Can someone explain why this is *gasp* RACIST

You are free to argue that but the ruling of the Supreme Court is that you are wrong and any fees what so ever are unconstitutional. As I said, if Republicans actually thought there was voter fraud occuring (something there is ZERO evidence for) then they would no doubt happily pay to make sure it stopped. That they are unwilling to make these IDs free (along with all other required documents to get said ID) tells me they know voter fraud isn't a real problem and that's why they're not willing to spend any money to fix it.

It sure does get the base fired up and it does take a few years for the courts to strike the laws down as unconstitutional and there in lays the reason they pass them knowing they'll be struck down. They figure, "meh, we can suppress the vote for the other side for an election or two before the laws get removed so why not do it?" but if they really cared about this supposed problem they'd make it free. They refuse to do that so they can't really be that concerned about it.

Interesting concept. So every voter is personally responsible for every death caused by every politician they vote in? In that case, you've got at least some local and state deaths on your conscience. You ever vote for a winning Congressman or Senator? Your debt gets commensurately larger.

It's a problem we have in this country. No one wants to take ownership of their voting choices. We all know that Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The buck stops here." That may be, but the voters put him there.

You can be lied to, your candidate can change positions once in office, or you can even be duped. But, that doesn't change the fact that you put the person there. It's even worse when you vote for the same person again. That's why the "lesser of two evils" is morally abhorrent to me. The lesser is still evil.

Be sure of who you vote for. And, no, since 2003 there's not one drop of blood on my hands. If there was no one I trusted, I wrote in myself. I've even run for three offices and plan on running again in two years for another.

That's idiotic. Seriously, the constitution requires that everyone be able to vote without ever spending a single penny, it must be completely free according to the constitution. The constitution does not require you to have a car for free or drive that car on public roads for free.

Each of us is responsible for our own actions. There's a realm of difference between taking ownership of your voting choices and having some sort of clairvoyance about what any other person will do.

The law isn't asking someone to buy anything they don't have already - with some exceptions. Though I wonder how the folks realized that all those Latinos didn't have any kind of ID since every Latino that I've taken care of has some sort of photo ID that is xeroxed and placed in their record ...

The problem is the Supreme Court has said if anyone, any where has to spend any money then it is illegal. It doesn't matter if most of them already have a driver's license because if one person any where in the country doesn't have a driver's license then you either have to give them one free or not require it. That's what the Supreme Court said.

Now you can expand the list of acceptable IDs to make it easier to vote (add school IDs or Military IDs or what ever) but there must be at least one option for people which is free. I.E. they have to have one of the IDs on the list but at least one of the options must be free even if other options on the list are not free but would fill the requirement as an alternative. We should be making it easy for people to vote by giving them as many options as possible.

I wish I could say I was surprised that people who spend so much time talking about the Constitution have no idea what is actually in the Constitution but, sadly, from long experience I have come to accept that most conservatives just don't know a damn thing about what is in the Constitution. One listen to Santorum babbling about how there shouldn't be any seporation between church and state was enough to convince me of that but, even more sadly, that was just one in a long line of nonsense from the right wing.

I'd say average Democratic voters are generally not that knowledgeable of the constitution but the elected politicians are because Dems tend to prize knowledge and facts more while Republicans tend to pander to the absolute least common denominator. Anyone who displays education or worldly knowledge is attacked as an "elitist" and they love idiots who babble nonsense. I like how they hold the Constitution in high regard but I wish they knew more about what was actually in it especially since they're constantly, and I do mean constantly, attempting to violate it or claim the other side is when they're not.

An excellent example is the current birth control controversy which did nothing more than repeat what 32 states already had said in their own laws. Each of those 32 states had the law challenged and the Supreme Court upheld every single one but Republicans still spent almost a month claiming there was some sort of unconstitutional attack on religion. The leadership knew that wasn't true, they're all lawyers so they knew what the Supreme Court had ruled, but they kept feeding bullshit to their base knowing it would rile the idiots up. What do you call someone who says something they know isn't true? You call them a liar.

Hell, another example is the current health care reform bill with is very similar to MA's health care law which the Supreme Court upheld or even HA's universal health care law which has been in place since the 1960's. Yet tons of Republicans, even ones on this very site, claimed it was unconstitution even though the Supreme Court had previously ruled it was entirely constitutional and upheld it. So we're back to what do you call someone who knows what they're saying isn't true? They're liars.

Though I agree some people on this forum were not in fact liars because they simply had no idea what they were talking about and instead were just repeating nonsense from people who were liars. But that is another story.

You keep saying that the ID has to be something that is not paid for.
Can you quote it to me? Cause the way I was reading it, the ID could not be something that is only for certain groups and could not be overpriced.

Driver's license isn't over priced (well, I suppose a few seem to think it is) and ditto the state ID. But it is available to all and there is not a special price for a specific group of folks.

I don't see the problem. The state wants to make sure that 1) the voter is who they say they are and 2) they are voting in their proper place.
Shouldn't EVERYONE want to make sure their votes count correctly?

No, but this voter ID legislation did spring up without warning.

Buying cough medicine and drano is not a constitutionally protected right, but nevermind that, right?

This legislation is sweeping through red states like wildfire and it's all fine and dandy now, but wait until the threat of Democratic control is real. Let's see how you feel with the law then. How would you feel if Illinois or New York had this law? It would be easy to isolate people from red leaning districts and use the DMV to make it extremely difficult to get an ID in election years.

