria over the church and contraceptives?? We're not the only unhappy lot.

excon

It has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board#Summary).



What exactly are you not getting that the process has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS and if the others states do the same as Indiana that process will be cleared as well.



Sorry to be the odd person out but I don't think it does.

It is the last bit I don't get. I get some of the last bit but not all of it.

(A) "It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgement must prevail.......

(B)....unless it imposes a severe and unjustified burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class."


The first bit (A) states my previous claim that SCOTUS approves of I.D. laws in principle. The states can make I.D. easy or difficult to obtain.

Part(B) does little to make sure that the states don't impose sever and unjust burden on voters of a particular state.

I could be wrong but I am thinking that the Equal Protection Clause actually does very little to ensure voter rights. Other than making sure a particular class is not disadvantaged,there seems to be very little in it for the voter.

Disadvantaging a particular type of voter- Democrat or Republican would be very difficult to police, let alone ,make a case under Equal Protection Clause.


Tut

Hello again, Steve:

Need I remind you about your hysteria over the church and contraceptives??? We're not the only unhappy lot.

excon

Didn't say you were, but I just can't seem to muster up the same kind of outrage over people who already need ID to do just about anything in their daily lives having to prove you're an eligible voter, to forcing the church to violate its beliefs protected so obviously by the constitution.

Sorry to be the odd person out but I don't think it does.

It is the last bit I don't get. I get some of the last bit but not all of it.

(A) "It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgement must prevail.......

(B)....unless it imposes a severe and unjustified burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class."


The first bit (A) states my previous claim that SCOTUS approves of I.D. laws in principle. The states can make I.D. easy or difficult to obtain.

Part(B) does little to make sure that the states don't impose sever and unjust burden on voters of a particular state.

I could be wrong but I am thinking that the Equal Protection Clause actually does very little to ensure voter rights. Other than making sure a particular class is not disadvantaged,there seems to be very little in it for the voter.

Disadvantaging a particular type of voter- Democrat or Republican would be very difficult to police, let alone ,make a case under Equal Protection Clause.


Tut

What you think really has no bearing on what the court ruled. The court ruled Indian's process constitutional, what you think doesn't change that.

What you think really has no bearing on what the court ruled. The court ruled Indian's process constitutional, what you think doesn't change that.Hello again, Steve:

But, it DOES... The Supreme Court often times will revisit a ruling to clarify it, and TUT points out a HUGE loophole. There are others too.

The bottom line is this: IF SCOTUS agrees to HEAR the case, what they ruled in the Indiana case is OUT the window.. If they decline, then the Indiana case is the law of the land..

excon

PS> You're just pissed because the Futbolasaurs are eating Donuts..

Hello again, Steve:

But, it DOES... The Supreme Court often times will revisit a ruling to clarify it, and TUT points out a HUGE loophole. There are others too.

The bottom line is this: IF SCOTUS agrees to HEAR the case, what they ruled in the Indiana case is OUT the window.. If they decline, then the Indiana case is the law of the land..

excon

PS> You're just pissed because the Futbolasaurs are eating Donuts..


Yes. Another way of saying it would be that the court hasn't actually ruled the process constitutional. Rather, it has actually ruled that the laws don't violate the Constitution.

Just a non-legal observation. Others in the know may have a different opinion.



Tut

Hello again, Steve:

But, it DOES... The Supreme Court often times will revisit a ruling to clarify it, and TUT points out a HUGE loophole. There are others too.

The bottom line is this: IF SCOTUS agrees to HEAR the case, what they ruled in the Indiana case is OUT the window.. If they decline, then the Indiana case is the law of the land..

excon

PS> You're just pissed because the Futbolasaurs are eating Donuts..

If Jermichael Finley gets 4 points, and he will, the Futbolasaurs are toast. Or should I say barbecued?

Yes. Another way of saying it would be that the court hasn't actually ruled the process constitutional. Rather, it has actually ruled that the laws don't violate the Constitution.

Just a non-legal observation. Others in the know may have a different opinion.



Tut

Tut,

You and ex must have a different definition for "process" or "procedure" than I do. The majority affirmed Indiana's procedure for obtaining an ID.

That was in Indiana, AFTER a court challenge to the law was decided by the Supreme Court. That's the difference and as you should know Indiana processed free IDs a lot faster than Pennsylvania and other states have done.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board)


Dissents

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, filed a dissenting opinion, which would have declared the voter ID laws unconstitutional. Souter argued that Indiana had the burden of producing actual evidence of the existence of fraud, as opposed to relying on abstract harms, before imposing "an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old."

Justice Stephen Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion arguing that Indiana's law was unconstitutional. While he spoke approvingly of some voter ID laws, he found that Indiana's procedures for acquiring an ID were too burdensome and costly for some low income or elderly voters.

The legislation's partisan motivations and implications fueled much of the controversy. While the majority conceded that Republican Party's partisan interest in reducing low-income voter turnout likely motivated the law's passage, it found that the law's valid neutral justifications "should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators."

That's the objection to the process of implementation and the timing of the law and the election. The law being passed and the process being an after thought makes this look like intentional rigging and restricting a right.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Neither Easy Nor Free (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-_n_1895128.html)


State officials have acknowledged that the state Department of Transportation, which issues driver's licenses and photo ID, does not grant "free" photo IDs. Voters must provide several forms of backup identification in order to obtain a PennDOT photo ID card. That proof can be costly.

No doubt we will have IDs, mostly everyone agrees with them, but its going to take a while for some states because some states workbetter in this area than othrs. And its troubling indeed when repubs come out ON RECORD and say it is for the purpose of SUPPRESSION.

Even you have to find their motives questionable and unfair, Speech!

That was in Indiana, AFTER a court challenge to the law was decided by the Supreme Court. Thats the difference and as you should know Indiana processed free IDs a lot faster than Pennsylvania and other states have done.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board)



Thats the objection to the process of implementation and the timing of the law and the election. The law being passed and the process being an after thought makes this look like intentional rigging and restricting a right.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Neither Easy Nor Free (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-_n_1895128.html)



No doubt we will have IDs, mostly everyone agrees with them, but its going to take a while for some states because some states workbetter in this area than othrs. And its troubling indeed when repubs come out ON RECORD and say it is for the purpose of SUPPRESSION.

Even you have to find their motives questionable and unfair, Speech!!

No one has said it was for the purpose of suppression.

Tut,

You and ex must have a different definition for "process" or "procedure" than I do. The majority affirmed Indiana's procedure for obtaining an ID.


Yes, that would seem to be the case. I found the following in Wikipedia so I'll put it out there for discussion. Apparently the right to vote in the U.S. Constitution centres on birth, race and sex.

The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in lay terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of discrimination in establishing qualifications.STATES MAY DENY THE VOTE FOR OTHER REASONS.

Taken from wikipedia today.

It would seem to be the case that the U.S. Constitution deliberately leaves the qualifications for voting largely up to the states. So you can say Indiana's I.D. laws are Constitutional. Constitutional in a very broad sense.

As EX has pointed out states are in no way bound to use the Indiana model for voter I.D. implementation. I still think that individual states are free to implement fair or unfair I.D. laws. Its up to them; provided they fall under the broad definition of being constitutional.

Are there any legal opinions out there??


Tut

No one has said it was for the purpose of suppression.

No the guy in PA said it was to help Romney win the election, so that's politically motivated enough for me. NOT FOR VOTER INTEGRITY.

All those links and you still have doubts about you guys rigging the system? Wonder why the Supreme Court told the lower court judge to take a closer look at his decision?

There is another problem with the SCOTUS decision that I have come across and this may help to amplify my concerns.


It seems as though the voter laws in Wisconsin are a bit different in the fact they set out in greater detail voter rights. On this basis it was found by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that the attempt to implement voter I.D. in that state was unconstitutional in terms of that state's own constitution.

It seems to me there is an important question here in relation to the Crawford/Marion decision. That question is, how does the Crawford/Marion decision show Wisconsin's voter I.D. laws to actually be constitutional? I don't think it does.

I also believe the Crawford/Marion decision doesn't demonstrates anything other than what Steve has been claiming all along. That is, the process is constitutional.

When Wisconsin made its voter laws more prescriptive than most, I am sure that the Crawford/Marion decision would give the Wisconsin process its blessing. Therefore, I would also guess that the constitutional nature of the process means very little in terms of a bigger picture.

If SCOTUS really meant that voter I.D. laws were constitutional, then as EX points out, the decision would need to be the law of the land.

Would it not be the case that this SCOTUS decision changes very little. The states are still largely responsible for making up their own I.D. laws ( Scalia says as much) and these laws can be as tough or easy as they want. So long as the PROCESS is constitutional the states can make such voter laws.

Tut

Would it not be the case that this SCOTUS decision changes very little. The states are still largely responsible for making up their own I.D. laws ( Scalia says as much) and these laws can be as tough or easy as they want. So long as the PROCESS is constitutional the states can make such voter laws.

Tut

That's what I've been trying to say.

