Posted on 09/14/2006 3:24:29 PM PDT by SmithL
No. and voting is a state issue, not federal(usually).
Actually, the law included funding to allow for FREE voter IDs, as well as mobil capabilities, which would allow people who had no transportation to call a number, and the voter ID equipment would be sent to them, again at no charge.
Plain and simple, it's to do anything to keep illegal voting and fraud simple to commit in the state of MO.
Remember, in 2000, precincts were kept open later than the law allowed in dem districts in St Louis, a dead man filed a grievance for not being able to vote, and more votes were counted than there were elligible voters in St Louis county.
Mark
These lawless rogues have absolutely no authority over us. They have their positions solely to enforce the laws we establish, not to ignore them to enact their own, and especially not to steal the franchise and permit fraud. I have no reason to consent to a government that ignores vote fraud and I will not give it the slightest regard or support.
I hadn't thought of it, but obviously voter ID cards have to be free.
BTW, when I registered to vote in 1971 in NY, I got a (free) voter ID card with my name, address, ward and precinct.
What stopps them from showing up with their birth certificate?
Sure looks like Judge Callahan is in the tank for the 'Rats.
free ID
Interesting ....... Louisiana has a similar requrirement and as far as I know it still stands. Different state codes maybe?....
It seems to me that an easy solution would be for MO to waive the ID fee to those with a credible claim of poverty. This is what a lot of state courts do. If a litigant needs to file suit (e.g. for divorce from an abusive spouse) but can't afford the filing fee, they submit a poverty affidavit and the filing fee is waived.
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this ping list.
Its Mo dude...old school dem machine is puttin along here
How stupid... Damn activist judges... Our gov. Napalatano tried the same argument here in Arizona to overturn what we voted in. I heard our secretary of state interviewed this morning and she said they recieved NO complaints about having to show ID here to vote yesterday. But here, acceptable ID was not only a drivers liscense... Here if you did not have a picture ID, you could provide two items off a long list of acceptable ID's, the simplest for an already registered voter, being a voter registration card and the sample ballot, both were mailed to every registered voter, just prior to the primaries. I also know any two utility bills that had a name and address on them were also acceptable. Strange that a passport was not acceptable here though. Funny thing is, every time I have voted in the past 15 years I was asked for my ID so they could find my name on the voter rolls... and the law just went into effect this election.
The 24th says:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
The fee for a driver's license or some other form of ID is NOT a tax. It is not covered by the 24th admendment - at least, not if one uses english.
Using special 'Judge's English', a tax could be anything a judge feels like calling a tax.
How do the poor cash welfare checks w/o ID's?
Oh I see, so not allowing vote fraud is an infringement upon voting rights?? If someone doesn't have I.D., they're too stupid too be allowed to vote, or they have something to hide.
A federal judge in Indiana upheld that state's voter photo ID law in April. But in Georgia last month, a state and federal judge each issued orders blocking that state's law.
The Missouri decision will swing the pendulum one way or the other - forming a symbolic two-out-of-three-states consensus (at least temporarily, since appeals could reverse the trial court decisions in any one of those states).
If licenses were free, the objection would be that getting a certified copy of the birth certificate would be too much of a restriction and the cost an unreasonable burden.
The only rational response to this court decision is to say: Enforce it. The court can't.
The State clerks can't read Spanish
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.