[paraclete]

Hello !! Original intent said that Amendment changes the Consititution.Voting rights were expanded through the amendment process . Therefore it satifies original intent.

Tell me Tom what amendment says photo ID is required?

[tomder55]

Nothing has changed . The Constitution gives the States the power to decide issues like photo id. Remember ,there is no national election . We select electors who vote on the Presidency.
The Federal role was expanded with the 14th,15th,19th,23rd,and 24th and 26th amendments . But issues like voter ID are state issues .

[TUT317]

Nothing has changed . The Constitution gives the States the power to decide issues like photo id. Remember ,there is no national election . We select electors who vote on the Presidency.
The Federal role was expanded with the 14th,15th,19th,23rd,and 24th and 26th amendments . But issues like voter ID are state issues .

Yes, but isn't this the very reason why you have a history of disenfranchisement?

Tut

[tomder55]

One could make the same claim about your country since the rights have expanded at roughly the same time line ,give or take a few years. The fact is that there was no such a concept as "universal suffrage' prior to the 20th century. Our amendments to expand the franchise have followed the Western world .

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

So, we should live DOWN to their standards??? What happened to American exceptionalism?? You guys are silly.

excon

Not saying that at all. I'm saying that if the franchise was so important to Americans ,more than 50% would show up to vote;and they would endure minor inconveniences like securing an id card that proves eligibilty .

[excon]

and they would endure minor inconveniences like securing an id card that proves eligibilty .

Hello again, tom:

The question at hand, is whether the inconveniences/roadblocks ARE, indeed, minor. You say they are. I say they aren't. The state COULD solve that issue by putting the onus on itself to provide the ID's. That would ELIMINATE the suppression question altogether. If it's simply an "inconvenience" for the voter, wouldn't it simply be an "inconvenience" for the state as well?

excon

[talaniman]

So you are saying the feds give us all the right to vote, and states can make it harder to exercise those constitutional rights?

No wonder you guys, good ideas not withstanding, don't have a clue between an inconvenience, and a hardship! The funny part here in this whole debate is how when we agree you guys still ain't happy unless its a complete and total push for YOUR way only. "others need not apply"!!!

[tomder55]

No I'm not saying the Feds give us the right to vote. I'm saying the Constitution gives the States the power to run elections. Maybe you should learn our system. Do you know how many elections the Federal Government runs ? ZERO

[talaniman]

That's my point, state legislatures are RESPONSIBLE for FAIR elections. Its also my point that REPUBLICAN run legislatures are the ones rolling out new laws with no regard for cause and effect, or proper procedures that help make them FAIR to ALL its citizens.

That has national, and local implications. I know how the system works very well, and know how YOU want it to work even better.

[paraclete]

Seems to me the system is broken or at least fractured. In the days of distance and poor communication it is possible to see why elections needed to be organised at a local level, but this is the twenty first century, a time when time and distance are transcended and all people should have equal right and access to vote

[TUT317]

One could make the same claim about your country since the rights have expanded at roughly the same time line ,give or take a few years. The fact is that there was no such a concept as "universal suffrage' prior to the 20th century. Our amendments to expand the franchise have followed the Western world .

Yes, I understand that, but the question I was really wanting to ask is this:

If a need a photo I.D. to vote then it is up to the particular state to issue me with a photo I.D. However, if I am eligible for a photo I.D. in my state and I decide to move states does this mean that it is possible I may not meet the ordinary requirements needed in my new state to vote?

I have a history of mental illness,but my state still issues me with an I.D. because it is not a an issue. But what if I go to a state which excludes people with mental disorders from voting?

This is probably not the best example, but I am sure that when it comes deciding who should be disenfranchised different states have different criteria. I also understand that your Constitution would have some type of general definition for voter eligibility, but such a definition would not cover such things as registered and unregistered voters felons the mentally ill, etc etc.

Tut

[cdad]

Yes, I understand that, but the question I was really wanting to ask is this:

If a need a photo I.D. to vote then it is up to the particular state to issue me with a photo I.D. However, if I am eligible for a photo I.D. in my state and I decide to move states does this mean that it is possible I may not meet the ordinary requirements needed in my new state to vote?

I have a history of mental illness,but my state still issues me with an I.D. because it is not a an issue. But what if I go to a state which excludes people with mental disorders from voting?

