Switch Theme:

Federal Courts backs new limits on new VoterID laws  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Nervous Accuser




South Carolina

I grew up in NC and i think it's about time they started requiring IDs. It's way too easy in NC to vote multiple times. They whole argument was that it would make thinks harder for poor people and minorities. Well if that's the case these same groups are usually the same ones who are on some sort of government assistance, and you have to show ID to sign up for that. IDs are free. Don't tell me it makes it hard for them to vote. It makes it harder for people to cast multiple votes.

The last time I voted in NC, I wet to the table, told the old guy my name, and he looked me up in a big book and made a note with a pencil. The same flipping book is in all the libraries that had early voting. I literally could go vote at those places too. When I voted last time in SC, I had to show my voter ID card and they checked me off in a computer that was connected to the state system.

I personally think they should get rid of early voting. It just makes it easier for fraud to occur.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/12 09:29:49


 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

The best part of this thread is that it's going to have all the same arguments as several times before and literally anything else someone could do would be a better use of their time, anything at all.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Raven911 wrote:
It makes it harder for people to cast multiple votes.


No it doesn't. Seriously, just read your own anecdote and tell me where exactly having a stricter ID requirement would make any difference. You're describing a problem with different voting sites failing to communicate with each other and take a person off every site's list once they have voted, not a failure to make sure that the person asking to vote is actually who they claim to be.

The last time I voted in NC, I wet to the table, told the old guy my name, and he looked me up in a big book and made a note with a pencil. The same flipping book is in all the libraries that had early voting. I literally could go vote at those places too. When I voted last time in SC, I had to show my voter ID card and they checked me off in a computer that was connected to the state system.


Can you confirm that all of your multiple votes would be counted? Or are you dismissing the possibility that someone would compare the two (or more) books, observe that you have voted multiple times, toss your ballots in the trash, and give you some time in prison to think about the wisdom of committing election fraud in such an obvious way?

And once you've confirmed that, can you provide any evidence that people are successfully voting in multiple locations often enough to make any difference in the outcomes of elections?

I personally think they should get rid of early voting. It just makes it easier for fraud to occur.


No it doesn't. The only thing that gets "easier" is that multiple days of voting makes it easier to travel to multiple locations, but election-day voting is long enough for a person to travel to every voting location in their district. Plus, this fraud is still hypothetical, even the advocates of these laws haven't been able to provide any evidence that it actually happens with any meaningful frequency.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

Virginia also uses a big book of names that they cross off when you come in to vote. As far as I know, your name is only on the eligible voter list in your precinct so going to another polling place to cast another vote would get you nowhere.

So instead of these ridiculous anecdotes about "your neighbor's parents" or what you think can be done, how about providing evidence that these laws are solving a problem that is crippling American democracy.

 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:


Tell that to your fellow gun owners. There is absolutely no chance that there will ever be a "gun owner registry" containing the names of everyone who is approved to own a gun, so you might as well talk about a magical fantasy world in which guns don't exist at all.


Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but what I'm reading his statement as is a list of "people eligible to own firearms" not a list of "people who own firearms" which are two completely different ideas. One would basically mean if you're eligible to vote, you're probably eligible to own a firearm, the other means you own a firearm and acts as a registry from which we've seen governments confiscate weapons from people.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ouze wrote:
 whembly wrote:

the elimination of a program that allowed for registration and voting on the same day during early voting



This is, in my opinion, the worst part. When nearly half the people do not vote in this country, there is no genuine reason to throw up roadblocks.


Really? I mean, I can see the angst for the other stuff... but, this?

You can still fill out provisional ballot, which is in theory is confirmed before counting the ballot.

Whereas, same day registration/voting is simply "sign here, take your ballot and it's counted".

Not sure if that is normal in the rest of the States... it ain't here in big MO.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Virginia also uses a big book of names that they cross off when you come in to vote. As far as I know, your name is only on the eligible voter list in your precinct so going to another polling place to cast another vote would get you nowhere.

So instead of these ridiculous anecdotes about "your neighbor's parents" or what you think can be done, how about providing evidence that these laws are solving a problem that is crippling American democracy.


We went to https://voterservices.elections.maryland.gov/votersearch and their votes ended up counting. And they are 'undocumented citizens' as the special interest groups call them. Non citizens voted in our election and their registration was allowed because they had: A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document with your name and current address. You don't even have to prove that it is you with a second ID!

That is all you need to prove identity in MD for a provisional ballot. No need to provide citizenship proof.

They accept everyone's votes unless someone challenges in court an explicit person's registration due to lack of SSN, which is supposed to be required to register to vote, but is not required in MD unless someone sues over your registration.

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Clean up the Voter Registeration Book

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 d-usa wrote:
It might not have been illegal, but anybody that has any doubt that this was done with the full intention of keeping legitimate voters away is just fooling himself.


QFT. In fairness, it's a very difficult situation, and I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/12 19:26:00


 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

Hey, Whembly! Let's update the title of this thread and make it the default Voter ID thread. As for the rest of you, it's off to Wisconsin!!

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-upholds-wisconsin-voter-id-law-211935320.html

Scott Bauer wrote:Appeals court upholds Wisconsin voter ID law

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Wisconsin's requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls is constitutional, a decision that is not surprising after the court last month allowed for the law to be implemented while it considered the case.

State elections officials are preparing for the photo ID law to be in effect for the Nov. 4 election, even as opponents continue their legal fight. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project asked the U.S. Supreme Court last week to take emergency action and block the law.

Opponents argue that requiring voters to show photo ID, a requirement that had, until recently, been on hold since a low-turnout February 2012 primary, will create chaos and confusion at the polls. But supporters say most people already have a valid ID and, if they don't, there is time to get one before the election.

The opinion from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes a month before the election involving the closely watched race between Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who supports the law, and Democratic challenger Mary Burke.

A lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, struck the law down as unconstitutional in April, saying it unfairly burdens poor and minority voters who may lack such identification. Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asked the 7th Circuit to overturn that ruling.

The three-judge panel agreed with Van Hollen. The judges said Wisconsin's law is substantially similar to one in Indiana that the U.S Supreme Court declared was constitutional.

"Clearly the Seventh Circuit's decision supports the idea that the will of the people as enacted by the legislature and approved by the executive accounts for something in our democracy," Van Hollen said in a statement.

But Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said that "the voters of Wisconsin deserve every opportunity to cast their ballot free of the obstacles imposed by this law, and we are evaluating our next step."

The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the law and Walker signed it in 2011, saying it was an important safeguard against voter fraud. But opponents argued claims of fraud were overblown and the real intent was to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning constituencies — including minorities and poor people — from voting.

Because of legal challenges, the law had been on hold since the February 2012 primary. But since the Sept. 12 ruling allowing the law to go into effect pending the court's final decision, Wisconsin elections officials have been working to educate voters about the requirement.

The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, which oversees elections, continues to work with local officials to implement the law "as we have since the court's September 12 order," said GAB spokesman Reid Magney in reaction to the court's ruling.

Wisconsin's law requires people to show certain government-issued photo ID at the polls to vote. Anyone who doesn't have the proper ID on Election Day can cast a provisional ballot, and they would then have until 4 p.m. on the Friday after the election to present the required ID to have the vote counted.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote the opinion and was joined by judges Diane Sykes and John Tinder, both appointees of Republican President George W. Bush.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/07 02:45:37


 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 Breotan wrote:
Hey, Whembly! Let's update the title of this thread and make it the default Voter ID thread. As for the rest of you, it's off to Wisconsin!!

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-upholds-wisconsin-voter-id-law-211935320.html

Scott Bauer wrote:Appeals court upholds Wisconsin voter ID law

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Opponents argue that requiring voters to show photo ID, a requirement that had, until recently, been on hold since a low-turnout February 2012 primary, will create chaos and confusion at the polls. But supporters say most people already have a valid ID and, if they don't, there is time to get one before the election.

If producing an ID causes a person chaos and confusion that person should count themselves lucky breathing is involuntary

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

That law is a carbon copy of that same Ohio law that the Supreme Court supported.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

 Ouze wrote:


This is, in my opinion, the worst part. When nearly half the people do not vote in this country, there is no genuine reason to throw up roadblocks.



If anyone on either side was really that concerned with that election day would be a federal holiday. We have Columbus Day, Presidents Day and MLK Day as holidays (and I won't complain, I work at a bank so I get them all off), but surely ELECTION DAY would be a more worthwhile holiday than any of these.

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 cincydooley wrote:
 Ouze wrote:


This is, in my opinion, the worst part. When nearly half the people do not vote in this country, there is no genuine reason to throw up roadblocks.



If anyone on either side was really that concerned with that election day would be a federal holiday. We have Columbus Day, Presidents Day and MLK Day as holidays (and I won't complain, I work at a bank so I get them all off), but surely ELECTION DAY would be a more worthwhile holiday than any of these.

Agreed... it should be celebrated like the 4th of July.

Plus, tax day should be a week before the elections.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

And while I really think it should be a federal holiday, I do have some trouble believing with the ease of access afforded to people in the US to vote, requiring a photo ID would be terribly intrusive (no more, than, say, the provisions required before exercising other constitutionally protected rights).

Because lets be honest. The reason people don't vote isn't because they don't have an ID, or they don't have enough time.

It's because they don't care. Hell, MEXICO had nearly 10% more of their population vote than we did in 2012.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/07 15:26:55


 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 cincydooley wrote:
It's because they don't care.
That's the bottom line right there. Still, activists have to scare people in to voting against Republicans somehow.


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Breotan wrote:
 cincydooley wrote:
It's because they don't care.
That's the bottom line right there. Still, activists have to scare people in to voting against Republicans somehow.


I thought Republicans were scary on their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another ruling today:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-blocks-north-carolina-same-day-voter-registrat#40yiuzs

Essentially no same day registration and no out of precinct voting in North Carolina.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/08 23:09:09


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

There's been so much whiplash going on now...

Texa's VoterID has been stayed... pending appeal. (Nothing is going to happen as early voting starts next week)

Also, Wisconsin's VoterID has been stayed by the Supreme Court:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/09/supreme-court-wisconsin-voter-id/16985963/

Even though the ruling relied on the Supreme Court’s own decision regarding Indiana’s identical voter-ID law, the issue is surmised as "timing". So, after 2014, the stay would be lifted and be in effect in '16 election season.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 whembly wrote:
Texa's VoterID has been stayed... pending appeal. (Nothing is going to happen as early voting starts next week)
Actually...

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-reinstates-texas-voter-id-law-212302367.html

Jim Vertuno wrote:Appeals court reinstates Texas voter ID law

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday temporarily reinstated Texas' tough voter ID law, which the U.S. Justice Department had condemned as the state's latest means of suppressing minority voter turnout.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allows the law to be used in the November election, despite a lower judge's ruling that the law is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit did not rule on the law's merits; instead, it determined it's too late to change the rules for the election.

The judge said the Supreme Court has repeatedly told courts to be cautious about late-hour interruptions of elections. Early voting starts Oct. 20.

"It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the state to adequately train its 25,000 polling workers at 8,000 polling places" in time for the start of early voting, the appeals court wrote.

While some voters may be harmed, the greater harm would come in potentially disrupting an election statewide, the court said.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund promised a quick appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling represents a temporary but key victory for Republican-backed photo ID measures that have swept across the U.S. in recent years. Last week's ruling from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos — an appointee of President Barack Obama who likened the law to a poll tax designed to dissuade minorities from voting — remains under appeal.

The Texas law, considered the toughest of its kind in the nation, requires that an estimated 13.6 million registered voters show one of seven kinds of photo identification to cast a ballot. The Justice Department says more than 600,000 of those voters, mostly blacks and Hispanics, lack eligible ID.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who had sought an emergency ruling from the conservative-leaning appeals court, is on the ballot as the Republican nominee for governor.

Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean called Tuesday's ruling "the right choice to avoid voter confusion."

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the agency was reviewing the opinion and declined immediate comment.

Texas Democrats decried the ruling.

"An intentionally discriminatory law should not be allowed to remain in effect," said Texas Democrat Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa.

Nineteen states have laws requiring voters to show identification at the polls. Courts across the country have knocked down challenges, including at the Supreme Court.

But U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder brought the weight of his office into Texas after the Supreme Court last year struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which had prevented the state from enacting its voter ID law.

The full Voting Rights Act had blocked Texas and eight other states with histories of discrimination from changing election laws without permission from the Justice Department or a federal court. Holder vowed to wring whatever protections he could from the weakened version, and made Texas a first target.

Abbott, who is favored to win the race against Democrat Wendy Davis to replace Rick Perry as governor, said the law has support from minorities and whites alike. His office also pointed to other states, such as Georgia and Indiana, where similar measures have been upheld.

But opponents slammed Texas' law as far more discriminatory. College students IDs aren't acceptable, but concealed handgun licenses are. Free IDs offered by the state require a birth certificate that costs as little as $3, but the Justice Department argued that traveling to get those documents imposes a burden on poor minorities.

Opponents say Texas has issued fewer than 300 free voter IDs since the law took effect, while Georgia has issued 2,200 under a program with more robust outreach.

Davis criticized Abbott for continuing to support a law that a judge ruled discriminatory.

"It's nothing more than a 'poll tax,' which means democracy and all Texans lose," Davis said.




 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Are you as confused as I am? I'm going to bring id anyway. I'm sure my NRA and ACLU cards are valid forms of ID right? Right?

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Frazzled wrote:
Are you as confused as I am? I'm going to bring id anyway. I'm sure my NRA and ACLU cards are valid forms of ID right? Right?
I didn't know the weiner allowed you to vote .

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Are you as confused as I am? I'm going to bring id anyway. I'm sure my NRA and ACLU cards are valid forms of ID right? Right?
I didn't know the weiner allowed you to vote .


I'm voting for them. The lack of opposable thumbs makes voting machines difficult. I should probably sue under the ADA (American Dachshund Act)

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: