• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas and Arkansas both require IDs to vote and both states voted republican in 2018

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
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.”
 
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."

Arkansas and Texas?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
 
Donald Trump admitted it: He's actively trying to sabotage the U.S. Postal Service to prevent people from voting.

Thursday morning, he told Fox Business News that he opposed including funding for the postal service in the next COVID-19 relief bill because “they need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots.”

It would be unbelievable . . . except this is Donald Trump. It's been clear all along that Trump and the Republicans will do ANYTHING to hold on to power.
 
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

Do as they say, not as they do.



Lick their boots right and maybe y'all can vote too.

0b9e0de8b07085b117e5dbf5a6912467a2dd1549.jpg


;)
 
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.”

No, it's the citizenry that turns a state Blue or Red

Stay focused Marke
 
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?
 
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.”

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?

As few as possible as far as these guys are concerned. None of their so-called voter fraud "reforms" ever do anything to promote democracy and help assure that all eligible people can vote. They are all designed to call the process into question and delegitimatize the result when they lose.
 
Its long past time we ended all voter fraud forever by eliminated voting altogether.

Now we're' getting somewhere?

Everyone knows our political system is broken yet they keep participating in it?
 
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?

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.
 
Its long past time we ended all voter fraud forever by eliminated voting altogether.

If crooks can just fraud their way into office like Putin apparently does, then you are right, there is no need for a sham election. If the results are to be dictated by fraud then voters waste their time voting, as voters who voted for Bernie wasted theirs in the 2016 primary.
 
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
 
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.

Purging registries at any time is an obvious attempt to eliminate the names of ineligible voters. How else are ineligible voters going to be removed from voter registries? Is there any justification whatsoever for keeping the names of ineligible voters on the books? If states send out ballots to all voters registered on their books then if their books are stuffed with the names of ineligible voters then thousands or tens of thousands of ballots could end up being sent out to voters who are ineligible to vote. What if thousands or tens of thousands of ineligible ballots are returned? How long do you think it will take after an election to go through all the ballots eliminating the ineligible votes? It will take months because that is how long it would take to check out voter eligibility before an election if done according to law.
 
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

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.
 
"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...

i literally LOLed.
 
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
 
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

I agree. Voting precincts should look more round or square than elongated, distorted or rectangular, if possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom