- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 34,752
- Reaction score
- 3,961
- Location
- north carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
If I was to guess I'd say enacting voter ID laws tend to turn former blue states red in major elections.
Good for Arkansas and Texas. More states need to secure their elections from exposures to known potentials for fraud.
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds voter ID law despite previous ruling - JURIST - News - Legal News & Commentary
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds voter ID law despite previous ruling
OCTOBER 12, 2018 02:04:49 PMZachary Uram
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday voted 5-2 to uphold Act 633 of 2017, a voter identification law that requires Arkansas voters to provide ID “that shows the person’s name and photograph” and “is issued by the federal or state government or an accredited postsecondary educational institution in Arkansas.”
In 2014 the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical law on the basis of violating the State Constitution. In that ruling, the court explained, “Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, codified at article 5, section 1, provides that laws initiated by the people may be amended through a two-thirds vote of both houses of the General Assembly.” It is undisputed that Act 633 received the required two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Act 633 allows two different ways for votes to be counted without proper voting ID on election day. One is a “sworn statement at the polling site, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter is registered to vote in this state and that he or she is the person registered to vote.” The second way is to make a provisional ballot and to present “a compliant form of identification to the county board of election commissioners or the county clerk by 12:00 noon on the Monday following the election.”
This makes complete sense. What good is it for us to elect politicians, where in most cases an ID was not required to vote, who then go and create laws for the rest of us to provide ID for host of task and activities? Weird logic not requiring ID at the start of the race instead of the 7th inning stretch
If I was to guess I'd say enacting voter ID laws tend to turn former blue states red in major elections.
Good for Arkansas and Texas. More states need to secure their elections from exposures to known potentials for fraud.
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds voter ID law despite previous ruling - JURIST - News - Legal News & Commentary
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds voter ID law despite previous ruling
OCTOBER 12, 2018 02:04:49 PMZachary Uram
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday voted 5-2 to uphold Act 633 of 2017, a voter identification law that requires Arkansas voters to provide ID “that shows the person’s name and photograph” and “is issued by the federal or state government or an accredited postsecondary educational institution in Arkansas.”
In 2014 the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical law on the basis of violating the State Constitution. In that ruling, the court explained, “Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, codified at article 5, section 1, provides that laws initiated by the people may be amended through a two-thirds vote of both houses of the General Assembly.” It is undisputed that Act 633 received the required two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Act 633 allows two different ways for votes to be counted without proper voting ID on election day. One is a “sworn statement at the polling site, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter is registered to vote in this state and that he or she is the person registered to vote.” The second way is to make a provisional ballot and to present “a compliant form of identification to the county board of election commissioners or the county clerk by 12:00 noon on the Monday following the election.”
If I was to guess I'd say enacting voter ID laws tend to turn former blue states red in major elections.
Good for Arkansas and Texas. More states need to secure their elections from exposures to known potentials for fraud.
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds voter ID law despite previous ruling - JURIST - News - Legal News & Commentary
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds voter ID law despite previous ruling
OCTOBER 12, 2018 02:04:49 PMZachary Uram
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday voted 5-2 to uphold Act 633 of 2017, a voter identification law that requires Arkansas voters to provide ID “that shows the person’s name and photograph” and “is issued by the federal or state government or an accredited postsecondary educational institution in Arkansas.”
In 2014 the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical law on the basis of violating the State Constitution. In that ruling, the court explained, “Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, codified at article 5, section 1, provides that laws initiated by the people may be amended through a two-thirds vote of both houses of the General Assembly.” It is undisputed that Act 633 received the required two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Act 633 allows two different ways for votes to be counted without proper voting ID on election day. One is a “sworn statement at the polling site, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter is registered to vote in this state and that he or she is the person registered to vote.” The second way is to make a provisional ballot and to present “a compliant form of identification to the county board of election commissioners or the county clerk by 12:00 noon on the Monday following the election.”
If I was to guess I'd say enacting voter ID laws tend to turn former blue states red in major elections.
Good for Arkansas and Texas. More states need to secure their elections from exposures to known potentials for fraud.
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds voter ID law despite previous ruling - JURIST - News - Legal News & Commentary
Arkansas Supreme Court upholds voter ID law despite previous ruling
OCTOBER 12, 2018 02:04:49 PMZachary Uram
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday voted 5-2 to uphold Act 633 of 2017, a voter identification law that requires Arkansas voters to provide ID “that shows the person’s name and photograph” and “is issued by the federal or state government or an accredited postsecondary educational institution in Arkansas.”
In 2014 the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical law on the basis of violating the State Constitution. In that ruling, the court explained, “Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution, codified at article 5, section 1, provides that laws initiated by the people may be amended through a two-thirds vote of both houses of the General Assembly.” It is undisputed that Act 633 received the required two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Act 633 allows two different ways for votes to be counted without proper voting ID on election day. One is a “sworn statement at the polling site, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter is registered to vote in this state and that he or she is the person registered to vote.” The second way is to make a provisional ballot and to present “a compliant form of identification to the county board of election commissioners or the county clerk by 12:00 noon on the Monday following the election.”
Let's take your brilliant analysis one step further and ask the obvious next question. What percentage of eligible voters participate by voting in these states?
Its long past time we ended all voter fraud forever by eliminated voting altogether.
Let's take your brilliant analysis one step further and ask the obvious next question. What percentage of eligible voters participate by voting in these states?
Its long past time we ended all voter fraud forever by eliminated voting altogether.
If voter eligibility is never established then we cannot know how many ineligible votes are submitted in any election. What reason do democrats have for refusing to purge voter rolls of ineligible voters? There is no justification whatsoever for that sort of corruption.
Voter eligibility is determined when you register... We should maintain voter rolls but wholesale purging just before elections is an obvious attempt to reduce the number of registered voters.
As important as safe and secure elections, and more of a problem than voter fraud, is the gerrymandering of state legislature.
For example, "Wisconsin’s maps were crafted with such micro-precision that even if Democrats managed to win a historically high 54 percent of the two-party vote – a level they’ve reached only once in the last 20 years — Republicans would still end up with a*solid nine-seat majority*in the state assembly.
In fact, Wisconsin’s maps are so gerrymandered that Republicans can win close to a supermajority of house seats even with a*minority*of the vote.*Analyses*of the maps in the lawsuit challenging the maps showed that Republicans are a lock to win 60 percent of statehouse seats even if they win just 48 percent of the vote."
So, let's do this, all citizens at 18 receive a free ID for voting. Then, make election day a national holiday (2 per year). Term limits for all positions. Overturn Citizens United. Stop Gerrymandering so the people are actually represented by the election outcome.
Does any politician have the courage to promote, and fight for the passage of those policies?
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
"If I was to guess I'd say enacting voter ID laws tend to turn former blue states red in major elections."
Arkansas and Texas?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Democrats invented gerrymandering and used it very effectively for more than a hundred years to consolidate support for democrats in elections. But in the last two or three decades republicans have been gaining strength in state legislatures and have been redrawing lines formerly favorable to democrats and the tables are turned. It is understandable the democrats are outraged, but hard for intelligent people to feel sorry for them.
So, "they started it", makes it difficult for, "intelligent" people to feel sorry for them.
How about screw feeling sorry, and as a country agree it needs to end?
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
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?