Section 4 of the VRA found unconsitutional

[Trajan]

There's an easy way to satisfy Liberals' angst over the mechanics of Voter ID...

Rig-up easy-to-access, State-paid assistance for those who cannot comply on their own...

If you cannot afford the $X ID-card fee, then, call the State Voter Help Line, and apply for a State -provided ID Card Cost Waiver which all issuing agencies must honor...

If you cannot travel to an issuing agency location, call the State Voter Help Line and apply for State assistance to (1) visit your home, (2) help you fill out your application, (3) collect your documents, and (4) scan, then FAX or Email them to the issuing Agency using mobile technology, and (5) return the originals to your possession before leaving the premises...

If you cannot produce the necessary documentation, then call the State Voter Help Line and apply for a State Status Investigation, which examines your status and whatever supporting documentation and testimony that you DO have, obtains a free notarized and sealed birth certificate for you where available, and which investigates all claims of attending school and the like, then, if the Investigation Team is satisfied, issues a Citizenship Acknowledgment Certificate which by law would carry the same weight for purposes of proving citizenship as would a notarized, sealed birth certificate...

And, of course, there can be a State-level Board of Review or Board of Appeals, to keep the local-yokels honest...

And, with respect to both the cost of ID-Cards and inability to travel to an issuing agency, when you apply, you must first fill-out the appropriate forms and prove that your circumstances (income, health, etc.) may reasonably be judged as a good reason for receiving State help for such things...

It'll add something to the cost of such programming but it will (a) weed-out the bull$hitters and (b) allow folks who really need the help to remain fully enfranchised despite their unfortunate circumstances and (c) neutralize Liberal objections about cost and hardship and (d) preserve the true intention - to weed-out Illegal Aliens, voter fraud, etc. and (e) create some new jobs while making State Government a bit more responsive to their People's needs.

It'll never happen, mind you, but I thought it was a Grand Idea and couldn't resist blurting it out...

Voter ID is a solution in search of an imaginary problem in order to put a patina of legitimacy over a naked attempt to disenfranchise the poor.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced the judgment of the court and wrote an opinion in which Chief John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy joined, alluded to — and brushed aside — complaints that the law benefits Republicans and works against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html?_r=0



In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."


Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daveman]

There's an easy way to satisfy Liberals' angst over the mechanics of Voter ID...

Rig-up easy-to-access, State-paid assistance for those who cannot comply on their own...

If you cannot afford the $X ID-card fee, then, call the State Voter Help Line, and apply for a State -provided ID Card Cost Waiver which all issuing agencies must honor...

If you cannot travel to an issuing agency location, call the State Voter Help Line and apply for State assistance to (1) visit your home, (2) help you fill out your application, (3) collect your documents, and (4) scan, then FAX or Email them to the issuing Agency using mobile technology, and (5) return the originals to your possession before leaving the premises...

If you cannot produce the necessary documentation, then call the State Voter Help Line and apply for a State Status Investigation, which examines your status and whatever supporting documentation and testimony that you DO have, obtains a free notarized and sealed birth certificate for you where available, and which investigates all claims of attending school and the like, then, if the Investigation Team is satisfied, issues a Citizenship Acknowledgment Certificate which by law would carry the same weight for purposes of proving citizenship as would a notarized, sealed birth certificate...

And, of course, there can be a State-level Board of Review or Board of Appeals, to keep the local-yokels honest...

And, with respect to both the cost of ID-Cards and inability to travel to an issuing agency, when you apply, you must first fill-out the appropriate forms and prove that your circumstances (income, health, etc.) may reasonably be judged as a good reason for receiving State help for such things...

It'll add something to the cost of such programming but it will (a) weed-out the bull$hitters and (b) allow folks who really need the help to remain fully enfranchised despite their unfortunate circumstances and (c) neutralize Liberal objections about cost and hardship and (d) preserve the true intention - to weed-out Illegal Aliens, voter fraud, etc. and (e) create some new jobs while making State Government a bit more responsive to their People's needs.

It'll never happen, mind you, but I thought it was a Grand Idea and couldn't resist blurting it out...

Voter ID is a solution in search of an imaginary problem in order to put a patina of legitimacy over a naked attempt to disenfranchise the poor.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced the judgment of the court and wrote an opinion in which Chief John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy joined, alluded to — and brushed aside — complaints that the law benefits Republicans and works against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html?_r=0



In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."


Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't matter. White liberals have decreed that blacks are too stupid to obtain ID.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

 

[ClosedCaption]

 

[Spoonman]

Voter ID is a solution in search of an imaginary problem in order to put a patina of legitimacy over a naked attempt to disenfranchise the poor.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced the judgment of the court and wrote an opinion in which Chief John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy joined, alluded to — and brushed aside — complaints that the law benefits Republicans and works against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html?_r=0



In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."


Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't matter. White liberals have decreed that blacks are too stupid to obtain ID.

really, lets hope a black never wants to buy a gun

 

[Spoonman]

didn't gay marriage just pass?

 

[daveman]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[Zarius]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

How is that a lie?

 

[Avatar4321]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

No that's not what the rulling means at all. you havent even attempted to refute what others are pointing out the ruling to mean.

There is nothing preventing congress from updating standards.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

How is that a lie?

Simple, it's not what the decision says.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Why do you think asking that question somehow gets you off the hook for lying about what the decision says?

 

[martybegan]

Yes, I have a question. Why are you lying?

How is that a lie?

Find me a single person whos voting rights were removed due explicitly to this court decsion.

 

[Zarius]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

No that's not what the rulling means at all. you havent even attempted to refute what others are pointing out the ruling to mean.

There is nothing preventing congress from updating standards.

Not true. Tea Party racism IS preventing it. The damn tea party hates VRA.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x_aFH7JDYU]Racist Exposed # 3: His Channel is 'GradyWarren' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Spoonman]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

funny how liberal hypocrites claim requiring and id to vote infringes on a constitutional right but for the constitutional right of owning a gun they want an ID, background checks. limits put on who can own, what they can own, where they can use them, the right to be stripped of the individual has a mental issue. Imagine if we applied all of that to voting.

 

[martybegan]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

Because the overriding goal of any gun control proponent is to eventually ban private ownership of firearms, and you know it.

If a person is valid to vote I have no issue with them voting. I don't want someone who shouldnt be voting due to a valid restriction on said right ever setting foot in a ballot box.

Right now we can tell felons from non felons when it comes to guns because you do have to pass a background check. The same should be applied to voting.

 

[Zarius]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

Because the overriding goal of any gun control proponent is to eventually ban private ownership of firearms, and you know it.

If a person is valid to vote I have no issue with them voting. I don't want someone who shouldnt be voting due to a valid restriction on said right ever setting foot in a ballot box.

Right now we can tell felons from non felons when it comes to guns because you do have to pass a background check. The same should be applied to voting.

And the ultimate goal of tea repubs is a return to 1963. No one is fooled.

 

[martybegan]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

Because the overriding goal of any gun control proponent is to eventually ban private ownership of firearms, and you know it.

If a person is valid to vote I have no issue with them voting. I don't want someone who shouldnt be voting due to a valid restriction on said right ever setting foot in a ballot box.

Right now we can tell felons from non felons when it comes to guns because you do have to pass a background check. The same should be applied to voting.

And the ultimate goal of tea repubs is a return to 1963. No one is fooled.

So i guess you have zero problems with people who shouldnt be voting voting?

Of course you wouldnt, because 99% are leeches like you.

 

[Avatar4321]

What the ruling means is quite simply voter suppression will continue and accelerate. The Four Republican Justices and the Republican Chief Justice set back voting 'rights' to the 1950's. Next we can expect Alabama or another Southern State to challenge Brown v. the Board of Ed.

No that's not what the rulling means at all. you havent even attempted to refute what others are pointing out the ruling to mean.

There is nothing preventing congress from updating standards.

Not true. Tea Party racism IS preventing it. The damn tea party hates VRA.

The Tea party isnt racist. The Tea Party includes people of all races united together to protect their civil rights under the Constitution and advocating for sane fiscal policy, like not spending mone we don't have. Race isnt a component to anything the Tea Party stands for.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When you speak of voter suppression or some new laws to slow up voters Repubs don't care UNTIL you mention gun control and slowing that process then suddenly "Slow ups and Hurdles" are a big deal.

See how that works? The question is why?

funny how liberal hypocrites claim requiring and id to vote infringes on a constitutional right but for the constitutional right of owning a gun they want an ID, background checks. limits put on who can own, what they can own, where they can use them, the right to be stripped of the individual has a mental issue. Imagine if we applied all of that to voting.

Funny how that goes both ways huh.