IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent

[Immanuel]

I am coming in to this argument late...DID YOU post a link saying this case was dismissed immie? If not, where did you get this information?

Here ya go, Care:

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice

Half way down on left hand side. Look under 2004(Ohio)

Immie

Do you understand the terms of this dismissal and do you realize it was the DNC that requested it...the plaintiff under the rule below

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 41

Do you understand that it was a "joint" stipulation?

And did you read why that happens in the definition of "dismiss" earlier i.e. lack of evidence

From the definition of "dismiss" posted earlier:

This can be based on the complaint failing to allege a cause of action, on a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's opening statement of what will be proved, or on some development in the evidence by either side which bars judgment for the plaintiff. The judge may dismiss on his own or upon motion by the defendant. The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim.

Do not tell my you think the Malone's did this simply out of the goodness of their heart.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

Here ya go, Care:

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice

Half way down on left hand side. Look under 2004(Ohio)

Immie

Do you understand the terms of this dismissal and do you realize it was the DNC that requested it...the plaintiff under the rule below

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 41

Do you understand that it was a "joint" stipulation?

And did you read why that happens in the definition of "dismiss" earlier i.e. lack of evidence

From the definition of "dismiss" posted earlier:

This can be based on the complaint failing to allege a cause of action, on a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's opening statement of what will be proved, or on some development in the evidence by either side which bars judgment for the plaintiff. The judge may dismiss on his own or upon motion by the defendant. The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim.

Do not tell my you think the Malone's did this simply out of the goodness of their heart.

Immie

looks to me like the justices already had a decision for this case, DID YOU READ IT? It is right there immie, above the dismissal link....WHAT does it say?

 

[bucs90]

Yet more words right out of republican leaders mouths that keeping democrats from voting is there goal

So let me get this right.

Republicans want a system where ONE voter has to show ONE valid ID card so that they get their ONE vote in our system that allows a person to count as ONE vote.

Not doing this may allow ONE person to cast MANY votes, although the idea is that ONE person equals ONE vote.

So........why are Dem's opposed to this? Is there a problem with verifying ONE person counts as ONE vote????????????????

Not just Republicans. Independents and Greens and Democrats and everybody who wants the process to be honest and have integrity are in favor of one person, one vote. And I am guessing the vast majority of registered voters are in favor of showing ID at the polling place.

I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason why anybody would object to that unless they did want to be able to circumvent the process and get other than legitimate votes into the ballot box.

I am open to be persuaded otherwise though.

Some companies have gone to a computer thumb scanning system to have their workers "clock in/clock out". It makes payroll more efficient.

I wish we could have a system similar to that where a person would scan their thumb to activate the machine to vote.

Then, the computer would filter all the thumbprints, and each print would only count once. Each duplicate thumbprint after the first would be discarded along with the votes under those secondary scans.

That way no one can whine about not having an ID, and no one can vote twice.

 

[Care4all]

Here ya go, Care:

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree | Brennan Center for Justice

Half way down on left hand side. Look under 2004(Ohio)

Immie

Do you understand the terms of this dismissal and do you realize it was the DNC that requested it...the plaintiff under the rule below

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 41

Do you understand that it was a "joint" stipulation?

And did you read why that happens in the definition of "dismiss" earlier i.e. lack of evidence

From the definition of "dismiss" posted earlier:

This can be based on the complaint failing to allege a cause of action, on a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's opening statement of what will be proved, or on some development in the evidence by either side which bars judgment for the plaintiff. The judge may dismiss on his own or upon motion by the defendant. The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim.

Do not tell my you think the Malone's did this simply out of the goodness of their heart.

Immie

this was dismissed on rule 41, your definition doesn't mean a thing under this dismissal immie.

 

[keee keee]

So they win.

that is the only way they can win by CHEATING AND BY FRAUD.IF THAT DOESN'T WORK THEY STACK THE COURTS AND PASS LAWS THAT WAY. tHEY DON'T CARE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT IT is only about them getting reelected

Who is they

The democrats that is why they are against people having to show ID's to vote. This new amnesty the dems are pushing is only about registering the illegals. The dems don't give a shit about these people they only want to give them citizenship to buy their votes. If by any chance these illegals would vote by large republican they would be against amnesty.

 

[Care4all]

Here is the appellate decision on the malone case, immie...

http://brennan.3cdn.net/0b316c2165c54833c4_n9m6b91t4.pdf

 

[keee keee]

So let me get this right.

Republicans want a system where ONE voter has to show ONE valid ID card so that they get their ONE vote in our system that allows a person to count as ONE vote.

Not doing this may allow ONE person to cast MANY votes, although the idea is that ONE person equals ONE vote.

So........why are Dem's opposed to this? Is there a problem with verifying ONE person counts as ONE vote????????????????

Not just Republicans. Independents and Greens and Democrats and everybody who wants the process to be honest and have integrity are in favor of one person, one vote. And I am guessing the vast majority of registered voters are in favor of showing ID at the polling place.

I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason why anybody would object to that unless they did want to be able to circumvent the process and get other than legitimate votes into the ballot box.

I am open to be persuaded otherwise though.

Some companies have gone to a computer thumb scanning system to have their workers "clock in/clock out". It makes payroll more efficient.

I wish we could have a system similar to that where a person would scan their thumb to activate the machine to vote.

Then, the computer would filter all the thumbprints, and each print would only count once. Each duplicate thumbprint after the first would be discarded along with the votes under those secondary scans.

That way no one can whine about not having an ID, and no one can vote twice.

What about arresting the individual that voted twice or more times and arrest them for voter fraud. thats a good way to stop this!!! Unless you are a new black panther intimidating voters then the Obama administration would give you a pass. How about this Hope and change?

 

[Immanuel]

Do you understand the terms of this dismissal and do you realize it was the DNC that requested it...the plaintiff under the rule below

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 41

Do you understand that it was a "joint" stipulation?

And did you read why that happens in the definition of "dismiss" earlier i.e. lack of evidence

From the definition of "dismiss" posted earlier:

This can be based on the complaint failing to allege a cause of action, on a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's opening statement of what will be proved, or on some development in the evidence by either side which bars judgment for the plaintiff. The judge may dismiss on his own or upon motion by the defendant. The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim.

Do not tell my you think the Malone's did this simply out of the goodness of their heart.

Immie

looks to me like the justices already had a decision for this case, DID YOU READ IT? It is right there immie, above the dismissal link....WHAT does it say?

Yes, I read that and when it is all said and done, it says, CASE DISMISSED.

Immie

 

[Againsheila]

Yet more words right out of republican leaders mouths that keeping democrats from voting is there goal

Do you really have a problem with people providing ID in order to vote?????

Guess, you're in favor of that black guy on youtube that said he voted TWICE!!!!

Oh, and the word is "their", not "there".

 

[Againsheila]

So let me get this right.

Republicans want a system where ONE voter has to show ONE valid ID card so that they get their ONE vote in our system that allows a person to count as ONE vote.

Not doing this may allow ONE person to cast MANY votes, although the idea is that ONE person equals ONE vote.

So........why are Dem's opposed to this? Is there a problem with verifying ONE person counts as ONE vote????????????????

Not just Republicans. Independents and Greens and Democrats and everybody who wants the process to be honest and have integrity are in favor of one person, one vote. And I am guessing the vast majority of registered voters are in favor of showing ID at the polling place.

I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason why anybody would object to that unless they did want to be able to circumvent the process and get other than legitimate votes into the ballot box.

I am open to be persuaded otherwise though.

Some companies have gone to a computer thumb scanning system to have their workers "clock in/clock out". It makes payroll more efficient.

I wish we could have a system similar to that where a person would scan their thumb to activate the machine to vote.

Then, the computer would filter all the thumbprints, and each print would only count once. Each duplicate thumbprint after the first would be discarded along with the votes under those secondary scans.

That way no one can whine about not having an ID, and no one can vote twice.

Naw, then they'll claim that it intimidates criminals from voting.

 

[Immanuel]

Do you understand the terms of this dismissal and do you realize it was the DNC that requested it...the plaintiff under the rule below

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 41

Do you understand that it was a "joint" stipulation?

And did you read why that happens in the definition of "dismiss" earlier i.e. lack of evidence

From the definition of "dismiss" posted earlier:

This can be based on the complaint failing to allege a cause of action, on a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's opening statement of what will be proved, or on some development in the evidence by either side which bars judgment for the plaintiff. The judge may dismiss on his own or upon motion by the defendant. The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a cause of action before or during trial if the case is settled, if it is not provable or trial strategy dictates getting rid of a weak claim.

Do not tell my you think the Malone's did this simply out of the goodness of their heart.

Immie

this was dismissed on rule 41, your definition doesn't mean a thing under this dismissal immie.

The case was dismissed.

A dismissal is exactly that a dismissal.

Here is the appellate decision on the malone case, immie...

http://brennan.3cdn.net/0b316c2165c54833c4_n9m6b91t4.pdf

Check the date, Care. The dismissal came after this decision. End of story unless one of the attorneys on site tells me that the dismissal does not negate the appellate decision.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Not just Republicans. Independents and Greens and Democrats and everybody who wants the process to be honest and have integrity are in favor of one person, one vote. And I am guessing the vast majority of registered voters are in favor of showing ID at the polling place.

I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason why anybody would object to that unless they did want to be able to circumvent the process and get other than legitimate votes into the ballot box.

I am open to be persuaded otherwise though.

Some companies have gone to a computer thumb scanning system to have their workers "clock in/clock out". It makes payroll more efficient.

I wish we could have a system similar to that where a person would scan their thumb to activate the machine to vote.

Then, the computer would filter all the thumbprints, and each print would only count once. Each duplicate thumbprint after the first would be discarded along with the votes under those secondary scans.

That way no one can whine about not having an ID, and no one can vote twice.

What about arresting the individual that voted twice or more times and arrest them for voter fraud. thats a good way to stop this!!! Unless you are a new black panther intimidating voters then the Obama administration would give you a pass. How about this Hope and change?

That's what I'm thinking. I was third in line behind a lady at one general election when she almost fainted. Here we sign in beside our name and then proceed on to receive our ballot and be directed to a voting booth. When she looked to find her name, she saw her husband was already signed in. He had died 30 days before.

In most elections there wouldn't be enough fraudulent votes to make a difference, but especially here in New Mexico, many elections are decided by very small margins. It wouldn't take more than one or two dead people voting in each precinct to swing some elections.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not just Republicans. Independents and Greens and Democrats and everybody who wants the process to be honest and have integrity are in favor of one person, one vote. And I am guessing the vast majority of registered voters are in favor of showing ID at the polling place.

I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason why anybody would object to that unless they did want to be able to circumvent the process and get other than legitimate votes into the ballot box.

I am open to be persuaded otherwise though.

Some companies have gone to a computer thumb scanning system to have their workers "clock in/clock out". It makes payroll more efficient.

I wish we could have a system similar to that where a person would scan their thumb to activate the machine to vote.

Then, the computer would filter all the thumbprints, and each print would only count once. Each duplicate thumbprint after the first would be discarded along with the votes under those secondary scans.

That way no one can whine about not having an ID, and no one can vote twice.

Naw, then they'll claim that it intimidates criminals from voting.

Criminals (felons) don't get to vote.

 

[Misty]

I thought voter ID was a good idea at first but then I thought about absentee voting and figured there is no way to implement this idea.

 

[Care4all]

Do you understand that it was a "joint" stipulation?

And did you read why that happens in the definition of "dismiss" earlier i.e. lack of evidence

From the definition of "dismiss" posted earlier:



Do not tell my you think the Malone's did this simply out of the goodness of their heart.

Immie

this was dismissed on rule 41, your definition doesn't mean a thing under this dismissal immie.

The case was dismissed.

A dismissal is exactly that a dismissal.

Here is the appellate decision on the malone case, immie...

http://brennan.3cdn.net/0b316c2165c54833c4_n9m6b91t4.pdf

Check the date, Care. The dismissal came after this decision. End of story unless one of the attorneys on site tells me that the dismissal does not negate the appellate decision.

Immie

just asking you to be honest with yourself immie....you obviously can read, and you know what the decision was that the appellate court justice came to....and you also know it was NOT dismissed because of the lack of evidence.....

it was dismissed, more than likely, because the election had occurred already....

but that does not in any way diminish what the court found as FACTS.

you owe TM an apology for that....imho....but of course, that's up to the honest man in you.

Care

 

[Immanuel]

Care,

You might want to read the actual order.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Malone order.pdf

This case does not even find guilt of any crime whatsoever. What it did was state that the RNC was not allowed to use a list of 35000 names that they had prepared to invalidate votes. There is nothing illegal about preparing a list of names to challenge. The court simply denied the RNC the right to use that list. Period. The court did not find the RNC guilty of any crime whatsoever.

The court simply said that they would not allow the RNC to challenge those names. As far as I can see there was no crime or even any wrongdoing.

Show me where a crime was committed.

The court was not even looking for guilt. They simply said, that the RNC could not use the list they had created. They did not say that the RNC was guilty of a crime for making the list, just that they could not use that list to challenge votes. Period! End of Story.

No crime committed. That is all I have been saying all along. The case was dismissed because there was no crime committed.

Immie

 

[Againsheila]

Some companies have gone to a computer thumb scanning system to have their workers "clock in/clock out". It makes payroll more efficient.

I wish we could have a system similar to that where a person would scan their thumb to activate the machine to vote.

Then, the computer would filter all the thumbprints, and each print would only count once. Each duplicate thumbprint after the first would be discarded along with the votes under those secondary scans.

That way no one can whine about not having an ID, and no one can vote twice.

Naw, then they'll claim that it intimidates criminals from voting.

Criminals (felons) don't get to vote.

I think that was my point.

 

[Againsheila]

I thought voter ID was a good idea at first but then I thought about absentee voting and figured there is no way to implement this idea.

Absentee ballots are mailed to specific addresses, it's unlikely, though not impossible, that they would be hijacked. Perhaps a copy of ID being mailed in with the ballot would solve that problem?

 

[Immanuel]

this was dismissed on rule 41, your definition doesn't mean a thing under this dismissal immie.

The case was dismissed.

A dismissal is exactly that a dismissal.

Here is the appellate decision on the malone case, immie...

http://brennan.3cdn.net/0b316c2165c54833c4_n9m6b91t4.pdf

Check the date, Care. The dismissal came after this decision. End of story unless one of the attorneys on site tells me that the dismissal does not negate the appellate decision.

Immie

just asking you to be honest with yourself immie....you obviously can read, and you know what the decision was that the appellate court justice came to....and you also know it was NOT dismissed because of the lack of evidence.....

it was dismissed, more than likely, because the election had occurred already....

but that does not in any way diminish what the court found as FACTS.

you owe TM an apology for that....imho....but of course, that's up to the honest man in you.

Care

Edit: I see no guilt established in the order... those are the FACTS that she has been lying about for a long time. THE FACTS are that the court simply said "NO" like your mom telling you, no, you cannot go to Johnny's house today. "But, Why, Mom". "Because I said so, now don't ask again."

No guilt established. No wrongdoing defined. Just a plain old... NO

That has been what I have been saying all along and maybe I got off on the Dismissed, part a little too much, but the facts are evident that this was not a finding of guilt. Just the court saying NO.

Bullshit, if I owe her an apology. She has been lying about this case and the Consent Decree for a month and she has been calling me a liar for several months regarding other things.

As I have said before, there was no guilt found in that case or in the Consent Decree, but she has been lying about both of those items for months.

You don't want to know where I want to tell her to go.

Immie

 

[Mini 14]

Did anyone ever explain why democrats are less likely to have a photo ID than Republicans?