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.

 

Supreme Court says states can demand photo ID for voting

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
You have to show ID to purchase tobacco and alcohol, etc etc etc.


You have to show identification to participate in privileges. We are talking about a RIGHT. Voting is not a privilege.


With all the concern over the reliability of voting machines, why NOT the concern over those actually casting the votes


Didn't seem to matter a whole lot when the Diebold voting machines were rigged. Its still a non-issue.


Lets face it its not that big of a deal to get an ID and this is legislation that should be passed in EVERY state.


Yeah as C0le said, they NEED to be free. If citizens have to pay to vote, that's no longer a privilege.




Originally posted by Harry55
How in the world could you disagree? "Come-on" this is only fair to all. If you cannot afford to get photo I.D. You need to get a job.


Apparently you've never met a disabled person. Or a mentally ill person. Or had a serious look at the job market these days.

"Come on"? How the hell is this fair?


[edit on 4/30/2008 by biggie smalls]




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Some additional news on this subject:

Voter ruling may disenfranchise voters


"It's especially worrisome that the court has sent a signal making it easier to put up barriers to people voting," said Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school. "There's a real risk that people will see this as a green light to pass restrictive voter ID laws in other states."




Read between the lines people. This is a deliberate attempt to keep people from voting.

How is that so difficult to understand?


Dems fear photo-ID voting law fallout


Congressional Democrats and minority groups assailed Monday’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s photo-ID law as an affront to voting rights, but political realities in the states suggest that the ruling could have relatively limited impact nationwide.

Only three states — Indiana, Florida and Georgia — currently require voters to show government-issued photo IDs before stepping into the voting booth. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are considering similar requirements, but it’s not clear whether they can adopt them before the November elections.

Democratic insiders fear that a number of states, particularly in the Midwest and South, will copy the Indiana law now that the Supreme Court has upheld it. “There’s the concern for our side that it can spread, other states can do what Indiana did,” said a Democratic strategist. “You may see a lot more of this now.”



A loss for democracy, and a win for fascism.

You sold your country out. Nice job people.

[edit on 4/30/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Indiana does in fact offer free IDs:

Is it free elsewhere? Definitely not.


Well, gee, that might be why they ruled it constitutional under those circumstances. They didn't rule every state could do it without making those ID's free. I don't see it as a burden on the voter to provide ID. Neither did the court apparently. If you had bothered to read the judgement you are so upset about, you might actually know that the free id was one reason why the rule was upheld. Further you can submit a provisional ballot without ID.


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.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
They didn't rule every state could do it without making those ID's free.


...But it sets a precedent for other states to follow. Once the Supreme Court makes a decision on a ruling, its rather difficult for them to change their mind.


I don't see it as a burden on the voter to provide ID. Neither did the court apparently. If you had bothered to read the judgement you are so upset about, you might actually know that the free id was one reason why the rule was upheld. Further you can submit a provisional ballot without ID.


I've been trying to find out what states identification cards are given away, and so far I've found information ONLY on the state of Indiana.

If you had read the article, you'd understand this ruling allows other states to require photo IDs without administering free identification cards.

People are going to have to pay to vote. Sounds like democracy to me.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Oh and for those of you thinking this is going to stop voter fraud, read this and tell me there won't be more Diebold voting machine hacking:

Diebold Stock Soars After $3 Billion Takeover Bid by Defense Contractor Conglomerate United Technologies

Hm...A defense contractor buying up a voting machine company. I wonder what's going to happen...They spent over $2.5 billion so there must be some reason this collusion between the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX and the US VOTING SYSTEM is happening.

United Technologies makes bid for Diebold

Don't talk to me about fraud when electronic voting machines have cost Democrats the past 2 Presidential elections (and influenced 2 foreign invasions).


[edit on 4/30/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls

If you had read the article, you'd understand this ruling allows other states to require photo IDs without administering free identification cards.

People are going to have to pay to vote. Sounds like democracy to me.


That's exactly what the ruling did NOT say. Read the ruling please.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
All I can say is it's about time!

I used to live in the heart of a pretty big city and let me tell you there was a helluva lot of voter fraud going on, during our last presidential elections. People were going into the homeless areas and getting them to fill out voter registrations acting as if somehow they were there to help the homeless be a part of the system. What a crock of bullhonky, they were there to either get names so they could vote for the homeless illegally or they were manipulating them to vote the way they wanted them too.

Now biggie, I'm hip to the ID problems as I had my wallet stolen with my vehicle last year and it was a big pain in the butt. I had to find my Birth Certificate and then I couldn't cash a check without ID or a bank card to pay for my replacement license.(as it takes BOA two weeks for a new card) Luckily I learned about those rip off check cashing places and they let me cash it without picture ID. Then the drivers licensing place just verified me by looking at my last picture, otherwise I wouldn't have needed to jump through extra hoops.

Regardless of my difficulty - there's no doubt homeless folks would have a bigger problem then me - even if the ID's were free. However I feel that if they really want to be part of the system and vote they should take the time and jump through those hoops - otherwise they really don't care - do they?

Besides, do we really want people who've given up, are mentally ill through substance abuse or just a few marbles short voting?

Nope, I think if you want to vote a be a part of the system you need to verify who you are and jump through whatever hoops it takes to do that.

As far as felons still under state custody or supervision they can't vote. However ex- felons who have completely fulfilled their obligations, sentences, probation and restitution to the court and society can indeed vote here as they should.

If anyone has problems with the ID thing, then start a campaign just like one used to register voters and get them ID'd & registered. No biggie.




[edit on 30-4-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court's 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana's strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures. Oklahoma legislators said the decision should help them get a version approved.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Everyone should have to show ID to vote. If your illegal, a felon, or have some other reason to hide your true identity, then you don't need to be voting, period, I wish it was nation wide.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I can't remember when I didn't have to show some form of ID when voting,makes sense supposed someone stole polling card from the mail,I see no conspiracy here just precaution maybe



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join