No the guy in PA said it was to help Romney win the election, so thats politically motivated enough for me. NOT FOR VOTER INTEGRITY.

All those links and you still have doubts about you guys rigging the system? Wonder why the Supreme Court told the lower court judge to take a closer look at his decison?

You're still reading things into his remarks that aren't there. YOu can't just twist to fit your beliefs, he only meant that the election this time around would be fair. No voter fraud, hopefully no voter intimidation like that which Holder let slide by the New Black Panthers, everyone on the same, level playing field. Isn't that what you want?

Hello again, Steve:

"Voter ID which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, DONE."

Now you might think he was calling his kids in for dinner, but I understand English.. Most liberals do too. You guys?? Not so much.

excon

Even the Onion gets in on it:

Pennsylvania Republican Doubts Vote He Just Suppressed Would Even Have Made A Difference | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/pennsylvania-republican-doubts-vote-he-just-suppre,29678/)

Wisconsin Voter ID Law Ruled Unconstitutional (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/wisconsin-voter-id-law-unconstitutional_n_1339830.html)


"In its rush to enact a Voter ID law, the Wisconsin Legislature failed to pay attention to the Wisconsin Constitution. Luckily, the League of Women Voters had the courage to stand up and defend the fundamental right of to vote that our constitution guarantees," said Pines. "The proponents of Voter ID assert that it is meant to prevent fraud. We all know the truth: it is designed to suppress voting by poor people and students. Now, in Wisconsin, that will not happen."

A Voter ID law was also blocked in Texas on Monday. The Justice Department's civil rights division objected to the requirement, arguing that many Hispanic voters lack state-issued IDs.

They simple tried to change the law and skipped the process of changing the state constitution in their zeal.


Amending the Constitution

The process for making changes to the Wisconsin Constitution is stated in Article XII. An amendment to the state constitution can be introduced by either house of the state legislature; Wisconsin does not have petition-based referendums or initiatives.

However, passing an amendment requires a lengthy three-vote process:
First, a majority of members in both houses of the state legislature must vote in favor of the amendment.
Once the proposed amendment passes both houses for the first time, any further progress in the amendment's adaptation must wait until after general elections have been held and the state legislature has reconvened with the members chosen in the new elections; then, both houses must vote a second time to accept the proposed amendment (without changes).
Should the amendment pass the legislature twice, it must be approved in a third vote, the popular vote cast by Wisconsin citizens.

The constitution can also be amended or fully replaced if a new state constitutional convention is called. In order to call a constitutional convention, a majority of the state legislators must vote in favor of holding a new convention, and then the people of Wisconsin must vote to call a convention during the next general elections.

This is why the Govenors voter ID laws were struck down because his "reforms" had to go through the correct process, which he didn't and was a blatant attempt at suppression.

However It also led to the recalls of officials in Wisconsin,and though unseccessful at unseating the Govenor, did change the state legislature enough to thwart his agendas going forward.

Of course it didn't stop other states run by republican legislatures and govenors from trying the same thing, and mostly they have been challenged by the citizens in all but the most republican leaning states. If you look at a case by case study of these ID laws, you will see that the process to get free IDS to its citizens in a timely efficient manner is at the heart of them being able to enact their laws and meet judicial challenges. Even though NO state to date has been able to bring any evidence of voter fraud to date that justifies the speed of implementing these new laws. Took a few years in Indiana.

Some states have more latitude than others, and different motivations, like a big presidential election coming up, and a rapidly changing demographic of its citizens, who are decidedly against the REPUBLICAN agenda statewide, and nationally.

You're still reading things into his remarks that aren't there. YOu can't just twist to fit your beliefs, he only meant that the election this time around would be fair. No voter fraud, hopefully no voter intimidation like that which Holder let slide by the New Black Panthers, everyone on the same, level playing field. Isn't that what you want?

It was fair last time Speech, or do you think people were intimidated enough by 2/3guys that swayed the vote enough for Obama to win? Talk about SPIN?!

Are you saying Obama won because the election of 2008 was rigged??

PA wasn't pivotal in 2008 .So he probably would've won even without the over 100% turnout in some Philly districts .

Or maybe you guys under counted the voters?

Hello again, Steve:

"Voter ID which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, DONE."

Now you might think he was calling his kids in for dinner, but I understand English.. Most liberals do too. You guys??? Not so much.

excon

I know the difference between "allowing" for a fair election and "suppressing" votes. Just like I know the meaning of "process." You, not so much.

By the way, even in the worst officiated game in NFL history Jermichael got me the win. But you were close... and you thought you had no team.

I know the difference between "allowing" for a fair election and "suppressing" votes. Just like I know the meaning of "process."

Yes, and suppression or fairness can be determined by examining individual state voter laws. I still think "process' will have little impact on determining the fairness or lack of fairness of state voter laws

Tut

P.S. I think SCOUTS will always rule in favour of protecting the integrity of state voter laws. The mistake is to think that protecting the integrity equals fairness.

The mistake is to think that protecting the integrity equals fairness.

I think that's a bit of false dilemma. I don't approach it from the view that protecting the integrity of the vote equals fairness nor do I believe the courts use that approach. The fairness is in it's application and again I use the Indiana case as a reference.


The different ways in which Indiana’s law affects different voters are no more than different impacts of the single burden that the law uniformly imposes on all voters: To vote in person, everyone must have and present a photo identification that can be obtained for free. This is a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation.

I also intended to note this little quote from the case:


Finally, Indiana’s interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.

And that may be the single most important element, if people don't believe the vote is going to be fair then they tend to have a "why bother" attitude. We need to know the system works, and as I've said repeatedly one fraudulent vote for the other guy disenfranchises me.

If a state cannot meet the burden of supplying those free ID's in time for the election,now what? Just to bad huh??

Hello again,

Looks like Pennsylvania's law is toast... A judge is about to enter an injunction against it (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57521220/judge-signals-pa-voter-id-law-may-be-blocked/)...

You remember the PROCESS we were talking about, don't you? You know, the PROCESS that you don't think matters... Well, it DOES matter, and the judge recognizes it.. Now, it really wasn't the state's fault. It has something to do with the DOT and Homeland Security... The STATE said they could get a certain ID, but when the people went to GET one, the DOT told them they needed MORE ID than the law said they did... It has something to do with using the ID to board flights, so the FEDS wanted WAY more ID to get one...

Then, before the hearing, the state changed some stuff... I don't know the details, but the thing I said above about it NOT being the states fault was a big fat LIE...

It's ABSOLUTELY the states fault. They had NO idea what the PROCESS they set in motion was all about... But, of course, they weren't really interested in the LEGAL aspects of what they were doing... They were only interested in the POLITICAL aspects... That ISN'T why people vote for legislators... They should ALL lose their jobs...

excon

Finally, Indiana’s interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.

You guys really don't care if voters have confidence I the system and obviously don't give a rat's a$$ if I am disenfranchised by voter fraud. And you know, that could be YOUR vote canceled out by fraud as well. I want to protect all of our votes, you want no protections.

I want to protect all of our votes, you want no protections.Hello again, Steve:

Stop pulling your hair out... It don't look good on you... I believe both Tal and I have said that we have NO problem with voter ID's... We WANT the vote to be accurate too. We DON'T want dead people voting... We WANT the same thing you do. How many times do you want us to SAY that??

That is, IF what you want, is what you SAY you want. That's because the PROCESS you put in place doesn't really insure the integrity of the vote. What it DOES is SUPPRESS the vote...

You KNOW that to be so... You just think people SHOULD jump through hoops and keep their mouths shut - otherwise they're lazy, or bad, or something you don't like...

What escapes me, is I don't know what you have against a fair PROCESS, if the result is NO CHEATING...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Stop pulling your hair out... It don't look good on you... I believe both Tal and I have said that we have NO problem with voter ID's... We WANT the vote to be accurate too. We DON'T want dead people voting... We WANT the same thing you do. How many times do you want us to SAY that???

That is, IF what you want, is what you SAY you want. That's because the PROCESS you put in place doesn't really insure the integrity of the vote. What it DOES is SUPPRESS the vote...

You KNOW that to be so... You just think people SHOULD jump through hoops and keep their mouths shut - otherwise they're lazy, or bad, or something you don't like...

What escapes me, is I dunno what you have against a fair PROCESS, if the result is NO CHEATING...

excon

What escapes me is how you SAY you're for a fair vote but can't seem to find any process that would suit you. I'm obviously fine with Indiana's process which is FAIR.

And unlike most of my friends I still have ALL my hair.

Indiana busted its butt to make sure their process was fair, and Pennsylvania is not... see the difference NOW!?


If Simpson finds that voters are unable to easily obtain required IDs or if some voters will be disenfranchised by the ID requirement, he must block the law from taking effect before the November's elections per an order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Indiana busted its butt to make sure their process was fair, and Pennsylvania is not... see the difference NOW!?

Dude, I've been saying for days that states needs to use Indiana's law as a blueprint. In fact, I just used Indiana as an example AGAIN as a FAIR law.


