DOJ, liberal groups that oppose voter ID require photo ID to enter their buildings

posted at 1:50 pm on April 5, 2012 by Rob Bluey

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is currently blocking implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas, claiming such measures are “unnecessary,” discriminatory and would make it harder for minorities to vote.

But if you’re planning to visit Holder’s office in Washington, D.C., you better bring a photo ID. The Department of Justice has two armed guards stationed outside its headquarters to check IDs of anyone who wants to enter — employees and visitors.

Holder’s politically motivated crusade against voter ID laws has the support of liberal advocacy organizations ranging from the Center for American Progress and Media Matters to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Advancement Project.

Each of these organizations has criticized photo identification for voting, yet they require it to enter their Washington, D.C., offices as well. There’s even a sign in the building of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: “ALL VISITORS MUST SHOW ID.”

PJTV has the scoop:

Holder is able to block laws in South Carolina on Texas because they are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that gives the Department of Justice authority over voting changes. It remains unclear if those states will be able to enforce their laws for this November’s election.

“The Obama-Holder Department of Justice has launched an all-out war on voter ID and other measures,” former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell said upon launching a new initiative called Protect Your Vote. “Although Holder’s actions are purported to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, in reality they serve as a crass political attempt to ensure his boss gets re-elected this year.”

Liberals have long trotted out false arguments about voter ID laws, claiming they suppress the vote among those individuals who do not have photo identification. But a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case upholding Indiana’s voter ID law revealed there was no such hardship. Opponents of the law were unable to produce a single plaintiff who could plausibly claim inability to get a photo ID. In addition, states with longstanding voter ID laws, such as Georgia and Indiana, have actually experienced an increase in turnout of minority voters.

Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy, an investigative journalism operation at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: @RobertBluey


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

MNHawk on April 5, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Why do you make this about race? I said nothing about blacks.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Why do you make this about race? I said nothing about blacks.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Ask Holder and the rest of liberal democrats that question loser. That’s the whole context of the issue, as defined by Holder and rest of the liberal democrats. Context…you has none. Try to keep up.

DanMan on April 5, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Why do you make this about race? I said nothing about blacks.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

OK, Junior, I’ll play. Every white leftist piece of garbage says that black people aren’t civilized enough to be expected to get ID, like everybody else. Every now and then one will try to throw something like elderly or battered women (never got that one myself) out there, but ALWAYS, black people.

Who do you think is so uncivilized as to not be expected to have ID?

MNHawk on April 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Yet another troll free post.

D-fusit on April 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

You never are, Everclear.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

DanMan on April 5, 2012 at 4:29 PM

So because I do not agree for other justified reasons, I am a loser? You have to resort to name calling to debate the issue at hand here?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

So does this mean I don’t have to show an ID for ObummerCare since that would be RACIST!

If a person has a very difficult time getting somewhere to get an ID than how is it that it would be easy for them to get somewhere to vote? If you can get somewhere to vote, than you can get somewhere to get a valid and verifiable ID.

VikingGoneWild on April 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Come on…. I mean the right had to get Bush installed by the Supremes……

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Really, Kid?

The Supremes voted in Bush V Gore by the following votes:

1. 9-0 for Bush

2. 7-2 for Bush

3. 5-4 for Bush

damian1966 was much funnier.

F-

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 4:37 PM

VikingGoneWild on April 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Thats a whole other issue with it, voting precincts are usually pretty close to a persons home, some states do not have anything near by for ID’s. Because of state cuts some are really far away.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

No going on to voter fraud, this is something that the right LOVES to through out there, yet there is no proof of wide spread fraud.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Sure there is. You are just to young to not remember it.

See “Chicago 1960 Presidential Elections”.

Why are you opposed to elections being Honest?

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM

some states do not have anything near by for ID’s. Because of state cuts some are really far away.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

So it’s…Wyoming residents you’re so worried about?

Damian1966 was also much smarter.

MNHawk on April 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM

There is a BIG difference, the constitution does not REQUIRE people to have an ID or to get one.

THus meaning that requiring an ID to do something that is your right under the US Constitution is in fact adding a new requirement to the Constitution.

No going on to voter fraud, this is something that the right LOVES to through out there, yet there is no proof of wide spread fraud.

I should have a right not to have an ID on me, and have a right to Vote.

Thats what the land of the free is all about!

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

By that idiot logic, you should not have to register to vote and you should just be able to walk in at any polling place and vote – b/c the constitution does not say that you have to register or give your name or do anything else in order to vote. The constitution leaves it up to the states to administer elections and the requirements for voting.

I bet you believe it is perfectly acceptable to regulate firearms, even though the constitution gives one the right to keep and bear arms. By your logic I should be able to buy any kind of guns and ammo with no waiting period, no background check, no registration, no license.

There is, unfortunately, no such thing as an absolute right – in other words, all rights are subject to some reasonable qualifications – the right to free speech is subject to libel laws, national security issues, and time/place and manner restrictions. Freedom of religion is not absolute. Mormons cannot engage in polygamy, Muslims cannot stone a homosexual to death (in America). Freedom of association is almost non-existent now in that one is not allowed to exclude on many basis (gender, race, ethnicity, age, religion). Without the right to exclude, freedom of association is fairly meaningless.

