I think a much better question is "why shouldn't they have the right to make that choice without a penalty as drastic as losing their right to vote?"
If that were actually true, why would there be a controversy over this?
Of course it does. Voter laws are supposed to ensure that everybody gets to vote, not to Jim Crow the vote for some. And about this lame argument that Jim Crowing the vote stops voter fraud, show me proof that there was enough voter fraud in ANY election to change the outcome of that election. And when I say proof, I don't mean show some talking head on FOX News claiming voter fraud. Show me the hard numbers FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE, not Breitbart, which has been caught time and time again making crap up. Good luck with that.
Finally, I must say that, if a political party is so desperate to remain relevant that they have to resort to Jim Crow to attempt to win elections, then there is a problem with that party. At least, at this time, the mainstream Republicans are fighting the good fight to wrest control of the party back from the wackos that hijacked it, and that's a good sign. The Republican party does not need Tea Partiers or any other kind of "Confederate" in the party. With reasonable ideas, the GOP will stick around a long time, and make important contributions to America's political process.
Article is here.
I think a much better question is "why shouldn't they have the right to make that choice without a penalty as drastic as losing their right to vote?"
Try applying that same question to the right to bear arms.
If it keeps one single American from voting that should be able to, It is a problem.
Because different things are different. Voting and guns are not analogues and the ideas applied to one do not apply to the other. Each must be evaluated separately.
If a person can provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote, they shouldn't have any problem doing the same when they cast their ballot.
I have no problem with requiring ID, if they are allowed to vote without it, then, if fraudulent, arrest them. If one was thrown in jail for years, no one else would do it. Look, people know if they fraudulently vote they could go to jail for years, yet they would literally be one vote if millions, the risk just doesnt give much benefit. I dont beleive it happens, so I dont believe it needs fixed.
Without ID requirement we have little chance of catching the offenders, and they know it. The penalty for pot use and possession was once draconian (in some places it still is), people still did it in numbers. Also, without ID requirement we have no idea of how large or small the problem is. However, we cannot deny the dead vote has been used significantly in some locations in the past.
Without ID requirement we have little chance of catching the offenders, and they know it. The penalty for pot use and possession was once draconian (in some places it still is), people still did it in numbers. Also, without ID requirement we have no idea of how large or small the problem is. However, we cannot deny the dead vote has been used significantly in some locations in the past.
The state's new voter ID law is meant to prevent voter fraud, but it may be causing some delays at your neighborhood polling place, especially if the name on your driver's license differs from the name on your voter registration card, even a little bit.
Nueces County election officials say it is often a problem for women who use maiden names or hyphenated names.
The problem came to light Monday, when a local district judge had trouble casting a ballot.
"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 49 years. The name on her driver's license has remained the same for 52 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' 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.
Simply not true, very few if any will risk years of their life for a one in millions vote. C'mon man, there is no evidence it is a big problem, it does not make sense it would be, yet the RW believes fervently in it. Oh wait, that does make sense, after all.
and what can you do to prevent things like this from happening
Voter ID Law May Cause Problems for Women Using Maiden Names - KiiiTV.com South Texas, Corpus Christi, Coastal Bend
Oh c'mon, pick any crime with a severe penalty and you'll find people committing said crime anyway. As for that last, I really thought you had a better grasp on American history. Start with Tammany Hall and head right on through the Chicago political machine in modern history. The denial is what majes no sense given what we KNOW.
Of course it does. Voter laws are supposed to ensure that everybody gets to vote, not to Jim Crow the vote for some. And about this lame argument that Jim Crowing the vote stops voter fraud, show me proof that there was enough voter fraud in ANY election to change the outcome of that election. And when I say proof, I don't mean show some talking head on FOX News claiming voter fraud. Show me the hard numbers FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE, not Breitbart, which has been caught time and time again making crap up. Good luck with that.
Finally, I must say that, if a political party is so desperate to remain relevant that they have to resort to Jim Crow to attempt to win elections, then there is a problem with that party. At least, at this time, the mainstream Republicans are fighting the good fight to wrest control of the party back from the wackos that hijacked it, and that's a good sign. The Republican party does not need Tea Partiers or any other kind of "Confederate" in the party. With reasonable ideas, the GOP will stick around a long time, and make important contributions to America's political process.