I'm obviously fine with Indiana's process which is FAIR.

How many times do I have to say it before you stop deflecting and insulting my intelligence? I've more than demonstrated I get your point, now it's your turn. The question before you is not do I understand the difference, but is Indiana's law fair enough for you?

You do know I am from Indiana and know it well don't you? Took them 3 years to get it right. Others want to get it right in 6 months, and that's not happening!

You do know I am from Indiana and know it well don't you? Took them 3 years to get it right. Others want to get it right in 6 months, and thats not happening!

So you agree it's fair.

Face it... if the Indiana law was up for debate today ,the left would oppose it. .

face it ... if the Indiana law was up for debate today ,the left would oppose it. .

Absolutely.

Absolutely.
I'm all for voter ID, but not five minutes before an election.

Come on... you told us 100 excuses why it would be unfair to ask some people to get id ;even when I pointed out that Pa made provisions for alll who would have difficulty . It doesn't impress me that some liberal judge disagrees . I expected it .

come on .... you told us 100 excuses why it would be unfair to ask some people to get id ;even when I pointed out that Pa made provisions for alll who would have difficulty . It doesn't impress me that some liberal judge disagrees . I expected it .
I'm against ID now just before the election. I never said ID is bad. The discussion was for NOW.

face it ... if the Indiana law was up for debate today ,the left would oppose it. .

And rightfully so since you guys have a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG history of grand ideas and no thought to process!!

Thats how Indiana got a FAIR voter ID law. Obviously the concept of fair goes against your thinking!! Or you just can't grasp details.

No wonder your guy you want to win doesn't need details of his process to turn you guys on!

As opposed to your guys jigging up a convoluted Health care law for the whole nation and shoving it up our keisters .What process they they follow ?

Took two years to pass and two years to implement. You have your own insurance and a doctor, so its not your keister being affected. RIGHT?

as opposed to your guys jigging up a convoluted Health care law for the whole nation and shoving it up our keisters .What process they they follow ?Hello again, tom:

The Constitution. Any questions?

excon

Took two years to pass and two years to implement. You have your own insurance and a doctor, so its not your keister being affected. RIGHT?

I don't know Tal it seems like he needs a proctologist to me

Hello again, tom:

The Constitution. Any questions??

excon

don't remember reading anywhere in the constitution that a fine or a penalty =tax .

Dude, I've been saying for days that states needs to use Indiana's law as a blueprint. In fact, I just used Indiana as an example AGAIN as a FAIR law.



How many times do I have to say it before you stop deflecting and insulting my intelligence? I've more than demonstrated I get your point, now it's your turn. The question before you is not do I understand the difference, but is Indiana's law fair enough for you?


Indiana's laws may well be fair, but that is just one state. That leaves 49 other states to adopt fair or unfair voting practices.

As I said before, Indiana may well be a fair blue print for voter law but there is next to no chance every other state adopting the blueprint. How does the SCOTUS decision help one way or the other in this regard? I don't think it does.

I know of at least least one state ( Wisconsin ) that has been cited here that won't be adopting voter ID laws because the proposed ID laws were ruled unconstitutional by that state. Is SCOTUS going to rule that Wisconsin's voter laws are unconstitutional because of the process they used in formulating their voter laws?

Tut

Is SCOTUS going to rule that Wisconsin's voter laws are unconstitutional because of the process they used in formulating their voter laws?
that remains to be seen.What we have here is a stalling tactic by the Dems so that voter ID laws won't have an affect on the outcome of the 2012 elections . In other words ;they don't care that the current systems can corrupt the outcome because it works in their favor.

All Wisconsin had to do was change their state Constitution. They didn't. I Doubt they will try it either. And its presumptuous to even think dems will let the repubs do anything to suppress their votes.

that remains to be seen.What we have here is a stalling tactic by the Dems so that voter ID laws won't have an affect on the outcome of the 2012 elections . In other words ;they don't care that the current systems can corrupt the outcome because it works in
their favor.


Well, it's a good thing you are a Constitutional Republic, isn't it?

Which every way you want to look at it the problem is insurmountable.


Tut

Well, it's a good thing you are a Constitutional Republic, isn't it?

which every way you want to look at it the problem is insurmountable.


Tut

Their may be no quick fix, but there is a process, its just republicans are in a hurry to prevent changes that are inevitable.

Prevent changes ? Your side is the one that is blocking needed changes in the process.

don't remember reading anywhere in the consitution that a fine or a penalty =tax .Hello again, tom:

So, like Romney, you LIKE the good stuff... It's just PAYING for it that you don't like... Sounds familiar..

excon

We have to block the changes YOU want because they are not well thought out or practical.

What you think we should go along with the rights program and sacrifice our own rights, just so you get the black guy out of the white house and let your guy extract what little money is left to redistribute it his way, and pee on our heads and call it rain?

I don't think so!

We haven't forgotten, or forgiven GWB. You have though.

We have to block the changes YOU want because they are not well thought out or practical.

What you think we should go along with the rights program and sacrifice our own rights, just so you get the black guy out of the white house and let your guy extract what little money is left to redistribute it his way, and pee on our heads and call it rain?

I don't think so!

We haven't forgotten, or forgiven GWB. You have though.

You attributing my position to racism is insulting and uncalled for .

Indiana's laws may well be fair, but that is just one state. That leaves 49 other states to adopt fair or unfair voting practices.

At least someone else admits it's fair. That's all I've been trying to pry out of some here. So if we make it fair then no problems, eh?

We have to block the changes YOU want because they are not well thought out or practical.

Like the IRS imposing taxes without consent of Congress?? Like rendering the first amendment right to freedom of religion irrelevant?? Like ending the imperial presidency of Barack Obama??

Like ending the imperial presidency of Barack Obama???????Hello again, Steve:

What's going to END is the radical right wing of the Republican party. After the forthcoming LANDSLIDE, THAT kind of thinking will be PURGED.

excon

you attributing my position to racism is insulting and uncalled for .

I attribute nothing to you, or your position personally. But that doesn't mean your buddies can get away with what they are trying to do. You may not be racially motivated, probably not, but I was explicit and clear as to what I think is the republican strategy to target minorities for voter suppression, and YOUR guy courts the right wing white male working vote.

That's all he's has got. Don't be insulted, I assure you my ire, as strong as yours is NOT directed at you personally.

At least someone else admits it's fair. That's all I've been trying to pry out of some here. So if we make it fair then no problems, eh?

I admitted it was fair, and pointed out how long it took, and why it took so long. The process was fair, and we got a fair result, not so in other states, but eventually it will be. You can't hurry the process because you want it right NOW!!

You can't hurry a process but two hundred years should be long enough

Hello again,

Hmmmm... Florida REPUBLICANS get caught registering dead people (http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2012/09/28/gop-fires-vendor-over-possible-voter-fraud-in-florida/)... Whoda thunk THAT?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

What's going to END is the radical right wing of the Republican party. After the forthcoming LANDSLIDE, THAT kind of thinking will be PURGED.

excon

Dude, you're the one that says Obama is Bush on steroids and claims to respect the constitution. Where is mandating a violation of your religious beliefs in the first amendment? Where is the power of the IRS to impose taxes enumerated in the sixteenth amendment? Who gave Obama the right to unilaterally decide if an American citizen lives or dies?

Those aren't radical right-wing complaints. They should be yours.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Like the IRS imposing taxes without consent of Congress??
The ACA was passed in Congress,the president signed it,its the law! Legal,and constitutional,SCOTUS said so.I get you don'tlike it.

Like rendering the first amendment right to freedom of religion irrelevant??
Business or church, take your pick, because you cannot force or rights at the expense of mine. I get you don't like that either, but churches and business is subject to the laws of the land,like I am,and you are.

Like ending the imperial presidency of Barack Obama??

You may not like that either, but thats what elections are about. VOTE!!!!!!!!!

Hello again,

Hmmmm... Florida REPUBLICANS get caught registering dead people (http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2012/09/28/gop-fires-vendor-over-possible-voter-fraud-in-florida/)... Whoda thunk THAT?

excon

Funny, but that's not at all what the article says right from the opening line. "Republicans on Thursday fired a vendor suspected of submitting 108 questionable new voter registrations."

Can you really not tell the difference between being accountable and being guilty? If you had voter ID you couldn't complain about alleged Republican voter fraud. See how that works?

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Like the IRS imposing taxes without consent of Congress??
The ACA was passed in Congress,the president signed it,its the law! Legal,and constitutional,SCOTUS said so.I get you don'tlike it.

[QUOTE]A president who says “I haven’t raised taxes” has authorized his Internal Revenue Service issue a “final rule” that will illegally tax some 12 million individuals, plus large employers, in as many as 40 states beginning in 2014. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/328523/irs-has-gone-rogue-michael-f-cannon#) Oklahoma’s attorney general has asked a federal court to block this rule. Members of Congress have introduced legislation in both the House and the Senate to quash it.