This is probably not the best example, but I am sure that when it comes deciding who should be disenfranchised different states have different criteria. I also understand that your Constitution would have some type of general definition for voter eligibility, but such a definition would not cover such things as registered and unregistered voters felons the mentally ill, etc etc.

Tut

I will try to answer this. As far as changing states goes the answer is yes. You lose the right to vote in the current state until you become a resident. In most states that is a 3 to 6 month residency requirement. Where you do maintain the right to vote is in your previous state. You may request and absentee ballot (voting by mail) so your vote can still count.

There is a legal definition for the mentally ill. If the line is crossed to where a person can no longer make decisions on their own then they lose the right to vote because they can not make an informed decision. They lack the capacity to do so.

ID's are issued by most states at a minimal cost. Im sure if someone couldn't afford it someone else would step in to pay the fee or an added tax would step in so it can become free when the qualification is met. We already do that with telephone services in this country and with utilities. Most communities have assistance programs and outreach programs of some kind including legal aid that can assist in getting everything needed to qualify for a state issued ID.

[tomder55]

Seems to me the system is broken or at least fractured. In the days of distance and poor communication it is possible to see why elections needed to be organised at a local level, but this is the twenty first century, a time when time and distance are transcended and all people should have equal right and access to vote

You miss the point . 1 almost all elections are local. 2 even the one national election for President is not really a national election. We are technically NOT voting for a candidate . We are voting for an elector who will vote for a candidate for the Presidency. We live in a Federal Republic .
The remedy as you know ;if you think the system is out of date is contained in the amendment process to the Constitution.
What we are seeing is that some states have committed to having their electors vote for the candidate that wins the plurality . That is their choice..

As far as "all people should have equal right and access to vote "... there are already restrictions on voting based on age and other factors not regulated by the Constitution. As long as there is no denial of the franchise for those covered under the Constitution ,and the requirements are the same for all eligible voters in the states ,then there is equal rights and access.

[excon]

and the requirements are the same for all eligible voters in the states ,then there is equal rights and access.

Hello again, tom:

It WOULD be equal, IF you didn't throw down some "inconveniences" in front of a bunch of voters... But, you did, so it isn't.

excon

[tomder55]

The inconvenience is for all voters .

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

It WOULD be equal, IF you didn't throw down some "inconveniences" in front of a bunch of voters... But, you did, so it isn't.

excon

Still with that straw man. You don't want the law to apply equally, you want preferential treatment for some.

[talaniman]

The inconvenience is for all voters .

The inconvenience is to voters who have voted before to meet new requirements that a partisan legislature deems necessary, without proper procedures to in place to address them having access to government.

As in getting to a DMV 50 miles away or even being aware that they have to acquire new or different documentation. Making it necessary for the looming election instead of taking TIME to make insure the news is both wide spread, and proactive where to go and what to bring.

This and eliminating early voting sure looks like the FIX is in for this election, coupled with admission that it IS a partisan fix for political advantage and gain.

Obvious suppression and obstruction is NOT fair to voters, and indeed a manufactured straw man argument based on not FAIRNESS but willful desperation to control a process and ensure an outcome.

The fact you guys dress up and support such blatant suppression and obstruction in the name of a fair election with integrity frankly boggles the mind as you holler about the right of YOUR church, and YOUR rights as you SUBVERT the rights of others as guaranteed by the constitution.

You cannot hide behind the insulting claim that any dissent of your positions is a "straw man argument". That's a cop out in light of FACTS!!

[NeedKarma]

Still with that straw man. You don't want the law to apply equally, you want preferential treatment for some.

Actually it's Romney that wants the preferential treatment for some:

“I’m not concerned about the very poor.”

[excon]

Hello NK:

“I'm not concerned about the very poor.”

He DID say that.. I heard it with my very own ears... Yes, there's some CONTEXT there that changes the meaning of what he said, but if CONTEXT doesn't matter for one, it doesn't matter for all.

Excon

[NeedKarma]

Hello NK:

He DID say that.. I heard it with my very own ears... Yes, there's some CONTEXT there that changes the meaning of what he said, but if CONTEXT doesn't matter for one, it doesn't matter for all.

excon

That's exactly what I was thinking.