Article is here.
AWESOME!!!!
Proud of my home state on this one, seems we have gotten somethings right lately over the years.
But let me say im all in favor of voter ID laws IF they fall into the right category and in general PAs was bad when just talkign about the ID part, it was actually pretty good:
Act of Mar. 14, 2012,P.L. 195, No. 18 Cl. 25 - PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS
With that said im still glad this was dropped and it will probably go to SCOTUS, if people want to push for ID laws SCOTUS is where they should go and they should all conform and be the same nationally.
ID laws are great in my opinion if:
the ID is free and readily available (DMV, Post office, Court Houses, etc) including at the poll places
Other IDs are acceptable (any FEDERAL ID, STATE ID, State Municipality ID, State accredited institute of higher learning ID)
Votes are ALWAYS allowed to be cast but are just flagged and segregated for further processing
the issues with many Voter ID laws are they are piggy backed with new rules for voting like no voting on sundays, no early voting, no absentee voting, closing polling places, limiting the operating hours of certain/all polls and reorganizing districts.
THAT is 100% unacceptable
so if theres going to be voter ID laws im al for it just follow the rules and make the law about . . . . .(wait for it) . . . (wait for it) . . . . .VOTER ID! lol
if not its not wanted
Covered under the fact that she's gonna have trouble with ANY activity that requires ID and that she, as a judge, should know she has to fix most riki tik. Really, using herself as an example just illustrates she doesn't belong in the position she's in.
There are up sides to most crimes, ever heard of a crack head getting all stoned, looking at his cracked out buddy and saying, "hey, lets go vote." Show me some real evidence I will change my mind. There is just too few voter frauds to worry about. But of course not allowing many that can legally vote not too, if they are Democrats, well...
Of course it does. Voter laws are supposed to ensure that everybody gets to vote, not to Jim Crow the vote for some. And about this lame argument that Jim Crowing the vote stops voter fraud, show me proof that there was enough voter fraud in ANY election to change the outcome of that election. And when I say proof, I don't mean show some talking head on FOX News claiming voter fraud. Show me the hard numbers FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE, not Breitbart, which has been caught time and time again making crap up. Good luck with that.
Finally, I must say that, if a political party is so desperate to remain relevant that they have to resort to Jim Crow to attempt to win elections, then there is a problem with that party. At least, at this time, the mainstream Republicans are fighting the good fight to wrest control of the party back from the wackos that hijacked it, and that's a good sign. The Republican party does not need Tea Partiers or any other kind of "Confederate" in the party. With reasonable ideas, the GOP will stick around a long time, and make important contributions to America's political process.
Article is here.
Again your opinion is debunked by history. You want evidence? Study American history. There is a reason for longtime political quotes such as, "In Chicago the dead vote democratic".
she was able to vote for 50 years and i don't see how having her maiden name for her drivers license but her registration form using her actual middle name should prevent her from voting.
You mean groups that are basically the 'takers' of society that vote Democrat. Haven't we seen the result of letting those groups elect our leaders?
Is not racism, it's economics.
Study American history? Actually I was asking for examples of voter fraud, you of course have none except "longtime political quotes" so you tell me to read. Who is in denial? :roll:
The same reason she shouldn't be a judge - the law. It's her job to know it. But really, and again for the thousandth time, she faces this same thing with any other official activity that requires ID. This isn't new, it's just her wanting a special case where she doesn't have to follow the rules of registration. Notice, she lies to the DMV, isn't that a crime?
Oh c'mon, pick any crime with a severe penalty and you'll find people committing said crime anyway. As for that last, I really thought you had a better grasp on American history. Start with Tammany Hall and head right on through the Chicago political machine in modern history. The denial is what makes no sense given what we KNOW.
The same reason she shouldn't be a judge - the law. It's her job to know it. But really, and again for the thousandth time, she faces this same thing with any other official activity that requires ID. This isn't new, it's just her wanting a special case where she doesn't have to follow the rules of registration. Notice, she lies to the DMV, isn't that a crime?
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?