At first glance, it might not seem that the IRS is up to anything nefarious. The rule in question concerns the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s tax credits, not the law’s tax increases. The tax credits are intended to offset the cost of insurance premiums for low- and middle-income workers.

For many Americans, however, those tax credits are like an anchor disguised as a life vest. The mere fact that a taxpayer is eligible for a tax credit can trigger tax liabilities against both the taxpayer (under the act’s “individual mandate”) and her employer (under the “employer mandate”). In 2016, these tax credits will trigger a tax of $2,085 on many families of four earning as little as $24,000. An employer with 100 workers could face a tax of $140,000 if even one of his workers is eligible for a tax credit.

What part of illegal taxes do you not get?


Like rendering the first amendment right to freedom of religion irrelevant??
Business or church, take your pick, because you cannot force or rights at the expense of mine. I get you don't like that either, but churches and business is subject to the laws of the land,like I am,and you are.

Obama does not have the right to redefine the church. What part of that don't you get?

"Republicans on Thursday fired a vendor suspected of submitting 108 questionable new voter registrations."

Can you really not tell the difference between being accountable and being guilty?Hello again, Steve:

Well, OF COURSE, they fired 'em... They got caught, didn't they? Oh, right. This was a rogue organization and in no way should reflect on the Republican party...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha..

excon

For many Americans, however, those tax credits are like an anchor disguised as a life vest. The mere fact that a taxpayer is eligible for a tax credit can trigger tax liabilities against both the taxpayer (under the act's “individual mandate”) and her employer (under the “employer mandate”). In 2016, these tax credits will trigger a tax of $2,085 on many families of four earning as little as $24,000. An employer with 100 workers could face a tax of $140,000 if even one of his workers is eligible for a tax credit.

The flawed logic leads to a flawed conclusion since the law is structured for larger companies to have insurance, and most already do. The only ones even affected are the taxpayers that can afford insurance but don't buy it, and pass the cost of care to others through the emergency room.

That's PARTLY what the expansion of medicaid was about. But it's the states that are fighting that expansion of eligibility. That's what makes your opinion piece a flawed piece of paper. Including the false assertion that employers will be penalized by poor employees who cannot be covered. Its simple, over 100 employees, have insurance for them, and they have no liabilities, or tax obligations, plus they get premium support through the IRS!

And the government does have a right to define a church for tax purposes.

Hello again, Steve:

Well, OF COURSE, they fired 'em... They got caught, didn't they? Oh, right. This was a rogue organization and in no way should reflect on the Republican party...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha..

Excon


Sproul owns another company, Lincoln Strategy Group, that was paid about $70,000 by the Mitt Romney campaign during the primaries to gather signatures. He said he created Strategic Allied Consulting at the request of the Republican National Committee because of the bad publicity stemming from the past allegations. In 2004, there were allegations in states such as Nevada and Oregon that employees of his firm -- which had a similar contract with the RNC -- registered Democratic voters and then destroyed their forms. (Sproul noted that no criminal charges were ever filed.)

They had known of this fellow for YEARS, and are just now firing him?

Hello again,

If you don't understand voter suppression Sarah Silverman explains it well.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRW5qoraTw) Yeah, she swears a little bit... So, what the f**k is wrong with that?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, OF COURSE, they fired 'em... They got caught, didn't they? Oh, right. This was a rogue organization and in no way should reflect on the Republican party....

Bwa, ha ha ha ha..

excon

This case should be proof positive that States should have a legitimate voter photo ID system in place . I don't trust either party . Both are quite capable of fraud . In this case however ,the Repubics hired a company called Strategic Allied Consulting to register voters .It was an outsourcing .It was a mistake to hire them

That firm is cooperating with the state election officials and it appears to be a single employee who turned in all the suspect forms .The firm fired the employee ;and the State GOP fired the firm .Yesterday the State GOP also took the additional step of filing an election fraud complaint against the firm .

I wonder if the Dems would take similar measures when a SEIU "volunteer " were also found handing in frauduent registrations... oh no you say... that can't happen .... the public unions would never stoop so low .Bwaa haaa haaa haa

They bused in and paid protesters $11 bucks an hour to go to a Romeny event in Cleveland and stage a spontaneous protest recently .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G5DTqvX74O4

This case should be proof positive that States should have a legitimate voter photo ID system in place . I don't trust either party . Both are quite capable of fraud .

Yes, but this is the problem you cannot address because there is no solution. Namely, universal fairness of ID. Laws under the system you have.

Indiana may well be the ideal blueprint for fairness of I.D. laws,but other states are under no obligation to adopt this state's laws. They will implement I.D. laws that best suit their purpose.

The only way I can see to make some type of consistent attempt at fairness is a top down approach. This should go a long way in guaranteeing equal access. Equal access needs to be addressed before you can tackle the fairness issue. You are putting the cart before the horse and wondering way it isn't pulling it.

Tut

You are right TUT, as I think if enough attention and thoughtfulness was paid to the process of implementation as it was in writing the law we would have a fair law. It's a logistical problem really and that's the difference between Indiana and most states. One Indiana wrapped its head around getting the freaking ID to everyone, case closed.

You can't do it in 6 months unless you get busy with the logistics. I say again,it took Indiana 3 years.

Makes one think that republican lawmakers are more interested in having a law right NOW, with no mind as to serving the needs of the people. That smacks of a hidden agenda to me.

Tal, you know this has been in the works for much, much longer than your deliberately deceptive six months. Not to mention the faxt that elections have fixed dates, it's only logical to have the rules in place for the election. Your side is doing all they can to avoid implementation which is the whole point of a law.

Hello again,

I wonder if a girl working for the COUNTY CLERK, and who's ONLY registering Republicans, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_IMT1xr__0) is voter suppression of another sort??

Nahhh... Republicans want INTEGRITY in the vote, right?? Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

The girl was clearly not working for the county clerk's office . Clearly she was confused because the registration forms have to be returned to the county clerk's office when completed . Clearly she was a young volunteer for the local Romney campaign .


Is this ambush video the best you got ? Gee ;you would think she was intimidating voters at the polls with billy clubs or something... and if you think that selective registration.
Is a strategy that is only employed by one of the parties I'd be surprised . In my youth I worked on such campaign canvas drives for the Dems and I can assure you we were only looking to register select voters .Let the other side do their registration campaigns .THat's the way the game is played . AGAIN... all the more reason for proper voter ID .

The girl was clearly not working for the county clerk's office .Hello again, tom:

It's only clear if you IGNORE what she said. Me?? I'm NOT going to do that. I know what I saw. It was a CRIME in process.. If you did it too, NO WONDER you think voter suppression is cool..

excon

And then I heard about this (http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-09-27-0#.UGcTAq5tCSp). I wonder how many more there are like this one.

Hello again, tom:

It's only clear if you IGNORE what she said. Me??? I'm NOT gonna do that. I know what I saw. It was a CRIME in process.. If you did it too, NO WONDER you think voter suppression is cool..

excon

It is not the practice of the county clerks to send out young volunteers to canvas grocery stores and do registration drives. If it were ;there would've been something clearly indicating that this was a drive by the local government and a public notice . You're really fishing here.

And then I heard about this (http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-09-27-0#.UGcTAq5tCSp). I wonder how many more there are like this one.

I wonder when the arrests will begin? This is illegal material.

http://www.floridacriminallawblog.com/2009/05/recording_telephone_conversati.html

it is not the practice of the county clerks to send out young volunteers to canvas grocery stores and do registration drives..Hello again, tom:

I'll give you that. However, who signs her paycheck, or whether she's a volunteer, changes NOTHING... In fact, it CONFIRMS that Republicans are SUPPRESSING the vote... That's what we've been saying all along.

excon

I wonder when the arrests will begin? This is illegal material.

Recording Telephone Conversations and Communications in Florida :: Florida Criminal Law Blog (http://www.floridacriminallawblog.com/2009/05/recording_telephone_conversati.html)
Why the recording illegal? "The volunteer, who was not identified, did not hang up before moving onto her next call. Her pitch to the next person was picked up on the first person's answering machine."

The statement made in this video is both unfortunate and inaccurate,” Williams said. “My office does not and will not engage in partisan voter registration. It is the duty of the clerk's office to ensure that elections are conducted in a fair and honest manner; this includes allowing anyone to register to vote regardless of their political party affiliation.”

It is legal for party workers to target supporters of a particular candidate during voter registration drives, but they cannot deny forms to people who back another candidate.

The current chairman of the El Paso County Republican Party, Eli Bremer, said in an interview that the woman in the video is 20-years-old and was in her first day on the job as a victory office staff member. Bremer said the local GOP works closely with the RNC victory office and that “one thing they hammer into you during training is that every paper you collect must be turned in to the clerk's office.”

Bremer said he talked at length with the woman, whose name has not been released, and said she was merely flustered by the shopper's questions and misidentified her employer. He insisted there was no collaboration on the voter registration drive between the victory office and Williams or the clerk's office.
Video falsely claims to show Colorado county clerk employee registering only supporters of Mitt Romney - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/24/video-falsely-claims-show-colorado-county-clerk-employee-registering-only-supporters-mitt-romney/n5dYxeErFx9NNc8D9ZNyUJ/story.html)

The person who posted the video, whose YouTube username is "golddiggermom," denied the Clerk's office's request to remove the part about the woman incorrectly stating she works for them.

