[speechlesstx]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

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

[NeedKarma]

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

[talaniman]

Wisconsin Voter ID Law Ruled Unconstitutional

"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.

[talaniman]

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??

[tomder55]

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

[talaniman]

Or maybe you guys under counted the voters?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[TUT317]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[talaniman]

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

[excon]

Hello again,

Looks like Pennsylvania's law is toast... A judge is about to enter an injunction against it...

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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?

[talaniman]

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!

[speechlesstx]

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.