Umm no.

Buying cough medicine and drano is not a constitutionally protected right, but nevermind that, right? [/quote]

Perhaps not, but owning a firearm is.

I have a driver's license, and I don't think I'm going throw it away anytime in the future.

Wouldn't that be kind of, I don't know obvious?

You're missing the point completely.

LizK is arguing that requiring a photo ID can't be a burden because, essentially, "they already need it to get booze and cigarettes." As if that's something that every single person affected by these laws does.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that we are ALL disenfranchised every time a noneligible voter votes.

Hence my suggestion: That I'm perfectly fine with a voter ID law, as long as it includes clauses stating that (a) some kind of picture ID will be available for free, (b) the locations where you have to go to get these IDs will be relatively easy to access for everyone, and (c) same-day registration is permitted.

I have no problem with preventing fraud; I do have a problem with throwing up additional barriers to participation in the name of preventing fraud, while (a) not actually proving that fraud is happening on a noteworthy scale in the first place, and (b) not showing any interest whatsoever in removing any barriers to participation.

Re: How many "racist" threads can Rightyforge start?

Why, garamet, you must be wanting kids to have access to cigarettes and beer.

Maybe it's because red states are closer to the Mexican border and illegal immigrants are more of a problem here.

Woulda repped that.

I'm not missing the point at all. Cigs and booze are but 2 examples. You need an ID to do a lot of things. You virtually can't function in today's society without one.

No. Constitutional law has held, in light of the history of poll taxes being used as an unconstitutional method of denying blacks the vote, that there should not be obstacles placed in the way of the right to vote that involve requiring the voter to pay money.

In other words, it's not saying "This person is too poor to vote." It's saying, "The government cannot use a method that requires payment to prevent voting from people who otherwise have that right."

A poll tax on its face is racially neutral. However, the history of poll taxes is that they have been used to discriminate.

The law is the way it is to prevent a similar thing from happening with voter IDs.

Nice straw man.

As far as I know, no other Western European country is operating under the American Constitution. Few, if any, could claim the history of race-based voter discrimination and disenfranchisement that gave rise to the con-law decisions that led to poll taxes being declared illegal.

It's obviously possible to have fair elections with required picture ID. Given the history of voter disenfranchisement, however, it seems better to err on the side of caution.

Seems to me that the sort of thing discussed earlier where IDs can be required but you have a chance to get one free and there are no obstacles to obtaining such an ID would meet the goals of anyone who really wanted to balance the need to prevent voter fraud but wanted to enable voting for legitimate voters.

Driving is a privilege. Voting is a right. Big difference.

A more analagous thing would be "People should be able to register their guns for free." Which I would not have an issue with. But even then, there's a couple of differences. For starters, the relatively recent history of discrimination on enforcing voter requirements and the lack of something similar (at least as far as I know) in terms of firearms.

It depends on what you want to do. I think it would be perfectly simple to function in society without a government-issued picture ID if one wanted to.

You do not need one to purchase cigs and booze if you look sufficiently old, or go to stores that don't card, or you get someone with a government ID to purchase one for you.

You don't need to have a bank account; in fact, many people don't.

Some people get paid in cash, so they don't have to cash checks.

Voting is not a right. In a US supreme court ruling in 2000 (Alexander v Mineta) it was affirmed that our constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote, and state legislatures wield the power to decide who is 'qualified.' As a result voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments. The US is one of just 11 nations among 120 constitutional democracies that fail to guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions.

Tipsey McStumbles is a great username!

Thanks!

Hi Sokar!!!

:wave:

We have a new poster! And he has a brain!



This could be the end of Wrodforge as we know it!

Would this be a bad thing?

Tipsy seems to have copied this word for word (or someone did and he got it from them) from this site:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_vote_amendment.php

Having an elected overseer of the minutiae of the administration of the details may not be a bad thing because, ultimately, those administrators are accountable to the voters themselves. Again it's the responsibility of the voters to hold their toes to the fire if they screw it up.

I'm not passing final judgment here but I do think there has to be some very good form of voter fraud prevention.

At the bottom line, there is probably no right that cannot be modified, penned in, eliminated, etc. given a set of circumstances. It's just shorthand to refer to such things as "rights" even though they may be alienable, and even if there is no remedy for being deprived of them.

Without reading the decision you refer to, I still feel fairly confident that there are certain things that the local and state governments cannot do to infringe that right under the Constitution.

One of them is institute poll taxes, and the case law has said requiring IDs without a mechanism to get one for free is not something states can do.

The Supreme Court isn't infallible. They are the highest authority, but many of the things they have said about the Constitution were later overturned by other Courts. This means that SCOTUS can make a judgement against something, and you can still disagree with it on Constitutional grounds. The 10th Amendment shows up here all the time - and SCOTUS routinely chooses to ignore it. My favorite is the ruling in the 40s that it was illegal for a farmer to grow grain on his farm to feed to his cattle - because it violated INTERSTATE commerce. That one is still on the books, and a bigger crock of shit has never been served from the Supremes.

Interesting article. I do disagree with it about driving the right to vote into the Constitution. LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE!

And repeal the 17th Amendment! And what the hell was something like alcohol prohibition even doing in it?

Since the Civil War, we have amended the Constitution 15 times. That's averaging once per decade over the last 150 years. Stop screwing around with it and follow what we've already got. We run too much risk of progressives fouling it up.