I wonder when the arrests will begin? This is illegal material.Hello dad:

Me too. But, somehow I don't think it'll happen.. Talk about shooting the messenger... You just don't like it cause you got CAUGHT.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I'll give you that. However, who signs her paycheck, or whether she's a volunteer, changes NOTHING... In fact, it CONFIRMS that Republicans are SUPPRESSING the vote... That's what we've been saying all along.

excon

Please... this is no different that ACORN of SEIU registering voters that they think will help their political goals . I've worked campaigns and offered to drive voters to the polls. Now ;if someone called I'd pick them up . But ;if I was doing the calling ;I'd make sure they were registered in the party I was working for . That is how elections are conducted at the local level.

Hello dad:

Me too. But, somehow I don't think it'll happen.. Talk about shooting the messenger... You just don't like it cause you got CAUGHT.

excon

Its not about that. Its about the law. Even stupid people get a break sometimes. Its like having been searched and they found drugs without the warrant. That is why there are rules surrounding the recording of persons.

Tal, you know this has been in the works for much, much longer than your deliberately deceptive six months. Not to mention the faxt that elections have fixed dates, it's only logical to have the rules in place for the election. Your side is doing all they can to avoid implementation which is the whole point of a law.

We can file the lawsuits but it's the courts who strike the law down because you didn't cross your T's and dot your I's. So its not like you haven't had the time to do it right you don't seem to have the inclination.

I mean if things were as fair as you say why do the courts strike the law down and send it back to the state to make changes or drop the law? Or just whack it from the get go?

Naw its NOT the dems blocking you it's the sloppy way you present the law. Good idea, sloppy implementation.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification


"I expected more photo IDs to have been issued by this time," Simpson said. "For this reason, I accept Petitioners' argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed.... Consequently, I am not still convinced in my predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth's implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election. Under these circumstances, I am obliged to enter a preliminary injunction."

Seems the court cannot trust the state to handle its business for THIS election.

Neither do I given the constant changes. Don't you guys get you have to have a credible process in place when you pass a law? Back to the drawing board, you have two years, do it right!!

Hello again,

A judge blocks Pennsylvania from enforcing voter ID law, citing "disenfranchisement" concerns. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/judge-halts-pa-tough-new-voter-id-requirement/) Wow.. Whoda thunk that??

The NEED for ID wasn't the issue, as we've been saying all along.. It was the PROCESS that was flawed. It's spelled p-r-o-c-e-s-s...

One down, 32 to go.

excon

The judge reversed his own decisions based on State Supreme court "guidance" . They told him basically to find some way to reverse yourself. So that is what he did.

Here is the language of the State Supreme Court's instructions :
Overall, we are confronted with an ambitious effort on the part of the General Assembly to bring the new identification procedure into effect within a relatively short timeframe and an implementation process which has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch. Given this state of affairs, we are not satisfied with a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials, even though we have no doubt they are proceeding in good faith.

Thus, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available. In this regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth's implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-114-2012pco.pdf

The real problem here was that the Penn DOT refused to make the issuance of a ID easier. They sabotaged the law (probably under the orders of their Dem bosses).

Oh an one more thing . The judge says it's OK for poll workers to ask for the IDs . But people who don't produce them can still vote . Now there is a recipe for confusion !

The real problem here was that the Penn DOT refused to make the issuance of a ID easier. They sabotaged the law (probably under the orders of their Dem bosses).Hello again, tom:

Given that the only cheaters we found recently were REPUBLICANS, you should be thrilled the law was struck down.. Now you can hire those crooks to register dead Republicans... Better get a lot... Romney is down by 9.

excon

See my addition about the IDs


Given that the only cheaters we found recently were REPUBLICANS
You mean like the Dem politician who was caught voting in 2 states ?

see my addition about the IDs


You mean like the Dem politician who was caught voting in 2 states ?

Their memories are extremely selective. Good thing we're here to give a few reminders (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-44.html#post3265709).

Yup ;and early voting gives them a chance to vote at multiple locations .

You guys lose in court its foul on the judge or sabotage by democrats. Never is it your own short sighted screw ups. That's why republican appointed judges keep slapping you down.

If you just settle down, look deeper and be more thoughtful with your ideas, they wouldn't STINK so bad. Or stop trying to screw those you don't like, of which the list is ENDLESS! They are still trying to sort out the last debacle you guys caused with this Sproul fellow. And the continuing back pedaling of supporting Todd Akins in Missouri for the senate.

Or waiting for Ryan Romney to tell us who gets screwed when the extract 5 trillion more dollars from the economy. Or why the scaredy fat cats you all call job creators ain't doing their JOB... wait for it... you blame on everybody but THEM!

I love it when you guys screw yourself with BS of your own making! I really do!

You guys lose in court its foul on the judge or sabotage by democrats. Never is it your own short sighted screw ups. Thats why republican appointed judges keep slapping you down.

If you just settle down, look deeper and be more thoughtful with your ideas, they wouldn't STINK so bad. Or stop trying to screw those you don't like, of which the list is ENDLESS! They are still trying to sort out the last debacle you guys caused with this Sproul fellow. And the continuing back pedaling of supporting Todd Akins in Missouri for the senate.

Or waiting for Ryan Romney to tell us who gets screwed when the extract 5 trillion more dollars from the economy. Or why the scaredy fat cats you all call job creators ain't doing their JOB.................wait for it......................you blame on everybody but THEM!!

I love it when you guys screw yourself with BS of your own making! I really do!

Tal,

Come on dude, no one cried foul on the judge. You're the only one misplacing blame here.

I guess you don't think the repubs should be blamed for a lousy process of implementing their law?

Hello again:

"Voter ID, which is going to allow Romney to win" UNDONE!

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I guess you don't think the repubs should be blamed for a lousy process of implementing their law??

They'll get it right and you'll find something else to b*tch about.

They'll get it right and you'll find something else to b*tch about.Hello again, Steve:

Not me.. I LOVE honest elections. I think ID's are great.

But, it's a matter of how we define "right", isn't it? You thought "right" meant passing laws that threw down a gauntlet for voters to run through... You called them lazy and stupid if they wouldn't or couldn't run through it...

The courts ruled, of course, that it WASN'T right, at all.

I think "right" means that if you're going to require ID, that you make SURE every eligible voter has one. A states JOB is to see that MORE people vote - not less..

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Not me.. I LOVE honest elections. I think ID's are great.

But, it's a matter of how we define "right", isn't it? You thought "right" meant passing laws that threw down a gauntlet for voters to run through... You called them lazy and stupid if they wouldn't or couldn't run through it...

I did? I don't recall that at all. In fact I did say I give the people more credit than your side does who thinks they're too stupid and helpless to take care of themselves.


The courts ruled, of course, that it WASN'T right, at all.

A temporary setback.


I think "right" means that if you're going to require ID, that you make SURE every eligible voter has one. A states JOB is to see that MORE people vote - not less..

What is this opposite day? I've pointed out several times that SCOTUS believes ensuring an honest election ENCOURAGES people to participate, and I agree wholeheartedly. YOU still think it's fine if I'm disenfranchised by fraudulent voters and I'm not fine with that at all. You may not care if your vote counts but I do.

Hello again,

Fortunately, much of the right wing voter suppression efforts have been blocked by the courts.. Activist judges, no doubt.. The latest effort to end early voting in Ohio was shot down yesterday. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/05/federal-court-upholds-ohio-early-voting-ruling/)..

I never DID understand how limiting early voting stopped voter fraud.. Maybe you guys can explain it to me.

excon

I never DID understand how limiting early voting stopped voter fraud..
Guess it could end 'vote early ,vote often' . But that is not my big issue with early voting . I think it is a bad practice to do it months ahead of time while the campaign is still in progress.
Voters do not have all the key information yet to make that determination. Yesterday the jobs forecasts was favorable to the reelection.. in a few days there will be adjustments .4 years ago at this time the financial crisis was just beginning ,and McCain was talking of suspending his campaign. A lot can and does happen in October

Also there is some research that suggests that early voting depresses voter turn out .

Early Voting May Depress Voter Turnout - Megan McArdle - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/early-voting-may-depress-voter-turnout/65296/)



My other objection ;and it would be the key reason why I would object to it locally is the cost of keeping a polling location open . As an example ; in Franklin County Ohio ,the Board of Elections is paying $93,000 to keep and secure an early voting station.
I don't suppose the circus court would donate from it's operating budget the funds necessary to finance the expanded cost of their decision for local governments that are already cash strapped ? Nah. Expand the cost of the 1 county to the whole state ,and you are talking about some real money. In 2008 ,the 1st year for early voting in Ohio ,the cost to run the elections statewide balloned from $67.3 million to $122.4 million.

