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 law

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
A Federal Judge yesterday refused to block a law that would require potential voters to provide acceptable forms of ID before they cast their ballots. It also required proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

 



www.washingtonpost.com
Associated Press
Tuesday, September 12, 2006; Page A06


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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The decision was opposed by challengers who cited the usual gamut of reasons:

It would "disenfranchise" voters, especially minorities and the elderly
It would be costly and time consuming
It would hinder voter registration

I never understood the "disenfranchisement" argument. As for the other arguments, I point to efforts for a similar law in Georgia. In that state, the gov't will deliver an acceptable ID to your house, free of charge. So there is no excuse for challenging the law.

Laws such as this will go a long way in preventing voter fraud, and I totally support it.

Related News Links:
www.lati mes.com
jurist.law.pitt.edu

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...



apc

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   
We're having a similar court issue here in Missouri.

I think the big hooplah is a particular group will no longer be able to cry fraud while simultaneously letting dead people vote. A shame, really.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I live in GA and I have not gotten anything in the mail yet and has been given no information on any IDs for voting.

I wonder what is going on.

It was also a big deal with the mandatory IDs here but I don't have a clue as what happen, it was contested that I know.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I too live in GA, and have for several years now, had to present a picture ID in order to vote. I've never had a problem with it, even think it's a reasonable idea, tho I know some who have been literally incensed over it.......?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I like the idea of the law. It would be better than most of the other law, and can't see why they would like to block such a law oh well it happen.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I dont see the problem either.

Whenever I vote, they always ask for my ID and check me off the list to show I showed up.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I don't get it either. How else are they going to know that I'm me, and not my brother or someone else. Since I think that voting is a scam anyway, I don't think showing an ID is in any way hindering freedom or anything.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Well, here was the original decision from GA:


In a case that some have called a showdown over voting rights, a U.S. appeals court yesterday upheld an injunction barring the state of Georgia from enforcing a law requiring citizens to get government-issued photo identification in order to vote.

The ruling allows thousands of Georgians who do not have government-issued identification, such as driver's licenses and passports, to vote in the Nov. 8 municipal elections without obtaining a special digital identification card, which costs $20 for five years. In prior elections, Georgians could use any one of 17 types of identification that show the person's name and address, including a driver's license, utility bill, bank statement or a paycheck, to gain access to a voting booth.
:
But critics say that many potential voters do not have the required documents and that some could not afford the $20 processing fee for identification.

ID



OK, so I can see not having the $20. But then the state fixed that problem with this:


Georgia law now provides for the issuance of a free identification card to citizens over age eighteen (18) who are registered voters. In order to be eligible for a free identification card, the voter must have no acceptable proof of identity to use when voting. These free identification cards are issued at all Customer Service Centers and are valid for ten (10) years.
Free card


So now there is no excuse, imo, to not have voter ID.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Every American should support this to deter voter fraud. If I was making the decisions, you'd have to show a passport to be able to vote; that's the most legitimate document that proves you're a U.S. citizen.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I'd back it if it also included a provision banning any form of electronic voting that isn't a) open source or b) doesn't leave a physical paper trail


As it is, it seems to be a way of discouraging the poor from voting and ensuring that right-wing forms of vote fraud (voting machines with backdoors installed by the manufacturer) enjoy a competitive advantage against left wing forms of vote fraud ("vote early and often!" as they used to joke when I lived in Philly).



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I tell you something I have no problem with showing my drivers license, military ID card or social security card, but getting a passport to be able to vote, that is just pushing to much.

I use to issue passports when I was working for the AAA of America, and anybody could issue them, the same way that anybody can buy a drivers license, birth certificate or social security card.

Now how come that kind of fraud is not address often enough.

BTW the biggest fraud to our voting system is the electronic voting machines Itself.


apc

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
It's been shot down here in Missouri...

www.kansascity.com...



JEFFERSON CITY | A Cole County judge Thursday tossed out a new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying the measure violated Missourians’ fundamental right to vote.

In his ruling, Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said that unlike photo ID laws in other states, Missouri’s law offers voters few alternatives to getting a state-issued ID, placing most of the burden to comply with the requirement on voters.



Too bad...



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
It's been shot down here in Missouri...
Too bad...

It may still be appealed. Some other interesting info from your source:


Proponents of the photo ID law, who said it would help prevent voter fraud, pointed out that it required the state to issue free non-driver’s license photo ID cards to those unable to obtain driver’s licenses.


BUT...


“The fact that the state does not charge for the non-driver license itself … does not avoid the constitutional issue or economic reality that voters will have to ‘buy’ numerous government documents to get the ‘free’ photo ID to qualify for the privilege of voting,” Callahan wrote.


And the source also contained this update from Georgia:


Also Thursday, a federal judge in Georgia blocked the state from enforcing its voter ID law during special elections next week. Georgia’s law requires voters show a valid form of government-issued ID. If they don’t have one, voters can obtain a free voter ID card.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
It is interesting to note that in many, if not all, of these cases, it is the Democrats who oppose the law and Republicans who support it. Why is that? What can we deduce from this observation? Hmm....


apc

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Wellll there are some liberal Republicans (jumbo shrimp?) who don't support it.

But aside from all those "guests" of ours who don't have any ID, and all those dead people who would have trouble renewing theirs... nah I can't think of any reason for the partison divide.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I'm a democrat and I am in total support of this type of law .. wish we had it here in California. Last time I went to vote they had "lost" my information at the local poll ... so they just wrote me in and gave me my ballots ... didn't ask for any identification or anything!



Originally posted by apc
Wellll there are some liberal Republicans (jumbo shrimp?) who don't support it.

But aside from all those "guests" of ours who don't have any ID, and all those dead people who would have trouble renewing theirs... nah I can't think of any reason for the partison divide.


apc

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Yes as I implied there are those from both parties who disagree with their respective majorities. However in general this is clearly a partisan issue.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
It is interesting to note that in many, if not all, of these cases, it is the Democrats who oppose the law and Republicans who support it. Why is that? What can we deduce from this observation? Hmm....


I can deduce your making an issue out of something that isn't and bringing up political backrounds as a way to derail the issue at hand by turning it into "its the democrats/republicans fault" (depending on whether your democrat or republican). Other then that, not much.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I can deduce your making an issue out of something that isn't and bringing up political backrounds as a way to derail the issue at hand by turning it into "its the democrats/republicans fault" (depending on whether your democrat or republican). Other then that, not much.

It exists, it is true, and it has very much to do with the issue at hand. And your snide remarks belong in Slug-Fest or some other mudslinging forum.

It also seems to be a goal of the Democratic party:


FILING LITIGATION TO BLOCK LEGISLATION: The DNC will work with state parties to file litigation to prevent imposition of egregious photo ID and other Republican sponsored legislation that disenfranchise voters. This follows the successful partnership the DNC has undertaken with state parties pursuing legal challenges to, for example, Indiana's voter ID law and to the effort to investigate the criminal phone-jamming scheme in New Hampshire.

www.democrats.org...


[edit on 16-9-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
ok so then republicans support the law and the democrats are against it. Whats your point for bringing it up? is there something more then that, because you didnt say it in your post, so Im going off of that. I never once said anything about it being a democratic or republican issue, you did. Now you should explain WHY, because you obviously didn't in your last post.

if you say what you did, then just leave it at that, well your going to get the response you just did. Don't want that type of response, maybe you should explain WHY you brought up the fact democrats dont support it and republicans support it.

You asked what can I deduce? Well since thats the ONLY statement you made in your post, I made that response. Seemed reasonable since you didnt give any reason as to why you would say what you did.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by grimreaper797]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join