ID law found discriminatory

[Mustang]

Sorry, there's no excuses and if you can't take the time, given a year to do it, to get your mother to wherever it is to get he id, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

Are you out of your fuckin' mind? My mother, like probably hundreds of thousands of other elderly people, is bed ridden. The only place to get a license (which she doesn't friggin' need) is in another town about 12 miles away.

It's not only a hardship for my mother and our family. It's a danger to her health and well-being.

She doesn't need a drivers license, just a picture id that is available at the dmv

You stupid twit. The point is that she would have to travel to get it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Money, travel time and things like people being born at home.

You are the one who pretends its about being not good enough of an American to be allowed to vote

What does being born at home have to do with it? I have two siblings who were born at home and they are both able to obtain IDs, and vote. And face it, there are many people who are so uninformed and unwilling to become informed that their votes are little more than an exercise in popularity. They're more likely to make an informed vote on an "American Idol" or "DWTS" contestant than on an official who will be determining policy and laws that affect all of us.

Great, then pat them on the back and realize that everyone is not like you. Once you realize that everyone isnt you or your siblings you'll realize that there are people out there not like you.

Every explanation of how to do something is easy when you explanation involves someone else to do it. Think about when your wife asks you to fix a car problem...They always say "All you have to do is..." and it always sounds soooo simple

So, you are saying that you know someone who was born at home and they have difficulty obtaining identification? You "speak" anecdotally, I can speak from experience. No one has said it is not good enough to be an American (citizen of the United States) in order to vote. What is being "said" is, one must be able to establish the fact of their citizenship in order to vote. Why does it bother you so much that Americans be asked to prove their bona fides to vote? Like I observed before, not everyone is blessed with the psychic abilities to identify Americans from non-citizens without proper ID.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many times have I heard conservatives talk about how they are primarily guided by principle?

Well, what could be more principled than supporting the rights of all eligible Americans to go to the polls and vote without placing unwarranted roadblocks in front of voters which can only serve to disenfranchise countless eligible voters?

Maybe I asked the question the wrong way. I'll try again.

What could be more IMPORTANT than supporting the rights of all eligible Americans to go to the polls and vote without placing unwarranted roadblocks in front of voters which can only serve to disenfranchise countless eligible voters?

Helping to insure victory, perhaps? Regardless of what it takes?

What could be more IMPORTANT than supporting the rights of all eligible Americans to go to the polls and vote

Stopping illegal votes from diluting the votes of eligible Americans.

I haven't heard anyone make a convincing case (you know, with evidence?) that individual voter fraud is a problem in this country.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about institutional voter fraud, as in hacking voting machines, and ballot box manipulation like happens in countries like Russia.

Then Dems should focus on getting their voters good ID instead of making it easier for illegals to vote.

 

[ba1614]

Are you out of your fuckin' mind? My mother, like probably hundreds of thousands of other elderly people, is bed ridden. The only place to get a license (which she doesn't friggin' need) is in another town about 12 miles away.

It's not only a hardship for my mother and our family. It's a danger to her health and well-being.

She doesn't need a drivers license, just a picture id that is available at the dmv

You stupid twit. The point is that she would have to travel to get it.

Well there ya go, I'm not going to go any further due to board rules regarding family.

 

[Stephanie]

Are you out of your fuckin' mind? My mother, like probably hundreds of thousands of other elderly people, is bed ridden. The only place to get a license (which she doesn't friggin' need) is in another town about 12 miles away.

It's not only a hardship for my mother and our family. It's a danger to her health and well-being.

She doesn't need a drivers license, just a picture id that is available at the dmv

You stupid twit. The point is that she would have to travel to get it.

Then she should vote absentee. which she must NOW if she isn't able to travel.
good grief.

 

[gallantwarrior]

South Carolina voter ID law rejected by Justice Department - latimes.com



Reporting from Washington— The Obama administration's civil rights office is stepping up its fight with the Southern states over voting rights, announcing it will block a new South Carolina law that would require voters to show a government-issued photo identification before casting a ballot.

The Justice Department invoked the Voting Rights Act on Friday and said the new photo-identification rule could deny the right to vote for tens of thousands of blacks and other minorities.

"According to the state's statistics, there are 81,938 minority citizens who are already registered to vote and who lack DMV-issued identification," Thomas E. Perez, the chief of the department's civil rights division, said in a letter to South Carolina officials. He referred to a driver's license issued by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, the most common form of photo identification.

81,938 voters

in north carolina.

These people exsist and your team wants their voting rights stripped to protect a non exsistant problem.

The facts a very clear.

You just ignore the facts

The fact is clear that you can't distinguish between two entirely different states.
Perhaps an intelligence test before voting would serve our country better. It might prevent people like you from causing harm to the rest of us.

You might be surprised who-all a competency test might prevent from voting. Of course, it would greatly depend on who wrote the test...

 

[gallantwarrior]

Showing valid ID is not racist in any way. Requiring a valid ID just makes it harder for the Democrats to rig Elections. And that's all this stuff is ever about. Their Race-Baiting stuff is so old & tired. I think most Americans are sick of it though. Without the Illegals,Felons,Deceased Citizens,and Fictitious Voters,the Democrats wouldn't win very many Elections. And they know this. Requiring a valid ID just gets in the way of their fixes. It has nothing to do with 'Racism.' It's just a scam.

Yer funny.

SC is not a blue state. It's not controlled by Democrats. Conservative Republicans are in control of the apparatus of gov't. So, how exactly would Democrats rig elections, again?

In fact, there are 8 states that have strict voter ID laws. With the exception of Hawaii, all the states are red states: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Wisconsin, SC, Tennessee, and Texas. They're all states that are Republican-controlled.

Bet you'd find that there are a lot fewer charges of voter fraud and rigging elections in those states, too. The more liberal the state, the more likely that voter polls include the dead, the dying, and the fictitious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Showing valid ID is not racist in any way. Requiring a valid ID just makes it harder for the Democrats to rig Elections. And that's all this stuff is ever about. Their Race-Baiting stuff is so old & tired. I think most Americans are sick of it though. Without the Illegals,Felons,Deceased Citizens,and Fictitious Voters,the Democrats wouldn't win very many Elections. And they know this. Requiring a valid ID just gets in the way of their fixes. It has nothing to do with 'Racism.' It's just a scam.

Yer funny.

SC is not a blue state. It's not controlled by Democrats. Conservative Republicans are in control of the apparatus of gov't. So, how exactly would Democrats rig elections, again?

In fact, there are 8 states that have strict voter ID laws. With the exception of Hawaii, all the states are red states: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Wisconsin, SC, Tennessee, and Texas. They're all states that are Republican-controlled.

Bet you'd find that there are a lot fewer charges of voter fraud and rigging elections in those states, too. The more liberal the state, the more likely that voter polls include the dead, the dying, and the fictitious.

As a Chicagoan, I laugh when liberals say there is no vote fraud.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why should they have to?

Voter fraud is practically non existent.

But this isn't the only thing Republicans are doing to keep people from voting.

They are reducing the number of days that the polls are open.

Ask yourself this question, Why would they do that?

That has nothing to do with voter fraud. It's just an attempt to suppress the vote.

why should someone have to show an ID to cash a check?.......i have to show an ID at the Pharmacy to buy certain over the counter cold medicines.....why should i have to?....when someone comes to the PO to pick up held mail,they have to show an ID.....why?.....do you know what an ID is for Chris?.....

Showing an ID for all those types of transactions is driven by government mandate. Take over-the-counter remedies, most of those are now controlled because drug abusers have found out how to use them to manufacture the poison of their choice. Pick up mail, too many instances of the wrong people receiving the wrong mail, or plain old crooks collecting other peoples' mail in order to take whatever value might be therein. Cash a check...IDs are used to ensure that the person receiving the service/value/benefit is who they say they are. Wow! Kind of like...voting!

 

[gallantwarrior]

I think this article sums it up rather nicely

SNIP:
Holder's Voter ID Fraud
The AG invents fears of ballot suppression. .Article Comments more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».Email Print Save ↓ More .
.smaller Larger

The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.
In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.

If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities.

The NAACP even petitioned the United Nations this month for a human-rights ruling on what President Benjamin Jealous called a "tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote." He meant in America, not Cuba or North Korea. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to challenge a voter ID law in Wisconsin.


.Mr. Holder's remarks are especially notable because they come as the Justice Department is reviewing voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina for "preclearance" under the Voting Rights Act. The states' plans require voters to present photo ID like a driver's license or passport to vote, a measure endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot.

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.

The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.

That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.


read the rest..
Review & Outlook: Holder's Voter ID Fraud - WSJ.com

I would hope that ANY administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would work to insure that ALL American citizens, regardless of party affiliation, or race, or age, or gender, or socioeconomic status had full and complete access to vote in any election, regardless of whether it's a local, state, or national election, and would remove any and all obstacles so that American citizens would be able to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

And yet, is it all that unreasonable to expect anyone to take the personal responsibility needed to get an ID, if they know that is what is needed to vote and they are really that personally interested in exercising their vote?

 

[ba1614]

I think this article sums it up rather nicely

SNIP:
Holder's Voter ID Fraud
The AG invents fears of ballot suppression. .Article Comments more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».Email Print Save ↓ More .
.smaller Larger

The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.
In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.

If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities.

The NAACP even petitioned the United Nations this month for a human-rights ruling on what President Benjamin Jealous called a "tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote." He meant in America, not Cuba or North Korea. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to challenge a voter ID law in Wisconsin.


.Mr. Holder's remarks are especially notable because they come as the Justice Department is reviewing voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina for "preclearance" under the Voting Rights Act. The states' plans require voters to present photo ID like a driver's license or passport to vote, a measure endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot.

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.

The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.

That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.


read the rest..
Review & Outlook: Holder's Voter ID Fraud - WSJ.com

I would hope that ANY administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would work to insure that ALL American citizens, regardless of party affiliation, or race, or age, or gender, or socioeconomic status had full and complete access to vote in any election, regardless of whether it's a local, state, or national election, and would remove any and all obstacles so that American citizens would be able to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

And yet, is it all that unreasonable to expect anyone to take the personal responsibility needed to get an ID, if they know that is what is needed to vote and they are really that personally interested in exercising their vote?

Now ya did it, here comes the bed ridden story meant to stifle debate.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It shouldn't surprise anyone, all holders doj has done is walk with two left feet.

Holder is a criminal. Nothing else need be said.

This is the most corrupt I have ever seen government and the democrats cheer it on.

How many times have I heard conservatives talk about how they are primarily guided by principle?

Well, what could be more principled than supporting the rights of all eligible Americans to go to the polls and vote without placing unwarranted roadblocks in front of voters which can only serve to disenfranchise countless eligible voters?

Maybe I asked the question the wrong way. I'll try again.

What could be more IMPORTANT than supporting the rights of all eligible Americans to go to the polls and vote without placing unwarranted roadblocks in front of voters which can only serve to disenfranchise countless eligible voters?

Helping to insure victory, perhaps? Regardless of what it takes?

So, you are eligible as soon as you prove you are. Showing proper identification is NOT an unwarranted roadblock. I am a legitimate voter and I feel disenfranchised by the lack of positive control of the voting process that guarantees that my vote counts more than the vote of some illegal criminal, or some dead person, or some Disney character. Whose disenfranchisement is more important?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I would hope that ANY administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would work to insure that ALL American citizens, regardless of party affiliation, or race, or age, or gender, or socioeconomic status had full and complete access to vote in any election, regardless of whether it's a local, state, or national election, and would remove any and all obstacles so that American citizens would be able to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

And yet, is it all that unreasonable to expect anyone to take the personal responsibility needed to get an ID, if they know that is what is needed to vote and they are really that personally interested in exercising their vote?

Now ya did it, here comes the bed ridden story meant to stifle debate.

I guess I could do that libtard defense thing and declare the bedridden issue invalid since it is only one person who totally fails to understand everyone else...

 

[MeBelle]

Now ya did it, here comes the bed ridden story meant to stifle debate.

Bedridden as in a Nursing Home?

Bedridden and of poor health, so must have some sort of health insurance.
In order to receive health insurance, one must prove who they are, yes?
How was eligibility for health insurance determined?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Now ya did it, here comes the bed ridden story meant to stifle debate.

Bedridden as in a Nursing Home?

Bedridden and of poor health, so must have some sort of health insurance.
In order to receive health insurance, one must prove who they are, yes?
How was eligibility for health insurance determined?

I've read somewhere that "everyone" knows who you are...

 

[MeBelle]

Now ya did it, here comes the bed ridden story meant to stifle debate.

Bedridden as in a Nursing Home?

Bedridden and of poor health, so must have some sort of health insurance.
In order to receive health insurance, one must prove who they are, yes?
How was eligibility for health insurance determined?

I've read somewhere that "everyone" knows who you are...

Everyone knows who I am?

Oh... gotcha'!
Still must have had some form of ID from somewhere to begin with.

 

[The T]

Holder is a criminal. Nothing else need be said.

This is the most corrupt I have ever seen government and the democrats cheer it on.

How many times have I heard conservatives talk about how they are primarily guided by principle?

Well, what could be more principled than supporting the rights of all eligible Americans to go to the polls and vote without placing unwarranted roadblocks in front of voters which can only serve to disenfranchise countless eligible voters?

Maybe I asked the question the wrong way. I'll try again.

What could be more IMPORTANT than supporting the rights of all eligible Americans to go to the polls and vote without placing unwarranted roadblocks in front of voters which can only serve to disenfranchise countless eligible voters?

Helping to insure victory, perhaps? Regardless of what it takes?

So, you are eligible as soon as you prove you are. Showing proper identification is NOT an unwarranted roadblock. I am a legitimate voter and I feel disenfranchised by the lack of positive control of the voting process that guarantees that my vote counts more than the vote of some illegal criminal, or some dead person, or some Disney character. Whose disenfranchisement is more important?

Thier power over others by fraud is of more import.

True story.

 

[The T]

Bedridden as in a Nursing Home?

Bedridden and of poor health, so must have some sort of health insurance.
In order to receive health insurance, one must prove who they are, yes?
How was eligibility for health insurance determined?

I've read somewhere that "everyone" knows who you are...

Everyone knows who I am?

Oh... gotcha'!
Still must have had some form of ID from somewhere to begin with.

Err uhmm...at least the Gubmint knows?

 

[zzzz]

But do we really know who you are? Are you fingerprinted at birth, photo ID? When does your identification really begin? Kindergarten, grade school or is it when you officially apply for a SSN?

 

[The T]

I think this article sums it up rather nicely

SNIP:
Holder's Voter ID Fraud
The AG invents fears of ballot suppression. .Article Comments more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».Email Print Save ↓ More .
.smaller Larger

The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.
In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.

If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities.

The NAACP even petitioned the United Nations this month for a human-rights ruling on what President Benjamin Jealous called a "tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote." He meant in America, not Cuba or North Korea. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to challenge a voter ID law in Wisconsin.


.Mr. Holder's remarks are especially notable because they come as the Justice Department is reviewing voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina for "preclearance" under the Voting Rights Act. The states' plans require voters to present photo ID like a driver's license or passport to vote, a measure endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot.

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.

The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.

That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.


read the rest..
Review & Outlook: Holder's Voter ID Fraud - WSJ.com

I would hope that ANY administration, whether Democrat or Republican, would work to insure that ALL American citizens, regardless of party affiliation, or race, or age, or gender, or socioeconomic status had full and complete access to vote in any election, regardless of whether it's a local, state, or national election, and would remove any and all obstacles so that American citizens would be able to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

And yet, is it all that unreasonable to expect anyone to take the personal responsibility needed to get an ID, if they know that is what is needed to vote and they are really that personally interested in exercising their vote?

But you address Statist cowboys spewing herd mentality...