Congress tried to give active service personel a break when it passed the 'Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act.' l. Does this decision mean that the court is overturning Congress ?

As usual we disagree Tom, with the suppression of turn out article, with the vote early vote often, and letting the military be given a special preference that citizens should enjoy also. Its not going against the congress granting early voting for all since it's a lot easier on the populated areas, and the voters, especially the ones that work.

I can agree on the extra costs but who said exercising rights, or freedom to do so is free? As it appears the taxpayers want early voting, and its tax dollars that pay for it, all is well.

Let not forget the events that made the states go for early voting in the first place, those darn long lines.

Any way by my count that's 8 for 8 court decisions against voter supression tactics even though I fully agree with the idea of having ID to vote. The states should take these rulings to heart and do a better job of procedure.

Could you please point me to where those decisions said it was suppression?

Suppression would be my word for republican tactics but the courts mainly said it was disenfranchisement due to poor implementation from what I have read of the 8 rulings. They were still blocked, or struck down for whatever reason.

Suppression would be my word for republican tactics but the courts mainly said it was disenfranchisement due to poor implementation from what I have read of the 8 rulings. They were still blocked, or struck down for whatever reason.

Specifics and references please.

You mean besides the ones that have already been cited?

Voter ID Laws Struck Down in Texas, Wisconsin - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/voter-id-laws-struck-down-in-texas-wisconsin/)


Federal judges struck down two states' voter ID laws today, throwing out government-issued identification requirements at the polls in both Texas and Wisconsin.

In Texas, the Justice Department ruled that the ID requirement would disproportionately affect the state's Hispanic voters, 11 percent of which do not have the necessary identification and would thus not be able to vote.

The Wisconsin law, which went into effect last May, was struck down because, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess wrote in his ruling, it would “impermissibly eliminate the right of suffrage altogether for certain constitutionally qualified electors.”

And then we have history,

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States)

Controversial PA Voter ID Laws Struck Down By Judge - WRIC Richmond News and Weather - (http://www.wric.com/story/19709856/strict-pa-voter-id-laws-struck-down-by-judge)


Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said in his ruling that he was concerned by the state's stumbling efforts to create a photo ID that is easily accessible to voters and that he could not rely on the assurances of government officials at this late date that every voter would be able to get a valid ID.

This will get you started while I get breakfast, and another cup of coffee. The controversy is pretty much settled for this election any way.

Could you please point me to where those decisions said it was suppression?Hello again, Steve:

I don't care if they called it frosted flakes, the courts SAW it for what it was, and KILLED it. You really don't think they LOVED it, do you?

excon

None of them called it a suppression tactic, that's just what YOU call it as Tal finally admitted when he said, "suppression would be my word for republican tactics".

I have no doubt most will eventually see it the way I do, that voter fraud disenfranchises qualified voters and discourages participation.

...that voter fraud disenfranchises qualified voters and discourages participation.
Everybody agrees with that but that's not at all what they are talking about. You just moved the goalposts.

I have no doubt most will eventually see it the way I do, that voter fraud disenfranchises qualified voters and discourages participation.Hello again, Steve:

Then, you've won.. Tal and I have agreed countless times that we think Voter ID's are just hunky dory.

excon

Everybody agrees with that but that's not at all what they are talking about. You just moved the goalposts.

You're kind of like a shotgun, just pull the trigger and pellets scatter everywhere hoping to hit something.

No sir I did not move the goalpost, I've been making that same point throughout. In fact, I referenced (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-58.html#post3282865) SCOTUS' opinion in the Indiana case in support more than once.


Finally, Indiana’s interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.

They move the goalpost by calling it "suppression tactics" instead of what it is, protecting the integrity of and promoting confidence in the vote.

They move the goalpost by calling it "suppression tactics" instead of what it is, protecting the integrity of and promoting confidence in the vote.Hello again, Steve:

If it WAS truly "protecting the integrity and promoting confidence in the vote" do you believe that it would have been struck down - UNANIMOUSLY, in EVERY state where it was challenged? Do you really believe that ALL these judges are ACTIVIST or on the payroll of the libs??

Look... We're Going to have voter ID. We SHOULD have voter ID. Voter ID, in and of itself, does NOT suppress the vote... When the states learn HOW to administer their voter ID laws, they'll be fair. Until then, they weren't. They've got a couple years to get their act together.

What I don't get here, is you, YOURSELF admitted that the laws THREW down a gauntlet. Apparently, the right wing brain does NOT see a gauntlet as an impediment to voting.. That is realllllly bizarre..

excon

I never said anything about throwing down a gauntlet. I argued the opposite, I believe proving your identity is reasonable - free or not.

I never said anything about throwing down a gauntlet.Hello again, Steve:

Then what was it that the people WITHOUT ID's were too "lazy" to do?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Then what was it that the people WITHOUT ID's were too "lazy" to do?

excon

I guess you're going to have to help me out again. I see plenty of times I said voters are NOT stupid and helpless but none calling them lazy (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?searchid=19079868).

I guess you're gonna have to help me out again. I see plenty of times I said voters are NOT stupid and helpless but none calling them lazy (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search.php?searchid=19079868).Hello again, Steve:

Well, I think you did, but these search features suck, so I'm not going to look.. It's a distraction anyway. I'll take stupid and helpless.. You're referring, of course, to something they have to DO and Not who they are.

Whether voters are too stupid or not, the law REQUIRES them to DO something, or they won't emerge from the gauntlet. THAT process is what the court determined disenfranchises eligible voters from voting..

Which is voter suppression in ANY language.

excon

Ex,


I said voters are NOT stupid and helpless

Regardless, this thread has been exhausted.

Regardless, this thread has been exhausted.Nah, it's like all Current Event threads - there are really pointless and will sway no one to change their opinions. They only serve to reinforce ones currently held beliefs.

Nah, it's like all Current Event threads - there are really pointless and will sway no one to change their opinions. They only serve to reinforce ones currently held beliefs.

It must suck to be so cynical.

It must suck to be so cynical.

But it's oh so true.
What would it take for you to vote for a democrat?

But it's oh so true.
What would it take for you to vote for a democrat?

You only assume I haven't or won't.

You only assume I haven't or won't.
Have you then? When and what issue made you?

Nah, it's like all Current Event threads - there are really pointless and will sway no one to change their opinions. They only serve to reinforce ones currently held beliefs.

And yet you do your share of sniping... oops I mean participating .

Yes I have, recently, locally, and I really don't remember why other than I obviously did not care for the Republican.

Hello again,

The right wing Secretary of State in Ohio is appealing a decision that SUPPORTS early voting.

I'm STILL having trouble seeing how DENYING early voting adds to the integrity of the vote.. Can you explain it to me in SIMPLE terms??

excon

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Voter ID/Suppression (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3291294-post648.html)

Early voting is a choice, not required. I have made up my mind and three more debates or sixteen thousand more ads will not sway me. It's like eloping instead of waiting until the scheduled wedding day.

Oh those poor, helpless, disenfranchised liberals that can't manage to vote in a 35 day window. Most states have a cutoff for early voting I believe, in Texas it's November 2nd, the same day Ohio wants as a cutoff. I don't see the problem... unless maybe the Dems are behind in getting busloads of out of state people to vote that weekend.

I don't see the problem..Hello again, Steve:

I think that about sums it up. You're FINE with the state putting LIMITS on voting. I believe the OPPOSITE...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I think that about sums it up. You're FINE with the state putting LIMITS on voting. I believe the OPPOSITE...

excon

Not limits, rules. They have 35 early voting days with the new rule, 45 for military or overseas. When do you want them to vote, before they know who the candidate is? The day after the last election? What good is that October surprise if everyone voted 6 months ago?

LOL you guys are counting on an October surprise to get your guy elected? That's pretty desperate. What if the surprise is about Romney and you guys have voted early?

Even though you guys were defeated in court, you still have managed to confuse EVERYBODY on what the laws are in most of the states. After being caught paying a few millions of your own money for a hit man named Sproul who got caught!

So holler all you want about integrity NOBODY believes you guys have any and the only reason you cannot admit it is then EVERYBODY would reject your obstructionism and lies.

LOL you guys are counting on an October surprise to get your guy elected? Thats pretty desperate. What if the surprise is about Romney and you guys have voted early?

Um, I was referring to the possibility an Obama October surprise and it was sarcasm. The rest of your post is just reflexively regurgitated rubbish.

Maybe the surprise is Obama fund raising efforts of foreign contributions out of Shanghai.

Is that as bad as going to Israel and getting contributions? Or Adelsons over seas money?

Adelson was born in Boston, he's allowed to contribute.

Is that as bad as going to Israel and getting contributions?

Well right off the bat ,one is in Israel and the other the PRC. .
However ,the fundraising in Israel involved American citizens who were not hiding their contributions in under $200 donations from untracable pre-paid credit cards.

Romney's finance event marked the first time a presidential candidate has raised cash in Israel. The campaign accepted contributions only from American citizens—since candidates and parties are blocked from raising cash from foreign sources.

