bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jan 11, 2012 14:12:57 GMT -5
There is not a constitution right to fly on an airplane or to buy an iPhone. Those are commercial transactions where contract terms, conditions, and costs are appropriate. Voting obviously is different.
This is not all about race, the Republicans also are trying to suppress college student turnout, especially out of state students who would register to vote where they go to school. That is why some of these Republican voter ID laws do not accept a college ID for voting, but do accept a gun permit. Students with a valid out of state drivers license are not likely to go get a new driver's license or ID in order to vote and they may be selectively challenged if they try to vote using the out of state ID.
It's like the registrar from Radford, VA in 2008 who tried to prevent students from registering with a dorm address, saying that was not a permanent residence, even though state law permits students to register with a temporary address. Election law and case law are pretty clear that for people who have relocated for an extended period for work or school, their residence for voting is where they say it is, so out of state students or military personnel or others can either remain registered and vote absentee in their old residence that they consider to be their permanent home or they can register and vote where they currently reside. Radford and every other college town sure does count those students in the local population for reapportionment and when applying for formula grants for transportation and other funding.
This is not about fraud. It is about increasing the hassle factor to discourage voting from those who vote infrequently.
What do the voter ID laws say about a person whose ID has a different address than their voter registration record? Are there going to be party poll watchers in certain precincts challenging each of those voters?
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jan 11, 2012 14:21:35 GMT -5
Another fraud committed by James O'Keefe. The fraud is by the person requesting a ballot in the name of the dead person, not by the poll worker who hands him the ballot.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 11, 2012 14:27:37 GMT -5
Back on topic somewhat, it's really a shame how those Teabaggers have hijacked the Republican party so much that they're about to nominate such a radical extremist for the presidency. There truly would be no room for someone like Ronald Reagan in today's GOP.
Time soon maybe for MSNBC to come up with a new meme.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Jan 11, 2012 15:40:38 GMT -5
As a Democrat, I am actually glad that it looks like Romney will be the Republican nominee. To me, he seems to be the only sane challenger in a group of loonies. I also think he's the only one who could actually beat Obama. Whether he will, obviously, remains to be seen.
Good competition and good choices are a good thing for America (which is why I wish there was more of a third party presence, but that's a topic for another time), and I look forward to the debate. However, there's still a way to go before we get there.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 11, 2012 16:31:38 GMT -5
Any comparison to the poll tax is brings with it some pretty heavy racial subtext also. Nobody in this thread has compared voter-ID requirements to a poll tax. However, you really seem to want someone to do so, so I'll indulge you. For argument's sake, if you have to pay for a driver's license, state ID, certified copy of a birth certificate, or any other form of identification deemed appropriate by the new laws, how does the law not require an indirect fee in order to vote? It's certainly arguable that indirect fees are as impermissible as direct fees as a prerequisite to exercising voting rights. (Note: Yes, I'm aware that S. Carolina has offered free IDs to those who qualify. I think that actually strengthens the "poll tax" comparison.) ____________________________________________________ Also, not that anyone cares, but I show my ID for a lot of things, including when I vote. Texas law allows my precinct to look up my voter registration information when I show my DL. It's easier for me than keeping track of my voter registration card, and it seems easy for the election workers, too. Although I don't doubt there is political motivation behind these laws, I don't believe it is nefarious as many believe. Republicans score points with their base by being the party that "protects America's borders" (whatever that means), and I think that's more of a motivating factor than suppressing actual votes. And if the idea is to end the practice of busing people who wouldn't otherwise vote to an election location in a van/bus marked with the candidate's name, I would think many Republican-leaning voters would be okay with that, too.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 11, 2012 17:44:56 GMT -5
Any comparison to the poll tax is brings with it some pretty heavy racial subtext also. Nobody in this thread has compared voter-ID requirements to a poll tax. However, you really seem to want someone to do so, so I'll indulge you. For argument's sake, if you have to pay for a driver's license, state ID, certified copy of a birth certificate, or any other form of identification deemed appropriate by the new laws, how does the law not require an indirect fee in order to vote? It's certainly arguable that indirect fees are as impermissible as direct fees as a prerequisite to exercising voting rights. (Note: Yes, I'm aware that S. Carolina has offered free IDs to those who qualify. I think that actually strengthens the "poll tax" comparison.) ____________________________________________________ Also, not that anyone cares, but I show my ID for a lot of things, including when I vote. Texas law allows my precinct to look up my voter registration information when I show my DL. It's easier for me than keeping track of my voter registration card, and it seems easy for the election workers, too. Although I don't doubt there is political motivation behind these laws, I don't believe it is nefarious as many believe. Republicans score points with their base by being the party that "protects America's borders" (whatever that means), and I think that's more of a motivating factor than suppressing actual votes. And if the idea is to end the practice of busing people who wouldn't otherwise vote to an election location in a van/bus marked with the candidate's name, I would think many Republican-leaning voters would be okay with that, too. Stretching it pretty far there. It costs me money to get gas to drive the polling place. That's a fee. I lose money by taking the time off work to go to the polls. That's a fee. God forbid, in this age where every other election is subject to a recount, that we ask voters to show an ID to get a ballot.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 11, 2012 20:21:15 GMT -5
