they won't be able to fly, get passports or buy guns either. If you believe stuff that stupid you probably shouldn't vote or own guns or be on airplanes
Its no different than the many GOP people who claim a home state but don't actually reside there to avoid tax laws. Which is very common in the Midwest. After all if you don't cheat on your residency taxes what is the point of being part of the GOP?
Again, nothing they are doing is unethical other than in your own personal bias mind.I couldn't tell.....I'm in Chicago home of the Corruption and that Democratic Outfit that excels oh so very well in Ethics. :lol:
Yeah that was it.....not double voting. Out of residency.....like you said. It was an easy matter to deal with.
No it really shouldn't they meet the residency requirements even if you don't think they do. I'm pretty sure you could file complaints with the local magistrate if you were that concerned about their residency qualifications.
In my state, you show your license or some other ID unless the poll workers know you and then you sign by your name
For any other individual, they would not be considered transient and therefore would be required to vote absentee where they were truly a resident.
Unless a guardian is something different in Canada, someone with a guardian should not be allowed to vote because they have been deemed legally incompetent or are a minor.
Agree and disagree. The way it is being done in many places at the moment, and especially with some of the other peripheral ideas being proposed and passed, I agree that intentional disenfranchisement is the goal.I honestly believe that the intent of these laws is to do partisan disenfranchisement. It can be used by Repubs or Dems and is about who is controlling local politics. It would be disproportionately biased against low income voters. The 10 nuns are an excellent example of flawed law. I also worry about corrupted code in the electronic voting process. Let's address that before we disenfranchise.
“What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,” 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said.
Watts has voted in every election for the last forty-nine years. The name on her driver’s license has remained the same for fifty-two years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver’s license hasn’t changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a “voters affidavit” affirming she was who she said she was.
“Someone looked at that and said, ‘Well, they’re not the same,’” Watts said.
The difference? On the driver’s license, Judge Watts’s maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it’s her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag.
Under the the section of the voter rights law that the USSC threw out this summer, this law was blocked. Once the USSC threw out that portion of the VRA Texas promptly passed it and this is the result. A judge was not allowed to vote.“What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,” 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said.
Watts has voted in every election for the last forty-nine years. The name on her driver’s license has remained the same for fifty-two years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver’s license hasn’t changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a “voters affidavit” affirming she was who she said she was.
“Someone looked at that and said, ‘Well, they’re not the same,’” Watts said.
The difference? On the driver’s license, Judge Watts’s maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it’s her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag.
I'm sorry I cannot get the link to copy (I'm on my phone) but that quote us from The Nation.
The voter can sign an affidavit attesting to her true identity in some cases. If the election official deems the ID insufficient, the voter can fill out a provisional ballot – but that ballot will only be counted if he (or in this case, more likely she) comes back with an ID that matches.
If it sounds like that would never happen, it already did. And remarkably, it happened to a Texas judge, Sandra Watts, who was voting inside her own courthouse.
I'm on my phone. I chose the wrong story. The affidavit is only part of it, if you read above. My apologies. They have to come back with one that matches. There are many women who won't have the time for that and why should they if they are in the situation that the judge is.
I see. From what I understand Obamacare does not require those who let their driver's licenses lapse get then reinstated because use public transportation and have no cars, have direct deposit and don't want to spend the additional money or hassle with rounding up extensive documentation in compliance with the Real ID Act as some states try to do in order to vote in 2012. What Obamacare does is require people to have private health insurance. I have health insurance and I don't remember having to show my insurance company an original (no photo copies allowed) copy of my birth certificate issued by the state where I was born, my social security card plus a passport issued by the State Department, a military ID or soon to expire driver's license and if a married female a copy of her marriage license. I don't recall providing any ID to my insurance company. I might have but I don't recall it. Good question.
This is exhausting using a phone.Women don't have time to get an ID with their proper legal name?
I think pretty much all states now have Motor Voter Registration where you can register to vote at your DMV. The solution isn't saying Voter ID laws apply to men - but oh women they don't have time to have proper ID's so we'll exempt the from the law, the solution is providing an easy and smooth name change process so that when you update your ID at a DMV it cross links into voter registration and updates the legal name their. Then to make it even easier, have the county clerks, those who issue marriage licenses - once the license is returned - register the name change into the same system which updates both the DMV record and the voter registration.
I don't have an issue with the use of provisional ballots, it's the individual responsibility to make sure they are properly registered to vote. You'd think a Judge would know better. The law should allow, and if it doesn't I disagree with it, that when processing a name change the individual presents proof of identity and the legal instrument implementing a name change to complete the process. Let's say my name is Mark James Smith and I get married, I choose to adopt my wife's name (which men can do in many states) and I change my name to Mark Smith Wojahowitz (maybe my new wife is a corporate executive and makes big bucks so I take her name). I present my old ID showing "Mark James Smith", the legal instrument changing the name (the completed Marriage License) DMV issues me a new ID and electronically updates the voter rolls. One stop, new ID and ID and voter rolls match.
>>>>
"I don't think most women know that this is going to create a problem," Watts said. That their maiden name is on their driver's license, which was mandated in 1964 when I got married, and this. And so why would I want to use a provisional ballot when I've been voting regular ballot for the last 49 years?"
This is exhausting using a phone.
1. Texas requires women to have their maiden name on their DL since 1964.
2. Women of her generation use their maiden as their middle name.
3. It doesn't match their voter ID card.
That's the problem though it's clear it's her. This is a problem loads of married, divorced or separated women will deal with. Including those who use hyphenated names.
As to your motor voter suggestion, obviously that is not the case in Texas. The voter id she was using was not adequate though she's been married for 49 years.
And again, they have to return with an exact id in order for their vote to count. Why should a woman like this be put through a second trip when her id was sufficient all those years. Or any woman?
I'm on my phone. I chose the wrong story. The affidavit is only part of it, if you read above. My apologies. They have to come back with one that matches. There are many women who won't have the time for that and why should they if they are in the situation that the judge is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?