Why Do "Desperate Democrats" Strongly Appose Voter Photo I.D. Requirement For 2012 ?

[Care4all]

Are you really this stupid? it is a rhetorical question.

Buying/Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Explain from your perspective as a fascist, why one constitutional right should require ID to exercise yet another should not?


Standard Disclaimer: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

this thread op said this was about gvt photo id's, not just id's.

it's you that is skirting the issue at hand!

does your state require a gvt issued photo id, in order to buy a gun uncensored?

 

[Foxfyre]

But the OP didn't specify federal government photo I.D. All I want from the Federal government is a law with teeth and substantial penalties for any person who votes illegally for any federal office and giving the states authority to enforce it. Plus I want the federal government to encourage the states and municipalities to follow suit including photo ID for those who vote.

The best suggestion I've seen so far is to issue the person a photo voter registration card when they register to vote and have them sign an affidavit that they will vote only in their assigned precinct and will be expected to re-register if they move out of that precinct.

That should make it very difficult to cheat the system.

 

[Uncensored2008]

this thread op said this was about gvt photo id's, not just id's.

You need a government photo ID to buy a gun,

it's you that is skirting the issue at hand!

In what way? If ID to exercise a constitutional right is acceptable in one case, why not the other? If ID does not infringe 2nd amendment rights, it's spurious to claim it infringes 15th amendment rights.

does your state require a gvt issued photo id, in order to buy a gun uncensored?

Yes, and so does the federal government. I posted the law a few pages back.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

Let's assume Romney Or Cain (if not both on the same ticket) win in 2012 by 8/9 points. All red and purple states go for the GOP. Will the left accuse all "Red Governors" of rigging the election? I would say yes. The NAACP will declare that all Republicans involved with monitoring their precincts are racists. Red Governors will be accused of tossing out 1/2 of the ballots that went for Obama. Does anyone agree? and especially if Obama loses the average state by 5 to 10 points. Then the Flash Mobs will have an excuse to rob more Sears and Wal-Mart stores.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

Let's assume Obama is still at 35% Approval in September 2012. Remember in 2008 when he financed the relocation of young adults to move to Ohio in time to register to vote? Did any of you hear of how Obama rigged the Iowa caucus? I did. From a very reliable source.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

what are the root causes of voter discrepancies?

the deceased are not removed from the registry. this is a process issue. a notification action between agencies is required.

illegals are voting. how? because the registrars data is not nationLly networked.

multiple votes are cast. same as above.

i see lack of event triggers, antiquated process and outdated data ... all of which will remain at play and so lets throw a new element into the mix...id's?

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

I heard they tried to pull this stunt in New York state (don't remember what town) but in the end they were caught!! someone {if not a group of cronies} were mailing in votes from dead people/and/or created fake residents. Then again, what do you expect from a deep blue district that starts seeing red in the polls?

 

[Londoner]

Actually, no - it was rendered impossible the fact that only the FL legislature can write/create election law and the standards contained within, and that election law cannot be changed -durung- an election.

Are you saying that that the Florida legislature is not bound by judicial review under the Florida Constitution, of which the Florida Supreme Court is the final arbiter?

 

[NoNukes]

Are you really this stupid? it is a rhetorical question.

Buying/Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Explain from your perspective as a fascist, why one constitutional right should require ID to exercise yet another should not?


Standard Disclaimer: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

You asked why it should be more difficult to get a gun than to vote. Do you really need this to be explained to you?
It is not EVERYONE'S constitutional right to buy/own a gun. There are people who are not permitted to buy them.

 

[Londoner]

Differing machines/ballots matters not a whit, so long as the evaluation of the ballots is consistent within the type of machine/ballot used. Regardless of the means of castng a bllot, if the law allows for county A and county B to evaluate their same-method ballots differently, then equal protection has been denied. That's exactly what happened in FL.

Equal protection ended the day voters from different counties, on different machine types, were subject to vastly different error rates. Indeed, if different counties treat votes differently during the original voting phase, why the hubbub during the contest phase? On the other hand, if Equal Protection really does matter, why wouldn't we use this ruling to seek equal treatment within a given state, form county to county, during every phase of the voting process - by having say uniform machines, etc. (This is not rhetorical or flippant; it's a genuine attempt to inquire how important this clause is to those who value it. Why wouldn't we want everyone in Florida to have the same chance of their vote getting counted? Why would we subject voters to different types of voting machines with different error rates - meaning: why would we tolerate a situation where a voter in county A has a 30% higher chance of not having their vote counted than someone in county B? Where is the activism around this vital constitutional standard? After the Supreme Court ruling, I was expecting a groundswell)

I still don't quite understand why they did not send the case back to FSC for another crack at defining voter intent. Surely this is the proper domain of the Florida Supreme Court, who is charged with interpreting the law. There is already wording in the Florida election code that provides for the manual counting of damaged ballots. The voter intent standard is found in case law going back to the 30s. It's not like this stuff was simply being made-up. That is, if something as important as the presidency hangs in the balance, why not do everything possible to ensure that every possible vote - where intent can be clearly measured - is counted?