So, your argument that the constitution provides individuals with a right to simply show up on election day and vote with no reasonable restrictions is inane. Moreover, there is no valid, rational basis for being against an ID requirement, as almost every major function of today’s world requires a photo ID. The claim that some people don’t have one or can’t get one is absolute rubbish and not an honest argument worthy of discussion.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I thought Rope-a-Dope was backing an inferior opponent who is out of options into the ropes and pounding him until he wished he were somewhere else.
DanMan on April 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM

No, it was the otehr way around. The original Muhammed Ali rope-a-dope was when he backed himself into the ropes, blocked and covered, and let the other guy wear himself out with ineffective punches that Ali easily blocked. Ali made it look like he was tired and getting whipped (all fake) so the other guy would go heavy on the offense thinking he could take the match. Once the other guy had tired himself out and had little punching power left, Ali went on the offensive and took him out quick.

In this case, very appropriate analogy I believe.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 4:37 PM

9-0 for bush?
7-2 for Bush?

What votes were these?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM

some states do not have anything near by for ID’s. Because of state cuts some are really far away.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Bull. Name me a state and location that does not have an ID place nearby. In virtually every state, ID’s are administered on the County level and by DMV’s. the idea that there is some arduous trek that one must endure to obtain a photo ID is just further dishonesty.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I have to wonder if this is related to how little Bammie got into and through college and somehow passed the bar.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Just to set the record straight…he never permanently passed the bar, it was a “provisional” pass, which was removed.
They were going to “investigate irregularities” in his exam, and he asked that it not be admitted and he withdrew from being an attorney, with the agreement that there would be no investigation….
Now you know the rest of the story, he was an “attorney” for about 9 months…

right2bright on April 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM

9-0 for bush?
7-2 for Bush?

What votes were these?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Both of those were SCOTUS votes finding FL’s Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Gore / Bush recount wrong. So, they were not even close on the issue of whether or not the Florida court was wrong. The 5-4 decision was on the issue of what the remedy should be, not the underlying merits. So, your belief that it was a 5-4 decision along “party” lines is wrong.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

…THus(sic) meaning that requiring an ID to do something that is your right under the US Constitution is in fact adding a new requirement to the Constitution…

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Congratulations! You have already been declared the winner of the Stupidest Shit of the Day Trophy. (It looks a lot like Jay Carney.)

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Why is the ID such a huge requirement now? When it it was not one for all of these years?

There is NO proof of wide spread voter fraud, NONE, ZERO.

So what is the reason for puching this as hard as the right is?

There can only be one reason, because they know it will help them.

The right could just come out and say when you turn 18 you are required to get a free ID at the time of selective service, that would solve the issue. But no, instead they want you to get an ID to vote, but you do not need a picture ID to serve for this great country of ours.

The logic is not there on how they try to push this, and they constantly scream about Voter Fraud, but have yet to prove anything wide spread, in fact they are the ones that have been convicted of it on many occasions.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Nothing but straw man arguments.

You supposedly have a right to vote – by virtue of being a US citizen, over the age of 18. When you show up to the polling station, how exactly do we know that you are in fact who you say you are, are a US citizen, over the age of 18, and therefore actually have a right to vote?
Please – enlighten me.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Rules? Come on…. I mean the right had to get Bush installed by the Supremes…… They are always the ones running to court to change the rules ater the fact.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Seven justices (the five Justice majority plus Breyer and Souter) agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.

By the way, even the New York Times long ago debunked the myth that Gore won Florida. Too bad for you that ManBearPig couldn’t win his home state.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Please show me a link to the 9-0 ruling, I cant find it.

And still, since the right yells about state rights, why did the Supremes over rule the Florida Election Process decided by the state?

The count could of been completed, they just decided there was no chance without even letting it try to happen.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Here’s something else, I’m sure it all the same fore everyone here.

When I registered to vote (New York) I was given a Voter ID card; had my name, address, even my Party Affiliation (loved the looks I got when I went into the polling places). The poll worker would compare my card to the active list, I would sign next to my prior voting record, they would compare and off i go.

Now since that’s given to me by the State, isn’t that in of itself a ID card? As far as I know, this practice is still in effect, so isn’t the government (yes i know state not Feds) still requiring ID?

Not to mention, up until 9/11, I was still able to use my Selective Service & Voter ID card as valid ID to get a non-drivers ID for NY.

BlaxPac on April 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM

<b Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 4:37 PM

9-0 for bush?
7-2 for Bush?

What votes were these?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM

The first 9-0 ruling came before the final 2 rulings. That ruling concluded that the All-Democrat Florida Supreme Court was trying to Steal the election for Gore. When the US Supreme Court sent that decision back after rejecting it 9-0, they kindly asked the Florida Supreme Court to “try again”.

When the Florida Supremes then reworked their Attempt to Steal the Election for Gore, their own Chief Justice, Charles Wells, bitterly dissented, and correctly predicted that SCOTUS would overturn this Judicial Activism. He was right.

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was by a 7-2 vote.

Just curious: was the All-Democrat Florida Supreme Court “biased” in trying to steal the election for the Democrat?

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

SHow me the “Wide spread fraud” that is making this such a huge requirement now to stop it.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

The right could just come out and say when you turn 18 you are required to get a free ID at the time of selective service, that would solve the issue. But no, instead they want you to get an ID to vote, but you do not need a picture ID to serve for this great country of ours.

Try getting onto a military base without a picture ID. Try getting into the White House on tour without a picture ID. Try explaining to the nice officer when he pulls you over while driving your Obama Dolt why you don’t have a picture ID.