Romney brings in $1 million at Israel fundraiser | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-brings-1-million-israel-fundraiser-075809859.html)

You will recall in 2008 the Obots deliberately turned off the systems that would have guarded against the kind of fraudulent donations . The compliant press did not bother extensively covering the story during the key weeks before the election.

Well now the web site ;Obama.com ,was purchased by an Obama bundler named Robert Roche, who has ties to the Chinese gvt and who's business depends on it.

You don't have to worry .The press will not cover this in a way it deserves to be covered .After all ;they are too busy following the President around as he defends Big Bird.

...who has ties to the Chinese gvt and who's business depends on it.Most american businesses depend on the chinese for some product or service. Why point only one out?

Most american businesses depend on the chinese for some product or service. Why point only one out?

He's in deniel Karma he doesn't want to admit that without chinese manufacturing his economy would collapse. His country has been sold down the creek to the communists by those same capitalists he loves so dearly and all he wants to spout is patriotic claptrap, He is worse than the chinese

Which candidate has Chinese investments and ties and closes American plants to go overseas for sweat shops and cheap labor?

Just asking?

HINT>>>>Bain Capital is closing an Illinois plant and shipping jobs to China - National economic policy | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/bain-capital-is-closing-an-illinois-plant-and-shipping-jobs-to-china)

Did you need to ask I thought it was taken as read

Which candidate has Chinese investments and ties and closes American plants to go overseas for sweat shops and cheap labor?

Just asking?

HINT>>>>Bain Capital is closing an Illinois plant and shipping jobs to China - National economic policy | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/bain-capital-is-closing-an-illinois-plant-and-shipping-jobs-to-china)

What exactly does this have to do with Romney since he hasn't worked for them for 12 years?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs=article

What exactly does this have to do with Romney since he hasnt worked for them for 12 years?
Romney will benefit financially from this.

Romney will benefit financially from this.

And your point is? Im sure there are many others that are making profits from deals where they have some form of investment. That point being that they don't run the company.

Do you really think that he will reign in the profits his old company enjoys? Or old clients who he has dealt with and profited from? Or the sons he has raised to be the business man that he is?

Have you forgotten the IRA that continues to grow from his Bain association, or "blind" trusts that continue to profit from his business dealings? He doesn't have to own a company to profit from it. Why would he stop after he takes his own tax cuts that benefit him greatly, and his investors.

And your point is? Im sure there are many others that are making profits from deals where they have some form of investment. That point being that they dont run the company.
In the case of Sensata, Romney reported a charitable donation of $405,000 in Sensata stock that he received as “partnership distributions” in 2010 and 2011, according to his tax returns.

"One hundred seventy workers at a Sensata Technologies plant in Freeport, Illinois — of which Bain is the majority owner — are calling on Romney to help save their jobs from being shipped to China. The factory manufactures sensors and controls that are used in aircraft and automobiles, but has been dismantling and shipping the plant to China piece by piece — even as it requires the workers to train personally their Chinese replacements, who have been flown in by management."

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/28/workers_at_bain_owned_illinois_factory

Imagine the guys who has to build the stage the bosses used to announce the plant closing.

Pro-Obama super PAC charges Romney worker built 'own coffin' - The Hill's Video (http://thehill.com/video/campaign/234397-obama-ad-blames-romney-bain-for-worker-building-own-coffin)


Former Marion, Ind. Paper plant worker Mike Earnest said he and other employees of the American Pad and Paper plant were asked to build a stage from which company officials told them the news that their plant was being closed.

“Mitt Romney made over $100 million dollars by shutting down our plant and devastated our lives,” employee Mike Earnest said in the ad. “Turns out by building the stage, it was like building my own coffin. And it just made me sick.”

Teach a guy to fish and he can feed himself and his family if he gets dumped by the thrill of chinese cheap labor.

Why don't you worry about all the jobs Obama 'saved ' at GM that are going to China ?

Well Tom it's a before and after situation if GM had been efficient and making the auto's the market wanted the jobs wouldn't be going to China, but what's the difference between China and South Korea, bet you didn't complain when US auto makers bought into South Korea, have you bought your Great Wall yet I hear it's the new Hyundai. This is the aftermath of your multinational corporations, it came back to bite you on the bum

I'm not the one complaining about free trade. I drive a Toyota that was made in the USA . Why shouldn't the Chinese drive a Chevy made in China ?

Hello again,

South Carolina law STOPPED (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/us/politics/court-blocks-south-carolina-voter-id-law-for-now.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121011)!

Yawn... What's that? 20 out of 20? Did you know that we had THAT many activist judges?? Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

So the court says there is nothing wrong with the law ;but gets to decide when the law can be implemented ? Nothing political in that decision.

Hello again, tom:


Nothing political in that decision.


A federal court on Wednesday blocked South Carolina from enforcing its new voter photo ID law in next month's election, saying that there was not enough time to educate voters and officials about it.I don't know about you, but when I read the decision, I see that the PROCESS of implementing the law was flawed.. Once THAT problem is fixed, they have NO problem with the ID law, and I don't either.

That's anything BUT political, yet you see activist judges... Dude!

Excon

PS> Something's BUSTED in the quote system...

PS> Something's BUSTED in the quote system...

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum-help/quote-feature-disabled-something-708295.html

Hi again NK,

Why can't they wait until all the old people die before they implement these changes?

.

So Romney is once again killing people. Your side is kind of sick and desperate.

So Romney is once again killing people.
Who said that?

Sorry Steve that's my fault.

NK, was having a discussion about the old skin versus the new skin at ASKMEHELP DESK. There seems to be some opposition from the older members.

It kind of reminds me of an old Australian joke from the 1960's when we changed over to the metric system.

Two old ladies go into a butcher shop and ask for a pound of sausages. The butcher say that she is really asking for 4.5 Kilos of sausages.

One of the elderly ladies replies that she finds it impossible to cope with the new metric system. She says to the butcher, "Why couldn't they wait until all the old people die before they introduced this dam system?"


Tut

No, no Tut, I was referring to this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-70.html#post3294828) post, this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/team-obama-covers-up-smear-heard-round-world-692139.html#post3229536) thread, Ryan pushing granny over a cliff and other obsessions the left has with accusing/implying Republicans are killing people.

obsessions the left has with accusing/implying Republicans are killing people.Hello again, Steve:

So, when Sarah Palin mentioned death panels, she was only kidding... I think YOU were on board with 'em too.

Look, I know you think you're the good guys, but you're anything BUT.

Excon

No, no Tut, I was referring to this post, this thread, Ryan pushing granny over a cliff and other obsessions the left has with accusing/implying Republicans are killing people.Absolutely nowhere in any of those posts does anyone accuse Romney of killing people. Only you said that.

I said "accusing/implying (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply)".


“Mitt Romney made over $100 million dollars by shutting down our plant and devastated our lives,” employee Mike Earnest said in the ad. “Turns out by building the stage, it was like building my own coffin. And it just made me sick.”

I guess the guy felt like he was building his own coffin to use it as a coffee table and not you know, as an actual coffin.

Ex, you know I acknowledge good and bad on both sides.

You don't like the term "death panel" for a board that actually WILL decide what medical treatments will be paid for, and I don't like the term "voter suppression" for requiring an ID to prevent my vote from being wasted.

I personally think trying to encourage participation in elections by safeguarding them and allowing people to choose their medical care is a good thing.

You don't like the term "death panel" for a board that actually WILL decide what medical treatments will be paid for
Insurance companies already do this. They are the current death panels.

I don't like the term "voter suppression" for requiring an ID to prevent my vote from being wasted.
Voter suppression is putting an ID directive in place right before an election.

Insurance companies already do this. They are the current death panels.

Voter suppression is putting an ID directive in place right before an election.
Correct.

I don't like the term "voter suppression" for requiring an ID to prevent my vote from being wasted.
It's like a state law that all guns must be surrendered to one's local police station a month before an election and then be reclaimed once the gun owner has voted and received an official "I voted" ticket.

Or the seven states that ban atheists from holding public office.

It's like a state law that all guns must be surrendered to one's local police station a month before an election and then be reclaimed once the gun owner has voted and received an official "I voted" ticket.

It's nothing like that at all.


Voter suppression is putting an ID directive in place right before an election.

It's ALWAYS right before an election. It would seem rather pointless to wait to implement a voter ID law until AFTER the election.

FYI so you can move on to whatever other pointless spin you guys may have in reserve, South Carolina's voter ID law was proposed on 12/10/08, almost 4 years ago (http://www.scstatehouse.gov/query.php?search=DOC&searchtext=voter&category=LEGISLATION&session=118&conid=7094026&result_pos=0&keyval=1180123&numrows=10).

It's nothing like that at all.
It is PRECISELY like that.

It's ALWAYS right before an election. It would seem rather pointless to wait to implement a voter ID law until AFTER the election.
No, it would be implemented a year or so before an election in order to give EVERYONE time to comply.