Stretching it pretty far there. It costs me money to get gas to drive the polling place. That's a fee. I lose money by taking the time off work to go to the polls. That's a fee. God forbid, in this age where every other election is subject to a recount, that we ask voters to show an ID to get a ballot. Is there a statute that requires you to drive to the polls instead of walking or biking? The voter ID laws state you must pay $X to get ID so that you may vote. If the argument is such a stretch, why is S. Carolina concerned enough to pass out free IDs to indigent folks? ON EDIT: I may have my facts wrong. It appears S. Carolina is giving free rides to the DMV, not free IDs. Can anyone in the Carolinas clarify?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,852
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 11, 2012 21:11:53 GMT -5
There truly would be no room for someone like Ronald Reagan in today's GOP. Different eras, of course, but with the proliferation of negative advertising today (which hardly existed by comparison in 1980)would religious conservatives have fully supported RR today? Imagine the SuperPAC which would tell voters (cue the deep voice guy and the forboding music)... "Would you vote for a 68 year old candidate who signed the largest tax increase in California history?... Or who signed a bill to liberalize abortion on demand in the largest state in America? What does it tell our kids that a divorcee could live in the White House, one who doesn't even attend church regularly? Can a divorced, unchurched, twice-defeated candidate from the Hollywood Elite truly represent you? Vote George Bush in 1980!"
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jan 11, 2012 21:57:10 GMT -5
Back on topic somewhat, it's really a shame how those Teabaggers have hijacked the Republican party so much that they're about to nominate such a radical extremist for the presidency. Teabaggers? If you listen to Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry right now, you'd think the Occupy Movement has hijacked the Republican Party.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 11, 2012 21:58:04 GMT -5
There truly would be no room for someone like Ronald Reagan in today's GOP. Different eras, of course, but with the proliferation of negative advertising today (which hardly existed by comparison in 1980)would religious conservatives have fully supported RR today? Imagine the SuperPAC which would tell voters (cue the deep voice guy and the forboding music)... "Would you vote for a 68 year old candidate who signed the largest tax increase in California history?... Or who signed a bill to liberalize abortion on demand in the largest state in America? What does it tell our kids that a divorcee could live in the White House, one who doesn't even attend church regularly? Can a divorced, unchurched, twice-defeated candidate from the Hollywood Elite truly represent you? Vote George Bush in 1980!"Campaigns were so much more civilized back in the day:
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 12, 2012 7:35:36 GMT -5
Maybe tea party darling Haley Barbour will come back into the race to win the anti-Romney section of the party. Oh wait..... www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/justice/mississippi-pardons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1Never mind. I forgot that in the south, granting clemency to black prisoners sentenced to death on shaky evidence is an insult to the criminal justice system while granting clemency to white felons who "want to be able to hunt" and murderers who served as trustees in the governor's mansion (how does that happen?!!!) is par for the course. Yes, I am mentioning race - deal with it.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 12, 2012 9:13:56 GMT -5
Stretching it pretty far there. It costs me money to get gas to drive the polling place. That's a fee. I lose money by taking the time off work to go to the polls. That's a fee. God forbid, in this age where every other election is subject to a recount, that we ask voters to show an ID to get a ballot. Is there a statute that requires you to drive to the polls instead of walking or biking? You're right, I love walking several miles in the snow in winter to get to the polls. Silly me.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 12, 2012 10:17:38 GMT -5
Maybe tea party darling Haley Barbour will come back into the race to win the anti-Romney section of the party. Oh wait..... www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/justice/mississippi-pardons/index.html?hpt=hp_t1Never mind. I forgot that in the south, granting clemency to black prisoners sentenced to death on shaky evidence is an insult to the criminal justice system while granting clemency to white felons who "want to be able to hunt" and murderers who served as trustees in the governor's mansion (how does that happen?!!!) is par for the course. Yes, I am mentioning race - deal with it. Za...wha... ?? In what way does this story support your incoherent rant? You realize that many of the people pardoned, including a couple for murder, were black? That he didn't just pardon white people? Or, if that is not your point (and who knows what is?), you realize that is is a Democratic AG who is blocking the pardons and his reasons for doing so have nothing whatsoever to do with race? You realize that you are on the verge of bat$#!T crazy with this post? Yes, I am calling your post bat$#!T crazy. Deal with it.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 12, 2012 10:24:07 GMT -5
Back on topic somewhat, it's really a shame how those Teabaggers have hijacked the Republican party so much that they're about to nominate such a radical extremist for the presidency. Teabaggers? If you listen to Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry right now, you'd think the Occupy Movement has hijacked the Republican Party. If I listen to Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry right now, I am reminded of Helena Bonham Carter's line in Fight Club: "Have you ever heard a death rattle before?" But you are correct. It is a bizarre angle of attack they have chosen.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 12, 2012 10:50:33 GMT -5
Huntsman is also a credible candidate, but his candidacy is in its last throes.