Tell me something, why would Jimmy Carter and many other Democrats have wanted to disenfranchise voters in 2005 by calling for voter ID laws and claiming that they would be one of the 5 pillars necessary to insure integrity in federal elections?

The NAACP, Voter ID Laws, the UN, and Jimmy Carter

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Why is the ID such a huge requirement now? When it it was not one for all of these years?

that is untrue – we have been trying to get an ID requirement for years. Regardless, so what? Why gay marriage now? Why socialized medicine now? Is your argument that nothing should ever change?

There is NO proof of wide spread voter fraud, NONE, ZERO.

Just because you believe something and say it in caps, does not make it true. Besides, it does not matter if it is wide spread or not, if there is fraud, it should be dealt with, and there is fraud. There have been many recent convictions regarding voter fraud.

So what is the reason for puching this as hard as the right is?

There can only be one reason, because they know it will help them.

Yes, it will help the right as illegals, felons and the dead are no longer allowed to vote. Besides that, your logic is again inane. Why is the left so “outraged” over the idea of photo ID (when in fact, everyone already has photo ID and photo ID is required for almost everything)? Because the left knows that voter fraud helps them. There is no other reason for the left to be against photo ID for voting.

The right could just come out and say when you turn 18 you are required to get a free ID at the time of selective service, that would solve the issue. But no, instead they want you to get an ID to vote, but you do not need a picture ID to serve for this great country of ours.

You really are quite ignorant. You are issued an ID when you join the military. And you do need an ID to sign up – they don’t just take you off the street. I served and my sister serves. I know how it works. You obviously have no clue.

The logic is not there on how they try to push this, and they constantly scream about Voter Fraud, but have yet to prove anything wide spread, in fact they are the ones that have been convicted of it on many occasions.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM

What? That doesn’t even make sense.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

There is NO proof of wide spread voter fraud, NONE, ZERO.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You are wrong.

Of course, like a good liberal should, you will stick your fingers in your ears and go: la la la la I can’t hear you…

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

SHow me the “Wide spread fraud” that is making this such a huge requirement now to stop it.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Done.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Please show me a link to the 9-0 ruling, I cant find it.

And still, since the right yells about state rights, why did the Supremes over rule the Florida Election Process decided by the state?

The count could of been completed, they just decided there was no chance without even letting it try to happen.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Oh dear lord. They did not overrule the Florida election process. The overruled the idea that the “recount” should only occur in the few counties that would only help Gore as the Florida Supreme Court (all dem appointed judges) ruled.

And, ultimately a consortium of newspapers did do a state-wide recount and found Bush would still have won.

So get over it and learn something.

Regardless, what does that have to do with Voter ID laws? Are you just wildly flailing at anything?

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

When you sign up for selective service, you do not need a picture ID only a birth certificate.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

SHow me the “Wide spread fraud” that is making this such a huge requirement now to stop it.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

ONE fraudulent vote is enough because it disenfranchises a legitimate voter. Republicans don’t exactly have clean hands here either although the fraud lately has been much more predominant on the Democratic side.

Here are some examples:

Every Vote Counts, But Some Votes Count More Than Others…Especially If They Are Cast For Democrats

And, by the way, it is likely that both Obama and Hillary were not legitimately put on the ballot in Indiana in 2008. While it wouldn’t affect the election outcome, don’t we, as a country, deserve a better election/voting system?

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

The count could of been completed, they just decided there was no chance without even letting it try to happen.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Um, Gore only wanted 3 counties to be recounted. Bush wanted all counties to have recounts.

I wonder why?

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

When you sign up for selective service, you do not need a picture ID only a birth certificate.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

You said “serve”. Selective service is not serving. If they had a draft and called you up, they would require a photo ID to make sure it is you. They don’t let people in on their own “say so”.

Try again.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

When you sign up for selective service, you do not need a picture ID only a birth certificate.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

But to get a copy of your birth certificate you need a Photo ID.

F-

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM

The right could just come out and say when you turn 18 you are required to get a free ID at the time of selective service, that would solve the issue.

And, by the way, I would have no problem with issuing every person who turns 18 a photo ID. But the left would still argue against requiring a photo ID for voting. Ask yourself why that would be?

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Even if there *isn’t* widespread, Damian, can you explain why *not* show your ID when you vote?

Whenever you deal with the government at *any* level, you are asked for proof of idenetty.

Get a copy of your property tax payments for last 5 years. Drivers ID please.

Want a copy of your SS payments? Need your SS #.

Want to purchase a firearm? Better be able to prove that.

Want to get your mail package from the local USPS? ID along with that pink slip.

Why should voting be the only place that all of a sudden is hands off now? No one said it was foolproof, but if it makes it harder to actually cause mischief, especially in the voting process, why not?

BlaxPac on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

But to get a copy of your birth certificate you need a Photo ID.

F-

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM

In fairness, that isn’t necessarily true. I have my kids birth certificates – so if I don’t lose them, when they are old enough, they could use those – which they would have obtained without a photo ID.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:05 PM

The count could of been completed, they just decided there was no chance without even letting it try to happen.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:52 PM

No, the count could not have been completed because the State of Florida laws said that the Florida Electors for the Electoral College had to be in place by a certain date.

I attribute your breathtaking ignorance in this particular case to

1. Public Education.

2. Your “news sources”, which are all Democrat.

3. You most likely read Alan Dershowitz’ horrible, hastily thrown together “book” about that case. It’s partisan garbage.

