Indiana voter ID laws upheld

[NorthSideSox72]

Nice speech. You managed to very well sum up brain dead conservatives attitudes towards voters.

I'd say that voter apathy, or apathy generally, is an American problem - not a liberal or conservative problem.

 

[Balta1701]

I'd say that voter apathy, or apathy generally, is an American problem - not a liberal or conservative problem.

It is if you can argue that one side benefits more than the other from voter apathy and its associated low turnouts. And I think the evidence is out there that high turnout generally does favor one side, which is i'm sure not related at all to why this has become such a partisan issue.

[Texsox]

I'd say that voter apathy, or apathy generally, is an American problem - not a liberal or conservative problem.

 

But the solutions offered by both sides is very different. Liberals try to remove all the barriers and make it as simple and easy as possible. Conservatives say f*** 'em if they don't want to vote, stay home.

 

Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. Somewhere there is a balance that works.

[Balta1701]

I'm going to outsource this to ProjectVote, specifically because they include the numbers and demographics of who this disenfranchises.

"The Supreme Court ruling is disappointing for Americans who want the next president to be chosen in a free and fair election in which all eligible voters have an equal opportunity to participate. The voters most harmed by the ruling are first-time voters who are registering this year in record numbers. If legislators in the 24 states where strict photo voter ID rules have been introduced take the Court's decision as a green light, voters across the country will find it more difficult to cast their ballots this Election Day. Our democracy works best when every American participates.

 

The real purpose of strict photo voter ID rules is to make it more difficult for some Americans to vote. It's the voters who are less likely to vote who are also less likely to have government issued ID, such as young people, the poor, elderly, and Americans of color. A University of Washington study, for example, found that in Indiana 22 percent of African-American voters lack proper identification compared to 16 percent of white voters. Twenty-one percent of voters earning less than $40,000 a year lack the necessary ID compared to just 13 percent of those earning more than $40,000. All Americans have a right to vote, even if they don't have a photo ID.

 

The only reason politicians support these laws is to give their party an advantage over the other. The Supreme Court took note of the partisan nature of the photo ID rules. The Court's opinion in the case said it was "fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in enacting the photo ID law. This ruling sends an unfortunate green light to legislators in the 24 states that are still considering strict photo voter ID laws.

 

The right to vote has been under assault for the past eight years by partisans who put winning elections above the right to vote. Requiring voters to show photo ID is just one of many hurdles partisans put in front of voters on their way to the ballot box. Too many Americans of color are met at their polling places with long lines, partisan challengers, faulty equipment and needlessly strict photo ID requirements.

 

Strict photo voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence of widespread fraudulent voting in this country. Indiana even acknowledged that there hasn't been a single case of voter impersonation in the state's history. Americans take voting seriously and do not misrepresent themselves at the polls, so politicians shouldn't misrepresent the facts to justify unnecessarily strict photo ID laws.

 

As the country's premiere nonpartisan voter registration organization, Project Vote wants to make sure that the Americans we help register to vote can vote and have their votes counted on Election Day. Nothing should come between Americans and their right to vote."

[kapkomet]

So how many people who are "disenfranchised" would have taken the time to give a s*** to vote anyway?

 

This whole argument reeks of hypocrisy - but then again, if it "disenfranchises" Democrats it's wrong and if it "disenfranchises" Republicans it's ok. (loosely held).

[Texsox]

So how many people who are "disenfranchised" would have taken the time to give a s*** to vote anyway?

 

This whole argument reeks of hypocrisy - but then again, if it "disenfranchises" Democrats it's wrong and if it "disenfranchises" Republicans it's ok. (loosely held).

 

I do not see the hypocrisy unless you know of some laws that the Dems backed to make voting more difficult or where the GOP made voting easier for traditional GOP voters. The hypocrisy would cut both ways, the GOP would not be introducing this bill if they thought it would take away their voters.

[kapkomet]

I do not see the hypocrisy unless you know of some laws that the Dems backed to make voting more difficult or where the GOP made voting easier for traditional GOP voters. The hypocrisy would cut both ways, the GOP would not be introducing this bill if they thought it would take away their voters.

The same people that are screaming about this scream about the electoral college as well but then see the "superdelegates" in the Dem primary as ok - that's where I see some hypocrisy.

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I do not see the hypocrisy unless you know of some laws that the Dems backed to make voting more difficult or where the GOP made voting easier for traditional GOP voters. The hypocrisy would cut both ways, the GOP would not be introducing this bill if they thought it would take away their voters.

 

Fighting all forms of non-paper balloting for one...

[NorthSideSox72]

The same people that are screaming about this scream about the electoral college as well but then see the "superdelegates" in the Dem primary as ok - that's where I see some hypocrisy.

I think you are mixing three different groups there. For example, I am OK with voter ID laws (with provision for free ID), and am not screaming about this. But I do disagree with the usefulness of the electoral college at this point. And I am not OK with the superdelegates either.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I do not see the hypocrisy unless you know of some laws that the Dems backed to make voting more difficult or where the GOP made voting easier for traditional GOP voters. The hypocrisy would cut both ways, the GOP would not be introducing this bill if they thought it would take away their voters.