 

[Intense]

But the OP didn't specify federal government photo I.D. All I want from the Federal government is a law with teeth and substantial penalties for any person who votes illegally for any federal office and giving the states authority to enforce it. Plus I want the federal government to encourage the states and municipalities to follow suit including photo ID for those who vote.

The best suggestion I've seen so far is to issue the person a photo voter registration card when they register to vote and have them sign an affidavit that they will vote only in their assigned precinct and will be expected to re-register if they move out of that precinct.

That should make it very difficult to cheat the system.

Exactly. This is not about National ID Cards at all. It is about Valid State ID's or Passport ID in relation to Registering to Vote or Voting.

 

[Jarhead]

Are you really this stupid? it is a rhetorical question.

Buying/Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Explain from your perspective as a fascist, why one constitutional right should require ID to exercise yet another should not?


Standard Disclaimer: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

You asked why it should be more difficult to get a gun than to vote. Do you really need this to be explained to you?
It is not EVERYONE'S constitutional right to buy/own a gun. There are people who are not permitted to buy them.

And there are people living in the United States that are not permitted to vote...

SO what is the difference?

 

[Uncensored2008]

did you say something, freak?

You shit on my carpet again, you mindless skank.

I understand why, you're WAY too fucking stupid to debate toe to toe in the open forum.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, no - it was rendered impossible the fact that only the FL legislature can write/create election law and the standards contained within, and that election law cannot be changed -durung- an election.

Are you saying that that the Florida legislature is not bound by judicial review under the Florida Constitution, of which the Florida Supreme Court is the final arbiter?

The FLSC can 'review' the constitutionaliity of FL election law all it wants. What it cannot do is -change- that law or make -new- law.

Changing the statndard set by the law is, well, a change in the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Differing machines/ballots matters not a whit, so long as the evaluation of the ballots is consistent within the type of machine/ballot used. Regardless of the means of castng a bllot, if the law allows for county A and county B to evaluate their same-method ballots differently, then equal protection has been denied. That's exactly what happened in FL.

Equal protection ended the day voters from different counties, on different types of machines, were subject to vastly different error rates.

False. So long as the evaluation of these ballots are consistent across the varyinbg means of voting, EP is preserved. Your argument is a hed herring.

I still don't quite understand why they did not send the case back to FSC for another crack at defining voter intent.

Constitutionally, this can only be defined by legislation, which is the sole purview of the FL legislature. You cannot force the legislature to pass legislation, and you cannot change election law -during- the electin.

 

[Londoner]

I still don't quite understand why they did not send the case back to FSC for another crack at defining voter intent.

Constitutionally, this can only be defined by legislation, which is the sole purview of the FL legislature. You cannot force the legislature to pass legislation, and you cannot change election law -during- the electin.

I think this is a fair point. But if Florida Election law explicitly provides the "voter intent" standard for manual recounts, than you would think the Florida Supreme Court should be appropriate body to interpret "voter intent". Seems like we should revisit the Florida election code that controls how canvassing boards should count votes - specifically section 101.5614(5) which concerns "damaged or defective" ballots, which declares that "no vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board". AND section 102.166(7)(b), which governs manual recounts and provides that “f a counting team [conducting a manual recount] is unable to determine a voter’s intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter’s intent.”

The voter intent standard has been in Florida case law going back to the 30's. The legislature has made no attempt to tighten the wording to make it more compatible with the 14th Amendment. One would think the Florida Legislature - after 2000 - would make this a priority. Why has there been no attempt by the legislature to revisit the Florida election code if this is a real issue?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I still don't quite understand why they did not send the case back to FSC for another crack at defining voter intent.

Constitutionally, this can only be defined by legislation, which is the sole purview of the FL legislature. You cannot force the legislature to pass legislation, and you cannot change election law -during- the electin.

I think this is a fair point. But if Florida Election law explicitly provides the "voter intent" standard for manual recounts, than you would think the Florida Supreme Court would be able to interpret "voter intent"

It's a change in the law. The law cannot be changed - during- the election.

The voter intent standard has been in Florida case law going back to the 30's. The legislature has made no attempt to tighten the wording to make it more compatible with the 14th Amendment. One would think the Florida Legislature - after 2000 - would make this a priority.

Irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

It wouldn't surprise me if very deep blue districts within a purple state, run by democrats would allow anyone to vote, even if that individual barely spoke english and his/her only ID's were a library card and an electricity bill of their spouses who's last name was "Rodrigues" or "Smith",,,,,yes, yes, Cee! dat iz my husbands name on thee beel.

 

[Londoner]

The law cannot be changed - during- the election.

No, but it can be interpreted.

Irrelevant to the issue.

True.

 

[jillian]

It wouldn't surprise me if very deep blue districts within a purple state, run by democrats would allow anyone to vote, even if that individual barely spoke english and his/her only ID's were a library card and an electricity bill of their spouses who's last name was "Rodrigues" or "Smith",,,,,yes, yes, Cee! dat iz my husbands name on thee beel.

NY is "deep blue?" really? someone needs to tell pataki and giuliani and turner ....quick!

just because you pretend something is true... doesn't make it so. but thanks for the little racist BS.