For an objective and accurate chronicle of that election, read the fine book “The Perfect Tie”. It was written by 2 college professors, and they are quite objective.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Perfect-Tie-Presidential-Election/dp/0742508366

They also conclude that your guy Algore was in fact the bad guy in the story.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Please Malkim, half her article had to do with nothing about voter fraud, and more about the doctor notes in WI.

The rest of the article claims voter fraud in Primaries, not general elections.

Indiana Secretary Of State Indicted On Voter Fraud Charges … when he voted in last year’s Republican primary, the Courier-Journal reports.


QUITMAN, GA (WALB) – 12 former Brooks County officials were indicted for voter fraud. The suspects are accused of illegally helping people vote by absentee ballot.

State officials launched an investigation after an unusually high number of absentee ballots were cast in the July 2010 primary election. “As a result of their grand jury findings 12 individuals were indicted in that particular matter and we will be trying that case in a court of judicial law instead of a court of public opinion so that will be pending this next year,” said District Attorney Joe Mulholland.

For much of the 2010 election cycle conservatives warned about the potential of voter fraud from Democrats. Four months after the election conservatives finally appear to have a “slam dunk case” of voter fraud. However, the case appears to involve one of their own. Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White (R) has been indicted on seven felony counts of fraud, perjury, and theft related to the 2010 midterm elections.

Mar 1, 2012 – Republican indicted for voter fraud for trying to register his dog as Democrat…to demonstrate how easy it is to commit voter fraud …

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

SHow me the “Wide spread fraud” that is making this such a huge requirement now to stop it.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Why must “wide spread fraud” be proven before we implement laws to prevent it?

But here are a few samples just from a simple google search that you could do if you were competent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/4-indiana-dems-charged-with-election-fraud-in-2008/?test=latestnews

http://nation.foxnews.com/voter-fraud/2012/01/19/ny-democrat-voter-fraud-normal-political-tactic

http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/council-constitutional-principles/2012/feb/03/gpppppppppppppppppp/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25349

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197406-373-0.stm

Now explain to me how much voter fraud we should allow to happen before we do something to prevent it from happening?
Is your argument that we must prove widespread voter fraud before we can set laws / procedures to prevent it?
Ever heard the the phrase “close the barn doors after the horses are gone…”?

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM

More evidence of real voter fraud, doesn’t seem to be getting much coverage: Illegal Alien Mass Voter Fraud Discovered in Florida

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Interesting read from Minnesota today…they are going the constitutional amendment route and expect it to be an easy win.

BTW, one of our leftie radio stations ((103.3 FM in Plover WI wherever that is) that is quick to point out all of Walker’s flaws) requires photo ID to claim a prize. I laugh everytime I hear it. They do play good music though.

teejk on April 5, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

No, I do not read left or right wing alone, I read everything and pass judgement for myself, I do not always vote democrat, I voted for Bush the second term (Not the first)

I think for myself, read and pass judgement for myself, I take noones word on anything for granted or as fact.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Why should voting be the only place that all of a sudden is hands off now? No one said it was foolproof, but if it makes it harder to actually cause mischief, especially in the voting process, why not?

BlaxPac on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

For decades, the Democrats have known that they can’t win honest elections, because they can’t be honest about their political ideas. Hence they are afraid to call themselves “liberal”, using the word “Progressive” instead.

Therefore, the only chances they have to gain political power is via dishonest elections, and by extension, dishonest Judges. Many Judges in America are still elected, not appointed, and dishonest elections will help get those Activist Crooks on the Bench.

Even the Justices on the Florida Supreme Court, which tried to steal the 2000 election for the Democrat candidate, are all elected.
And many of them were later easily re-elected by the rocket scientist Democrats in their Districts.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM

No, I do not read left or right wing alone, I read everything and pass judgement for myself, I do not always vote democrat, I voted for Bush the second term (Not the first)

I think for myself, read and pass judgement for myself, I take noones word on anything for granted or as fact.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Translated: “Del nailed me dead to rights”.

Thanks for Playing!

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

SO when republicans commit voter fraud, thats ok? They are the ones always indicted for it, they also jam phone lines on election night.

All proven, they send out “You dont need to vote today” cards.

Thats all ok with you I take it, since you keep putting all of the blame on the left.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Democrat-held districts in my area have been gaming the system as long as I can remember. The latest in their array of dirty tricks is absentee ballot tampering.

For years, they’ve used registration rolls to find out who didn’t vote, and somehow magically the non-voting voters have voted after all, just before closing time of course. They’ve gotten away with this because the local Democrat regime has been entrenched since the last two-thirds of the last century, including law enforcement and prosecutorial authority.

The advent of modern voting methods has reduced this practice somewhat, but there are still shennanigans aplenty.

Their unprincipled usurpation of the weight of legitimate votes is standard practice, and has been for decades.

Damian, you and your ilk are always bellowing about vote suppression and disenfranchisement. Where is the outrage over the proven examples of your side’s misdeeds?

