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.

 

SCOTUS: AZ Voters Must Show ID To Vote November 7th

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I doubt very much if taxes would need to be raised to pay for the new ID's. Even if they did, which I doubt, it would be a worthwhile expenditure.

You actually hinted at one possible answer to the question in your reply: we can cut back on many of the unnecessary expenditures and use some of the savings to pay for them.




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I doubt very much if taxes would need to be raised to pay for the new ID's. Even if they did, which I doubt, it would be a worthwhile expenditure.


I think the assumption this will entail more costs is not relevant since the majority of US Citizens already have the required IDs. As I see it all that would need to be done is draft laws similar to arizonas prop 200 which state

Sorry for the all caps but this is the exact way it is shown on the Propositon


F. THE COUNTY RECORDER SHALL REJECT ANY
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION THAT IS NOT
ACCOMPANIED BY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP. SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE
OF CITIZENSHIP SHALL INCLUDE ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:

1. THE NUMBER OF THE APPLICANT'S DRIVER
LICENSE OR NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION
LICENSE ISSUED AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1996 BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OR THE EQUIVALENT
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF ANOTHER STATE
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IF THE AGENCY INDICATES
ON THE APPLICANT'S DRIVER LICENSE OR
NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE THAT THE
PERSON HAS PROVIDED SATISFACTORY PROOF OF
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.

2. A LEGIBLE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICANT'S
BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT VERIFIES CITIZENSHIP TO
THE SATISFACTION OF THE COUNTY RECORDER.

3. A LEGIBLE PHOTOCOPY OF PERTINENT PAGES OF
THE APPLICANT'S UNITED STATES PASSPORT IDENTIFYING
THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S PASSPORT
NUMBER OR PRESENTATION TO THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF THE APPLICANT'S UNITED STATES
PASSPORT.

4. A PRESENTATION TO THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
THE APPLICANT'S UNITED STATES NATURALIZATION
DOCUMENTS OR THE NUMBER OF THE CERTIFICATE
OF NATURALIZATION. IF ONLY THE NUMBER OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION IS PROVIDED, THE
APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRATION
ROLLS UNTIL THE NUMBER OF THE CERTIFICATE
OF NATURALIZATION IS VERIFIED WITH THE
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE BY THE COUNTY RECORDER.

5. OTHER DOCUMENTS OR METHODS OF PROOF THAT
ARE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE IMMIGRATION
REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986.

6. THE APPLICANT'S BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
CARD NUMBER, TRIBAL TREATY CARD NUMBER OR
TRIBAL ENROLLMENT NUMBER.

G. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION F OF THIS SECTION,
ANY PERSON WHO IS REGISTERED IN THIS
STATE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT
TO THIS SECTION IS DEEMED TO HAVE PROVIDED
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP AND
SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO RESUBMIT EVIDENCE
OF CITIZENSHIP UNLESS THE PERSON IS CHANGING
VOTER REGISTRATION FROM ONE COUNTY TO
ANOTHER.

H. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, PROOF OF
VOTER REGISTRATION FROM ANOTHER STATE OR
COUNTY IS NOT SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP.

I. A PERSON WHO MODIFIES VOTER REGISTRATION
RECORDS WITH A NEW RESIDENCE BALLOT SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP.
AFTER CITIZENSHIP HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED
TO THE COUNTY RECORDER, THE PERSON IS NOT
REQUIRED TO RESUBMIT SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE
OF CITIZENSHIP IN THAT COUNTY.

J. AFTER A PERSON HAS SUBMITTED SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP, THE COUNTY RECORDER
SHALL INDICATE THIS INFORMATION IN THE PERSON'S
PERMANENT VOTER FILE. AFTER TWO YEARS
THE COUNTY RECORDER MAY DESTROY ALL DOCUMENTS
THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP.

PDF Doc for those
that want to read the whole thing


Note I did add some CR for easier reading that is all.

and once those requirements of citzenship are met everyone can vote. assuming of course they already have a state ID or DL that is. Now I may or may not have missed other important points, that is why I linked to the whole article for complete clarity.

I highly reccomend reading the whole PDF files or atleast the ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL since there are other conditions that have to be met by employers etc. I think there is more to the proposition then just voting alone but again I could be wrong.





[edit on 10/22/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I doubt very much if taxes would need to be raised to pay for the new ID's. Even if they did, which I doubt, it would be a worthwhile expenditure.

You actually hinted at one possible answer to the question in your reply: we can cut back on many of the unnecessary expenditures and use some of the savings to pay for them.


the problem is we barrow a bunch of money we dont have, then we say "we can cut back and use the money we are saving from cutting back" when in reality, the money still doesn't exist. If we cut back, we wouldn't be saving anything, just spending less of what we don't have.

Right now we need a massive government reform, and being a libertarian I believe that almost all programs should be privatized, BUT this is one of the few things I think taxes should be used for.

Privatizing something that has to do directly with government (voting), would not work out. Its the governments job to protect the people's rights, and that includes voting. We pay taxes to ensure our vote counts by getting rid of voter fraud.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the problem is we barrow a bunch of money we dont have, then we say "we can cut back and use the money we are saving from cutting back" when in reality, the money still doesn't exist. If we cut back, we wouldn't be saving anything, just spending less of what we don't have.

Well, I can't argue with that, since it's true.
But you gotta start somewhere.


Right now we need a massive government reform, and being a libertarian I believe that almost all programs should be privatized, BUT this is one of the few things I think taxes should be used for.

While I'm in general agreement with privatization (and the libertarian philosophy, btw), there is a large contingent in the US who see it as another example of creeping corporatism.


Privatizing something that has to do directly with government (voting), would not work out. Its the governments job to protect the people's rights, and that includes voting. We pay taxes to ensure our vote counts by getting rid of voter fraud.

I could argue either side of that. But once again, I'm in general agreement.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, I can't argue with that, since it's true.
But you gotta start somewhere.


I think its a main priority that we secure our vote, but it simply cannot be done until we cut all these programs that the government is not suppose to be funding.

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." Thomas Jefferson

I think we can all appriciate that quote in this day and age.



While I'm in general agreement with privatization (and the libertarian philosophy, btw), there is a large contingent in the US who see it as another example of creeping corporatism.


I think this is largely due to a lack of understanding. The system makes people feel that they are so helpless and that they are but one person, which allows corporations to take advantage without worry. I use to believe corporations ran government. That was until I got a nice little Political Ideology/businesses affiliation lesson which lasted about 4 hours. Call it a conversation, but I hardly said a thing, I was too busy listening with great interest.

anyway, afterwards I realized that corporations, much like government, obtain any and all power by the people (consumers). These people allow corporations to exist. United we stand, divided we fall remember?

I think a simple educational course could clear up a great deal of misunderstanding. Of course that will never exist because the course in itself is about how to have the people control business, rather then some rich men in the 500 richest people list.



I could argue either side of that. But once again, I'm in general agreement.


Yes, but overall there is no reason to privatize it since its directly related to government. If it were like driver licenses or something, then yes, private would be the way to go since it has to do with roads and such, not government.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
"Opponents say that the ID requirement imposes an extra burden on minorities, the poor and the elderly, who are less likely than other citizens to have a driver's license, the most common form of state-issued photo ID. Opponents say that because states charge fees for photo IDs, requiring one to vote is tantamount to an unconstitutional poll tax."


Can't they use their AFDC cards as ID.If they don't have a drivers license,why do they drive? As far as charging a fee,they have to pay for a fake ID,what's the problem?



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join