It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge upholds Arizona Voter ID Requirement!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Just one day before the primary, a Federal Judge upheld a law that requires voters in that state to provide acceptable ID before casting ballots or registering to vote.


PHOENIX, Sept. 11 -- A federal judge declined Monday to block a law that requires Arizona voters to present identification before casting a ballot.

U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver's order came a day before Tuesday's primary, the first statewide election for which voters will be required to show identification. The law has already been used in some municipal elections

The 2004 law requires that voters at polling places produce government-issued picture ID or two pieces of other non-photo identification specified by the law. It also requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

ID, please.



The decision was opposed by the usual gamut of lame excuses:


  • It would "disenfranchise" voters, particularly minorities and the elderly
  • It would be burdensome in time, money and effort
  • it hinders voter registration drives


I agree with the Secretary of State, who successfully and correctly argued that it was an important step in fighting election fraud.

This was a good decision. The same type of bill has been proposed in other states, such as Georgia, where state officials have gone so far as to offer to drive to your house to deliver a valid ID, free of charge. Still, those who rely on using illegal voters to stuff their vote tallys objected to it. Go figure.




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
This is excellent news. I hope more states follow suit, why wouldn't you have some form of ID? You can't get a job without one, it should be the same to vote.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Amen. It's about bloody time. A federal judge with some stones, what a concept. If he is a she, obviously I meant that in a strictly metaphorical sense
.

In what way does this decision disenfranchise a legal registered voter? I simply don't see it.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
In what way does this decision disenfranchise a legal registered voter? I simply don't see it.

I wish someone would explain this to me also. Here's the definition:



dis‧fran‧chise  /dɪsˈfræntʃaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-fran-chahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -chised, -chis‧ing.
1. to deprive (a person) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote.
2. to deprive of a franchise, privilege, or right.


Definition


Nobody is being deprived of their right to register or vote. In fact, their rights are being made more secure by this ruling.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Disenfrak....
Disenfrench...

Oh the Heck with it!!!!


Websters Conservative Dictionary:

A word that describes the Liberal excuse for losing an election.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Soory I could not resist.

Word Web actually gives the definition as "Deprive of Voting Right."

My question is when is it that we gave Non-Citizens the right to vote and influence elections in this country?
That is what it is all about isn't it? Why else would anyone really, REALLY have an objection to showing an Identification?

Semper



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join