???

~~~~crickets~~~~

That’s what I thought.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Why should voting be the only place that all of a sudden is hands off now? No one said it was foolproof, but if it makes it harder to actually cause mischief, especially in the voting process, why not?

BlaxPac on April 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

you should have pointed out that it was a rhetorical question BlaxPac…you already know the answer…

teejk on April 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Thats a whole other issue with it, voting precincts are usually pretty close to a persons home, some states do not have anything near by for ID’s. Because of state cuts some are really far away.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:38 PM

FAIL! When the AZ passed this law there were MOBILE ID offices set up in different areas of the state several times where people could get a FREE ID. You have zero verifiable proof showing people are being discriminated against in outlying areas.

Getting an ID is not that hard and the process has been adjusted to help those people get an ID. BTW, once you have an ID here in AZ you can always order another online if it gets lost.

Another way to get an ID, go to the post office and get a passport but that does cost money however there are a lot (for now) post office in the US.

VikingGoneWild on April 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

blockquote>SHow me the “Wide spread fraud” that is making this such a huge requirement now to stop it.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Why must “wide spread fraud” be proven before we implement laws to prevent it?

Do a simple google search on the words “Democrat voter fraud” and you’ll get plenty of answers if you are competent enough.

Now explain to me how much voter fraud we should allow to happen before we do something to prevent it from happening?
Is your argument that we must prove widespread voter fraud before we can set laws / procedures to prevent it?
Ever heard the the phrase “close the barn doors after the horses are gone…”?

Is it ok with you that I could go to your local polling station and say that I’m “damian1967″, NOT show an ID, get a ballot and vote? When you show up and say you are damian1967 and want to vote, they charge you with voter fraud for trying to vote twice – because you already voted. If you’re ok with that, then continue your strawman arguments against voter ID – because, well that just doesn’t happen, can’t be proven that it does happen, so it obviously never does or will happen.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Wanna work at the DOJ or your favorite liberal NGO? Gotta show your ID. Wanna vote in your next union election, gonna have to show your ID.

spinny on April 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM

ALL republican:

1980s

In 1981 and 1986 the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out letters to predominantly African-American neighborhoods. When tens of thousands of them were returned undeliverable, the party successfully challenged the voters and had them deleted from voting rolls. Due to the violation of the Voting Rights Act, the RNC was taken to court. Its officials entered a consent decree which prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities or conducting mail campaigns to “compile voter challenge lists.”[5]

[edit] 2004 US Election

BBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled “State Implementation Template III.doc” that described Republican election operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was:

V. Pre Election Day Operations New Registration Mailing
At whatever point registration in the state closes, a first class mailing should be sent to all new registrants as well as purged/inactive voters. This mailing should welcome the recipient to the voter rolls. It is important that a return address is clearly identifiable. Any mail returned as undeliverable for any reason, should be used to generate a list of problematic registrations. Poll watchers should have this list and be prepared to challenge anyone from this list attempting to vote.[6][7]
Shortly before the 2004 election, Palast also obtained a caging list for Jacksonville, Florida, which contained a high number of African Americans and registered Democrats. The caging list was attached to an email which a Florida Republican party official was sending to RNC headquarters official Tim Griffin.[7][8][9]
The Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly urban minority areas in Ohio. When 35,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the party employed poll watchers to challenge the voters. Voting rights groups challenged the RNC in a case that went to the Supreme Court, but the RNC was not stopped from challenging those voters. Similarly, the RNC sent out 130,000 letters in Philadelphia hoping to cage voters there. Philadelphia is a city with a majority African American population that votes heavily Democratic. The Republicans were attempting to cage votes by people who were likely to vote for the Democratic candidates.[10]
In the Ohio court challenge, the RNC submitted a caging list that targeted urban and African-American areas in and around Cleveland.[11]
Journalists found evidence that the Republican National Committee (RNC) attempted to use caging to suppress votes in five states in the 2004 US presidential election. For example, in New Jersey RNC officials used caging lists to challenge absentee ballots and absentee ballot requests.[11]

[edit] 2008 US Election
As noted earlier, the Republican Secretary of State in Michigan was found purging voters from voting rolls when voter ID cards were returned as undeliverable. In the court challenge, the federal judge ordered the state to reinstate the voters.[12] The judge ruled that the state’s actions were in violation of the NVRA. His decision noted that there was no way to prevent qualified voters from being disfranchised as their cards may be returned as undeliverable due to postal error, clerical error, inadvertent routing within a multi-unit dwelling, and even simple misspelling or transposition of numbers in an address.[13]
In December 2007, Kansas GOP Chair Kris Kobach sent an email boasting, “[T]o date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!”[14]
Republicans sent out fundraising mailers to voters in five Florida counties: Duval, Hillsborough, Collier, Miami-Dade and Escambia, with ‘do not forward’ on the letters. The mailers included inaccurate Voter ID numbers and ostensibly confirmed with voters they were registered as Republican. The RNC declined to discuss the mailer with the St. Petersburg Times. A representative denied the mailing had anything to do with caging. “Two top Florida elections officials, both Republicans, faulted the GOP mailing, calling it “confusing” and “unfortunate” because of a potential to undermine voter confidence by making them question the accuracy of their registrations.” Some officials expressed concern that the RNC would try to use a caging list derived from the mailers.[15]
In Northern California reports of voter caging emerged when letters marked ‘do not forward’ were sent to Democrats with fake voter ID numbers. The description of the letters matches the letters that were sent out in Florida.[16] See the caging letter that was sent out here. Many details on the letters were false; for example, the letters referred to a Voter Identification Division but RNC personnel said they had no such department. The RNC did not return calls from a news organization regarding the letters.