The problem with courting support from the TP is that it remains largely disorganized on a national level, with no real ideology or values to unite it. You would likely hear different proposals at a TP gathering in Maine than you would at a TP gathering in Oklahoma. And, the so-called political leaders that have wrapped themselves in the TP mantle reflect this level of diversity of ideas (Ron Paul compared to a Bachmann, Perry, Palin, etc.). Regardless, there is still some opportunistic flight from its mantle because it has failed to deliver anything with its clout in Congress.
In some respects, it is the same problem confronting Obama. Many were drawn to his campaign because of its brand - change, but the changes sought by the campaign's supporters were so diverse (and conflicting) that there was bound to be some tension.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 12, 2012 11:24:02 GMT -5
Everyone knows my political leanings. I will never vote for Obama. Nor will I ever vote for Ron Paul or New Gingrich. I can accept any of the other Republicans but if Paul or Gingrich are nominated (which I don't think will happen), I will choose not to vote.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 12, 2012 11:30:15 GMT -5
I forgot that in the south, granting clemency to black prisoners sentenced to death on shaky evidence is an insult to the criminal justice system while granting clemency to white felons who "want to be able to hunt" and murderers who served as trustees in the governor's mansion (how does that happen?!!!) is par for the course. Yes, I am mentioning race - deal with it. Even with your facts being wrong, please tell me how you came to a conclusion about the entire South based on the actions of one person.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 12, 2012 11:54:53 GMT -5
You're right, I love walking several miles in the snow in winter to get to the polls. Silly me. Snow? www.weather.com/weather/tenday/Atlanta+GA+USGA0028Perhaps I should clarify. I'm not talking about voluntary indirect costs to voting. I'm talking about mandatory indirect costs to voting. (I'm guessing you've already recognized that distinction but are being deliberately obtuse). Let's say that in order to vote you are required to have one of the following: 1) a driver's license; 2) a state ID; or 3) a certified copy of your birth certificate. Let's say all of these items cost money to obtain. An individual who does not currently have one of the acceptable forms of identification would be required to pay money in order to obtain proper identification, which is the only way he or she may vote. In other words, a person can't exercise the right to vote without paying a fee to the government. Gas and your lost working time aren't mandatory indirect costs, and the "fee" doesn't go to the government but to private entities. By the way, still waiting to hear from TBird, who was so disgusted by poll tax comparisons, on this issue.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 12, 2012 12:35:47 GMT -5
By the way, still waiting to hear from TBird, who was so disgusted by poll tax comparisons, on this issue. I'm sorry, but do poll taxes not immediately make you think of Segregation? Does the use of them as a comparison not imply that the policy they are compared to is meant to disenfranchise black voters b/c they are black (the main purpose of poll taxes used in the U.S., at least as far I know)? I'm also a bit touchy on the subject, since this topic seems to devolve into HoyaNYR style ranting about how Republicans hate black people. I apologize for projecting that onto you. You've made some good points about how requiring a gov't ID is a mandatory cost. Though, I'm still not clear how it's a mandatory cost if the state is willing to pay for it (one interesting thing about this debate seems to be the small gov't types arguing that the DMV isn't that bad while the big gov't types argue that the DMV is the worst bureaucracy ever created that no person should ever be subjected too). And, I'll concede that these regulation can be written so as to prevent people from getting the IDs they need. If Wisconsin DMV workers were instructed not to mention the subsidized ID, that's unacceptable. I think there should probably be a subsidized ID for those that can't afford one, or don't need one. If the regulations are meant to prevent voter fraud, it shouldn't be hard to get a gov't issued photo ID (college IDs are not gov't issued, since even public college's are only quasi-gov't entities, see WVU having to stay in the Big East). Additionally, I'm still unsure how people interact with our economy w/o a gov't issued photo ID. Don't you need one for food stamps/welfare? I know I've never gotten a job w/o providing a gov't ID (that includes the various fast food / wait staff jobs I've had). Do people hire people w/o a gov't issued photo ID? Finally, I think that if students want to vote where they attend school, they should change their permanent residence. I don't know why they should get to vote in an election where they attend school and where they grew up (which, w/o an ID requirement, they can). Then again, if D.C. or Massachusetts or one of the other states that have a lot of students (or old people, or other people that are able to function in life w/o ever showing a photo ID) wants to allow voting without a photo ID, then they have that right. Going back to your initial hypocrisy point--I think this is generally a state's right issue--if South Carolina wants to do it, that's good. I support that. If Massachusetts or California doesn't want to do it, that's their choice. I think it's a mistake, but that's for their voters (and anyone else that wants to walk up and pretend to be someone they are not ;D) to decide.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 12, 2012 19:37:34 GMT -5
|
|