There's always elections . Steve made the key point. This is just a stalling tactic so that it wouldn't apply to THIS election .

It is PRECISELY like that.

Sorry, but it's really, really not like that at all.


No, it would be implemented a year or so before an election in order to give EVERYONE time to comply.

And again, back to square one. Exactly how much time is 'enough' time? Especially seeing as how libs are going to drag it through the courts no matter when it's passed or what it says?

Sorry, but it's really, really not like that at all.
It's a request for a limited time that targets only certain voters.

And again, back to square one. Exactly how much time is 'enough' time?
A year is fair. A few months is not.

And again, back to square one. Exactly how much time is 'enough' time? Especially seeing as how libs are going to drag it through the courts no matter when it's passed or what it says?

Time enough to get it right on the process/implementation level and be fair enough so there will be no court case. Of course either side can disagree with the fairness, and challenge it through the courts. That's a right of due process. You guys have been losing all year, starting with Obamacare!

Something must be seriously wrong with the way you guys have handled things. You can't blame that on liberals, but something tells me you will!

It's a request for a limited time that targets only certain voters.

No it doesn't, it APPLIES to EVERY voter.

Tal, like I said there will be no Voter ID law that is NOT dragged to court because there is NOTHING that would satisfy the left.

Tal, like I said there will be no Voter ID law that is NOT dragged to court because there is NOTHING that would satisfy the left.
A year or two before an election would not be fought.

Speech, the court made the final decision, not the left, we only made the case. Presented the facts, and you guys presented YOUR FACTS, didn't they?

That's the court process, based on FACTS of the case.

I already showed SC's law has been in the works for almost 4 years, there is no time frame that would prevent a court challenge.

If they can't get it straight in 4 years they probably are doing something really wrong, and never will get it RIGHT (enough) for the courts!!

Nah ;that isn't it. You guys wouldn't have made nearly the stink if it was a half year before the 2013 elections . Your issues are only with this election.

Wrong, we make a stink about EVERYTHING you guys do that stinks, be it an election or a law!

Hey you guys do the same thing don't you? Sure you do.

No, I'm happy we got bin Laden, just not thrilled with Team O spiking the ball.

Hello again,

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/supreme-court-ohio-early-voting_n_1970603.html) a last-gasp appeal by Ohio Republicans and approved early voting for Ohio residents on the weekend before Election Day. I believe I suggested they rule LONG before voting day, and they did. In fact, I think he only filed his brief yesterday.

Ohio's Secretary of State John Husted had refused to enforce last week's appellate court decision, in which a three-judge panel came down on the side of the Obama campaign and blocked a law that would have limited early voting.

Husted remained adamant that Ohioans should not be allowed to vote on that weekend, which was a prime voting period for minorities in the 2008 election.

The Supreme Court's order was one line long: "The application for stay presented to Justice [Elena] Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied."

Poor Republicans..

excon

Get those campaign buses rolling... vote early ,vote often !

Yes Tom vote as often as you can

Hello again:

Ohio's Republican Secretary of State had THREE shots at finding a judge who LIKES his efforts at voter suppression.. He didn't find ANY, even on the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, even though he's been ORDERED to keep early voting as it is, he's decided to limit the hours the polls will stay open anyway. Long lines are expected...

Can you tell me, in simple English, what legitimate state interest there is in doing that?

excon

Or the purpose of putting up billboards that still say you need ID to vote?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/20/1147033/-This-week-on-the-War-on-Voting-Ohio-gets-weekend-voting-hours-man-busted-for-tossing-registrations

http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2012/10/16/daily-grinder-why-are-citizens-still-being-misled-on-voter-id/

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/19/14558035-gop-voter-registration-scandal-grows-more-serious?discussion=true

http://spaninquis.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/voter-ids-another-republican-scam/

So much for integrity.

Hello again, voter suppression DENIERS:


Hello again:

Ohio's Republican Secretary of State had THREE shots at finding a judge who LIKES his efforts at voter suppression.. He didn't find ANY, even on the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, even though he's been ORDERED to keep early voting as it is, he's decided to limit the hours the polls will stay open anyway. Long lines are expected...

Can you tell me, in simple English, what legitimate state interest there is in doing that?

ExconAnybody?? Hellooooo..

Excon

Dude, we've been over the reasons, repeating them won't sway you. Meanwhile...


Fla. Republicans receiving fake ineligibility letters aimed at suppressing their vote
(http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/22/florida-republicans-receiving-fake-ineligibility-letters-aimed-at-suppressing-their-vote/#ixzz2A85YAjA8)
The Florida Department of State’s Division of Elections is investigating a number of fraudulent letters sent to voters in the state questioning their citizenship and voter eligibility, in a possible attempt to keep them home on Election Day.

“The Florida Department of State unequivocally opposes all attempts at voter fraud or intimidation and will pursue every avenue to ensure free, fair and open elections for all eligible voters,” Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner said in a statement. “Voter fraud and intimidation can deny voters their voice in government and will not be tolerated.”

The statement alerted the public of the fraudulent letters, which claim to be from Florida election officials and imply that the recipient might be ineligible to vote.

Charles Callaghan, a Republican from Ponte Vedra, received one of the fraudulent letters Saturday.

“Basically, when I read the letter, I got the impression that I was not going to be able to vote, because my citizenship was being questioned,” Callaghan told The Daily Caller. “I wasn’t quite sure why it would be, because I was born in the United States, and I’ve always been a United States citizen, and nothing has changed in my life … that would cause my citizenship to be called into question.”

Callaghan noticed that his letter lacked a return address and included faulty contact information and a Seattle, Washington postmark.

“I said to my wife, somebody is just trying to keep me from voting,” Callaghan said. “To put that doubt in my mind that I can’t vote and then not give me a way that I could dispute it — because they didn’t give me a phone number or address — they are thinking I am going to get frustrated and just not go vote. ”

And this (http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pew_Upgrading_Voter_Registration.pdf) from the Pew Research Center:

Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.


More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.



Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

I still object to the possibility my legitimate vote will be canceled out by some fraudster. But then there is no voter fraud, right?

Hello again, Steve:

Then you DO believe voter suppression efforts are underway. You just believe it's the OTHER guys... Bwa, ha ha.. Do you want me to find the voter information pamphlet that gives the CORRECT date to vote in English, but the WRONG one in Spanish? Now, it COULD be typo... But, I'm not going to look because that's exactly what you'll claim..

As long as we leave the elections to partisans, this stuff is going to happen. I think TUT called for nationalization of the elections.. That may NOT be a bad idea.

excon

I've made the point that dirty tricks happen, and that both parties participate in them. All the more reason for a state recognized photo id .

I don't believe nationalization is a constitutional option. Cooperation between the states would be good, I mean don't we have enough computing power to share voter rolls and flag duplicates? And yes, I've always acknowledged it on both sides so you can drop that straw man but I believe I've asked that of you before. Voter ID protects my vote AND your vote and like the majority of Americans believe it is a reasonable safeguard, in spite of the 1 percent who may have to finally prove who they are.

Photo ID doesn't prevent registration fraud, absentee fraud, or any other dirty trick in the book. So much for election integrity.

How would you know Tal, you refuse to give it a chance.

How would you know Tal, you refuse to give it a chance.
No one in this thread has objected to voter ID. In fact, everyone has been for it. The objection has been to the timing and process of it.

Tal can speak for himself.

How would you know Tal, you refuse to give it a chance.

I haven't refused at all, just DEMAND the process of implementation be fair and efficient!!

You think its okay to bake a cake using MUD??

As long as we leave the elections to partisans, this stuff is going to happen. I think TUT called for nationalization of the elections.. That may NOT be a bad idea.

I don't believe nationalization is a constitutional option

Is there anything the left doesn't want nationalized ? Health care ,the auto industry ,education ;and now elections .

Hello again, tom:

I'm a free market kind of guy... I ALSO support the Constitution. But, I'm not STUPID. I believe in local control until local control sticks it up my a$$.. Then it's time for the feds to step in... That's true in health care, and that's true in local elections... I'm reminded of the federal troops that stepped in when Alabama was sticking it up my a$$ too. I LOVED it.

I believe YOUR side is the one who's sniveling about the integrity of the vote... You should champion nationalization.. But, you don't want integrity... You want the dirty tricks playing field left to yourself..

excon

Nope ;I want integrity of the franchise . That means ID . That means taking dead people off the voter rolls . But of course if you turn a blind eye to the problem you will never see the problem.

nope ;I want integrity of the franchise . That means ID . That means taking dead people off the voter rolls . But of course if you turn a blind eye to the problem you will never see the problem.
We are all in favor of voter ID.

Tom I don't think you need to worry about dead people on the rolls, it's the zombies you elect you have to worry about

Operative linked to voter registration fraud still working for GOP? - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/12/operative_linked_to_voter_registration_fraud_still _working_for_gop/)

Integrity? Of course Acorn was defunded for less, but this guy is still getting paid. Where is the integrity?

We know where it ain't though!

We are all in favor of voter ID.

I don't buy it one bit.