I seem to remember the Dems wanting to not count a huge amount of military absentee ballots a few years back for some reason.

[Texsox]

The same people that are screaming about this scream about the electoral college as well but then see the "superdelegates" in the Dem primary as ok - that's where I see some hypocrisy.

I think you hit the nail on the head, but didn't finish.

 

Do you see a hypocsisy in all the other parties not even holding primaries? There will probably be six to ten other parties on the ballot as well, they will hold some form of convention and select someone for the ballot.

 

I guess it's the same kind of hypocrisy in losing the popular vote, then producing maps with pretty colors, and calling it a landslide. The "we think every vote should matter and be equal, except when our candidate finishes with less."

[kapkomet]

I think you are mixing three different groups there. For example, I am OK with voter ID laws (with provision for free ID), and am not screaming about this. But I do disagree with the usefulness of the electoral college at this point. And I am not OK with the superdelegates either.

I don't mean people here per se, but in some of the coverage I've watched lately. (I actually did realize early this week there's such a thing as a tv, but it was only because my parents were in town and watching it).

 

[Texsox]

I seem to remember the Dems wanting to not count a huge amount of military absentee ballots a few years back for some reason.

 

There were problems with those ballots under the law. If the Dems now introduced a bill to make it more difficult for servicemen and women to vote, the situation would be the same. I think we all agree that current laws should be followed, whatever they may be.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, i did some thinking here. I needed soem time to flush this out in my head.

I understand the argument that this is a poll tax. in a way, you can argue it is. BUT, one of the biggest complaints about the current election system is voter fraud. We joke in Chicgao, "vote early and vote often". With a Non-ID system, i can just walk in, vote on behalf of my sick father and walk out. Maybe he wanted to vote for Clinton? Too bad. i voted Obama for him. Then go to my polling location and vote as myself. ID helps cut down on voter fraud. i think that is the base argument here.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Don't you need to show some sort of identification to register to vote? I don't see why it's a problem showing some ID to actually vote.

When i voted on SuperTuesday, I was never asked to show ID. Neither was my wife.

[mr_genius]

When i voted on SuperTuesday, I was never asked to show ID. Neither was my wife.

 

you didn't show any ID to register to vote?

[Texsox]

you didn't show any ID to register to vote?

 

They matched my signature

[HuskyCaucasian]

you didn't show any ID to register to vote?

hmmmm.... I did it through the mail. No ID required.

[Balta1701]

Ok, i did some thinking here. I needed soem time to flush this out in my head.

I understand the argument that this is a poll tax. in a way, you can argue it is. BUT, one of the biggest complaints about the current election system is voter fraud. We joke in Chicgao, "vote early and vote often". With a Non-ID system, i can just walk in, vote on behalf of my sick father and walk out. Maybe he wanted to vote for Clinton? Too bad. i voted Obama for him. Then go to my polling location and vote as myself. ID helps cut down on voter fraud. i think that is the base argument here.

First of all, the evidence out there shows this happens far less often. Secondly, it's far more common that these things happen with absentee ballots, something that an ID check does not avoid (and hence, why, if you really care about preventing voter fraud, your first step is to eliminate the absentee ballot). And third, if you're caught doing this, it's still against the law.

[Texsox]

Some of the cornerstones of our society is we believe (correctly I believe) that the vast majority of people are honest and we value the rights of the people who are honest over the possible law breakers. Innocent until proven guilty. Freedom from unusual search and seizure. It is often times said we would rather 10 guilty men go free then one innocent person convicted. When someone has registered to vote and proven at that time they are eligible to vote, we then need a reasonable way to determine of that same person votes. Matching signatures seems like it should be good enough.

 

Also, using Kap's theory, which I like, that all politicians are the same, what little fraud there may be, is balanced between the parties.

[kapkomet]

Some of the cornerstones of our society is we believe (correctly I believe) that the vast majority of people are honest and we value the rights of the people who are honest over the possible law breakers. Innocent until proven guilty. Freedom from unusual search and seizure. It is often times said we would rather 10 guilty men go free then one innocent person convicted. When someone has registered to vote and proven at that time they are eligible to vote, we then need a reasonable way to determine of that same person votes. Matching signatures seems like it should be good enough.

 

Also, using Kap's theory, which I like, that all politicians are the same, what little fraud there may be, is balanced between the parties.

Yes, that is true, but for some reason, you only typically hear about the Democrat problems. I wonder why that is?

[Texsox]

Yes, that is true, but for some reason, you only typically hear about the Democrat problems. I wonder why that is?

 

Depends on where you live and which party is dominate. Down here it's usually the GOP trying to get a toe hold. All the Dems are related, so they behave.

 

Or perhaps it is that media bias . . .

[mr_genius]

They matched my signature

 

thats racist. what if the person can't sign their name. next.

[mr_genius]

hmmmm.... I did it through the mail. No ID required.

 

you had to buy a stamp. you had to know how to use a mail box. such a procedure is unfair and it discriminates. next.

[longshot7]

Let's just go ahead and all get chip implants and go on the road to hell. At least we'd all only get one vote. (Sarcasm).

 

(BTW, I would NEVER get that, I'll die first. Not joking. But the technology exists now).

 

I'll do it - that sounds great, and easy.