On October 5, 2008 the Republican (but elected on the Democratic ticket) Lt. Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of vote caging to purge 6,000 voters from three counties which trend Democratic. These purges included decorated war veterans and active duty soldiers.[17]
The New York Times found in its review of state records that unlawful actions in six states led to widespread voter purges, which could have impact on the 2008 elections. Some of the actions were apparently the result of mistakes by the states’ handling voter registrations and files as they tried to comply with a 2002 federal law related to running elections. While neither party was singled out, because the Democratic Party registered more new voters this year, Democratic voters were more adversely affected by such actions of state officials.[18]

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM

The rest of the article claims voter fraud in Primaries, not general elections.

So, should ID be required for primaries but not the general? It is to laugh.

Of course, you prefer no requirement at all, since the lying, cheating, vote-stealing practices benefit your side.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

SO when republicans commit voter fraud, thats ok? They are the ones always indicted for it, they also jam phone lines on election night.

All proven, they send out “You dont need to vote today” cards.

Thats all ok with you I take it, since you keep putting all of the blame on the left.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

None of that is true. I’m sure republicans engage in voter fraud as well. they aren’t the only ones indicted for it, there have been many recent convictions of dem activivists engaged in fraud. And the “you don’t need to vote today” is nonsense.

It is not ok when anyone engages in voter fraud. If you and others on the left truly believed that republicans were routinely engaged in voter fraud, you’d be fine with photo ID’s. So drop the nonsense argument.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I take noones word on anything for granted or as fact.

Take my word for granted and for fact: “No one’s” is two words.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Well I must have missed my letter…or my check, because i’ve been voting every year since 1988…and guess what?

Still Black, still a Republican…still voting.

Please show more than once source for this?

BlaxPac on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

the “caging” thing? So what? That’s actually a good tactic to look out for fraudulent voting. And most fraudulent voting is in urban areas. If someone registers to vote from an address, but then can’t get mail delivered there, then it is a fraudulent registration as they don’t really live there.

I’m not sure what you think that proves. You obviously do not understand what you yourself posted.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

My Side? I dont have a side, I am for a free america. I dont think people should be required to have an ID to elect people who govern them.

I do believe people should have a right to own a gun.

I do not believe a Corporation should have the same rights as a person.

I do believe the government should stay out of my bedroom.

I do believe that the government should not be in the health care industry or mandate anything about it.

So what Side am I on?

Please do not classify me as being on a “side” when you do not know me, how I vote or what I believe in.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM

So you’re ok with allowing voter fraud to continue?

I don’t care which side might do it. I personally want to be sure my vote is not taken away by someone else, is not negated by a fraudulent vote, and is actually counted properly for the election.
If those things don’t matter to you, then you really don’t care about voter’s rights at all – you’re just throwing out the standard Dem line of BS just to get attention and make a scene.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:23 PM

People do MOVE, that doesnt make anything fraud about them voting.

And it was illegal when they did it, thats why they entered a consent decree for thier actions.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM

teejk on April 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I know…mores the pity.

And if the argument was at least somewhat honest it would make it easier to deal with.

No one wants fraud on either side, yet the Dems fight it and try to demagogue the GOP and use minorities as fodder just so they can retain power?

BlaxPac on April 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM

The New York Times found in its review of state records that unlawful actions in six states led to widespread voter purges, which could have impact on the 2008 elections. Some of the actions were apparently the result of mistakes by the states’ handling voter registrations and files as they tried to comply with a 2002 federal law related to running elections. While neither party was singled out, because the Democratic Party registered more new voters this year, Democratic voters were more adversely affected by such actions of state officials.[18]

I see – the NY Times determined that such actions are “unlawful”. Idiotic.

what do you think that proves? Democrats always try to keep absentee soldier ballots from being counted. It happens every single election, because soldiers tend for vote more heavily republican. Both parties play these games.

It has nothing to do with photo ID requirements. Challenging whether someone is truly an eligible voter is not “voter fraud”. Voter fraud is when someone votes who is not eligible.

If you truly believed that republicans were engaging in voter fraud, you’d be for the photo ID. The fact that you aren’t, and we are, demonstrates pretty clear what we all know – that dems rely on voter fraud in close elections.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I dont think people should be required to have an ID to elect people who govern them.

Does that apply to the dead, too?

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM

People do MOVE, that doesnt make anything fraud about them voting.

And it was illegal when they did it, thats why they entered a consent decree for thier actions.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I didn’t say it made them fraud every time it makes it more likely, particularly when they just registered and the address does not work.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I am NOT ok with Voter Fraud, but listen to what you just said, you do not want your vote taken away by a fraud vote.

Well the same can be said by a legally able and right to vote person, not being able to vote because of this, and therefore your vote is taking away thier vote.

There is no difference.

If you are legal to vote, then your vote should count, and in many cases people have been removed from voter rolls just because their name matched someone who should not be on the rolls. Thus meaning your vote negated thiers.

And thats not right either.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM

ALL republican:

1980s…

and so forth…

and on…

and on…

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Bwahahahaha.

This, after pronouncing with proper unction that, and I quote:

There is NO proof of wide spread voter fraud, NONE, ZERO.

You, sir, have pwned yourself.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Is it ok with you that I could go to your local polling station and say that I’m “damian1967″, NOT show an ID, get a ballot and vote? When you show up and say you are damian1967 and want to vote, they charge you with voter fraud for trying to vote twice – because you already voted.
dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Answer damian?
You’re ok with this scenario right?

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Are idiots serious?

cornfedbubba on April 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Not all of them. Some are as silly as a cornfedbubba

HotAirian on April 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I dunno, does it?

Hundreds Of Dead People Vote In South Carolina GOP Primary

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2012/01/voter-fraud-alleged-south-carolina-gop-primary

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM

So what Side am I on?

Please do not classify me as being on a “side” when you do not know me, how I vote or what I believe in.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Then what was the purpose of this?

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:34 PM

My Side? I dont have a side, I am for a free america. I dont think people should be required to have an ID to elect people who govern them.

I do believe people should have a right to own a gun.

I do not believe a Corporation should have the same rights as a person.

I do believe the government should stay out of my bedroom.

I do believe that the government should not be in the health care industry or mandate anything about it.

So what Side am I on?

Please do not classify me as being on a “side” when you do not know me, how I vote or what I believe in.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

the argument that there is something inherintly wrong with requiring a photo ID to vote is so silly as to be meaningless. I can almost take an argument seriously (not really because it too is incredibly dishonest and stupid) that some people might not have photo IDs. but to argue that it is about “freedom” to be against requiring a photo ID? Please. that’s dishonest and silly.

Voting is one of the most important things we do. It should require the same level of identification as banking, driving, drinking, buying cigarets, renting videos, renting cars, joining the military, being employed (yes, you have to show photo ID for the I-9 form), entering a federal building, and a million other things.

Claiming otherwise is simply ridiculous. I can’t take anyone seriously who holds such an asinine position. There’s no moral, philosophical or legal argument that can be made that is even remotely persuasive. It is just too damn silly.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:35 PM

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM

No, I am not ok with that, but here again show me all the proof that this is happening all the time.

It isnt, and my right to vote should not be taken away cause I chose not to have an ID to elect the person to the government that represents a tax paying citizen.

If I cant vote, then I shouldnt have to pay my taxes

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:35 PM

All proven, they send out “You dont need to vote today” cards.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

While I find such an abhorrent practise, how is that voter fraud? After all, we have continuously been told by the Left that when ACORN registers Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, the starting line-up of the Lakers, Che Guevara, and, sadly, the Magnificent Bastard, Andrew Breitbart, in Chicago to vote in November that it isn’t voter fraud and, in fact, it’s not illegal at all.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Its a point, everyone likes to blame the left, when it is not the left alone with the issues. The right is equally as guilty.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM

There is no difference.

the difference is that it’s a lot less likely (almost nil chance) of someone not being able to obtain a photo ID. so the requirement would not keep anyone from voting – despite your silly assertions otherwise.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM

That’s the dumbest crap I’ve heard, well since lib4life’s last post anyway.
It’s not the same thing at all. Your arguments are nothing but straw.
Do visitors from other countries have the right to vote in the US?
Do 15 year olds have the right to vote?
Do dead people have the right to vote?
How do we know you’re NOT in one of those categories?
Prove you actually have the right to vote.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:35 PM

If you choose not to identify yourself, then we don’t know that you actually have the right to vote in this country.
Prove you have the right to vote.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:40 PM

It isnt, and my right to vote should not be taken away cause I chose not to have an ID to elect the person to the government that represents a tax paying citizen.

If I cant vote, then I shouldnt have to pay my taxes

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Silly. I shouldn’t have to show an ID to buy a gun. I shouldn’t have to show an ID to enter a federal building. I shouldn’t have to show an ID to buy beer or cigarettes. I shouldn’t have to show an ID to enter or leave the country. I shouldn’t have to show an ID to get on a Plane.

You shouldn’t have to register to vote. Why do you allow that? How is that different?

In fact, you shouldn’t have to give your name or address when voting. Just show up, stroll in and vote.

Why are any of those requirements any different?

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Yes there is no difference, look when FLorida purged all of those names off the ballots, that had NOTHING to do with ID’s, and many of them still were legally allowed to vote, yet could not because they took them off the ballot.

It had nothing to do with ID, but your cvote would of cancelled out their vote since they could not vote when they should of been allowed to.

Sandylynn Williams had voted in every election since she was 18. But this time, election officials confused her with her sister — a felon who had once used Williams’s name — and refused to let her vote.

The Tampa residents were among hundreds, perhaps thousands, of non-felons in Florida who civil rights lawyers contend were wrongly prevented from voting in the Nov. 7 election after state election officials and a private contractor bungled an attempt to cleanse felons from voter rolls.

Guess that was ok?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Its a point, everyone likes to blame the left, when it is not the left alone with the issues. The right is equally as guilty.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM

So let’s get serious about ending the malfeasance, and put in place standards which will make said malfeasance exponentially more difficult.

Maybe we need standards such as requiring a valid ID?

Right?

Please, no more blather about what an imposition or how unfair an ID requirement is, because it is simply that — blather.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Buying a gun, can be used to kill or harm a person, checking thier background is a must and not the same as a vote.

You can chose to buy ciggs or liquor, but it is not something that represents you. Not the same

Security requires you to identify you for the safety of others in the building, still not the same.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Sandylynn Williams had voted in every election since she was 18. But this time, election officials confused her with her sister — a felon who had once used Williams’s name — and refused to let her vote.
damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM

So – a convicted felon (who does NOT have the right to vote) voted as someone else (apparently without showing proper ID at the polling stations) and cost the other person her right to vote – and that’s your argument against voter ID?
That’s not just a strawman – you’re now grasping for straws – and failing miserably.
You just proved our point about why voter ID is important.
Thanks – nice job.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:47 PM

perhaps already mentioned above…I don’t think anybody can prove or disprove voter fraud in the absence of voter ID (i.e. if somebody voted 6 times or used his/her neighbor’s name because he/she knew they didn’t bother to vote, how would anybody know).

The real issue is that I don’t know of any other civilized country in the world that doesn’t require a “citizen card”. Forget about voting, one needs to carry it or be able to produce it. But it also serves to validate one’s right to vote (read “right”, not “privledge”).

So let’s start with voter ID (a band-aid in my opinion since there is no requirement that one surrenders ID 1 to obtain ID 2 if you claim the dog ate #1)…and then proceed to a national cross-check database (they can do it for guns and tax filings…the gov’t already knows more about you than you think).

The Dems screaming over the issue…”smoke/fire” comes to mind.

teejk on April 5, 2012 at 5:48 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Nothing but straw – and invalid straw at that.
A gun can kill people – a President can kill millions of people.
You fail.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I noticed that you have chosen to ignore this:

ALL republican:

1980s…

and so forth…

and on…

and on…

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Bwahahahaha.

This, after pronouncing with proper unction that, and I quote:

There is NO proof of wide spread voter fraud, NONE, ZERO.

You, sir, have pwned yourself.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:30 PM

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM

It isnt, and my right to vote should not be taken away cause I chose not to have an ID to elect the person to the government that represents a tax paying citizen.

If I cant vote, then I shouldnt have to pay my taxes

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Wrong. Minors have to pay income taxes, too. Um, tell me, how are we supposed to know that you are a citizen and entitled to vote if you do not have identification?

You know what is amazing to me? I am a naturalised American. For years, I had to carry my “paphurs” on me at all times. I never once felt like I was in Nazi Germany, as the Left screams. I’m well-traveled enough to know that it is not unusual.

I have no problem whatsoever in providing identification at a polling station. With rights come responsibilities. I have a responsibility to prove that I am an American citizen and that I am entitled to vote. Then, I have the responsibility to vote the bastards out of office.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Can any national Republican please ask the Democrats how voter ID is evil when even the half-socialist country of Norway even has it, on a national level?

Seriously. Just ask them that every time they trot out their lies. They won’t be able to answer.

Please, anyone with gravitas, pass that along. Make it a meme. Stop this insanity once and for all.

Seixon on April 5, 2012 at 5:51 PM

SOLUTION: Require ID to enter the polling place. Precedent has been set, as per the headline of this thread.

Problem solved.

Strike Twice on April 5, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Here’s an idea damian – since you hate the idea of ID – how about we copy what those highly civilized Arabs do and you put a fingerprint on your ballot? You don’t have to be bothered with going to get a fingerprint issued, and it’s with you all the time.
Would you be ok with that?

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:52 PM

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM

An ID does not get rid of removing people illegally from voter rolls, and them not being able to vote when they should be legally allowed to.

Thats a bigger issue than ID’s, why isnt that at the top of the priority?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:52 PM

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:52 PM

lol I was going to say that with the fingerprint, I am completely ok with that.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Wrong. Minors have to pay income taxes, too. Um, tell me, how are we supposed to know that you are a citizen and entitled to vote if you do not have identification?
Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I’ve already asked that question about 3 times – damian can’t and won’t answer because the logical answer kills his strawmen.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:55 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it? I’ve already said that neither party has clean hands. (OK, I admit that “clean hands” is a legal term, but I had thought that its meaning was understood by most sentient beings. Mea culpa.) Both parties have been guilty.

As I said, I don’t care about the parties. I care about the system. I also happen NOT to be a Republican or even a Conservative. I am a libertarian and registered Independent.

I disapprove of dead voters whether they are in Texas or South Carolina. Happy, now? Did I make myself clear enough for you to comprehend this time?

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 5:56 PM

lol I was going to say that with the fingerprint, I am completely ok with that.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Great – now we’re getting somewhere. You do know of course that means the government will have the ability to match your fingerprint to all your other identification data?

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM

An ID does not get rid of removing people illegally from voter rolls, and them not being able to vote when they should be legally allowed to.

Thats a bigger issue than ID’s, why isnt that at the top of the priority?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Voter rolls are practically meaningless if no ID is required anyway. If stringent requirements for ID were in place, then it would be easy to put in place a procedure for a denied voter to register a complaint then and there, and subsequently prove their eligibility with … wait for it… a valid ID.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Really, Kid?

The Supremes voted in Bush V Gore by the following votes:

1. 9-0 for Bush

2. 7-2 for Bush

3. 5-4 for Bush

damian1966 was much funnier.

F-

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2012 at 4:37 PM

damian1966, you’re really kinda sucky for a troll…

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:00 PM

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM

ANd I am ok with that. I am just not ok with having to go get and or be required to get an ID to be allowed to vote.

If they want to use something free like a fingerprint, I am fine with that.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM

There is a BIG difference, the constitution does not REQUIRE people to have an ID or to get one.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

No, damian, the US Constitution “does not REQUIRE people to have an ID or get one”…but the US Constitution states that the STATES control voter rights in that state

Seriously?

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:04 PM

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 5:55 PM

When I signed up for selective service (Years and years ago) That was enough for me to register to vote, I didnt have a picture ID then, and I have NEVER had to show my id to vote.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3