Posted on 04/29/2008 1:20:15 PM PDT by thinkingIsPresuppositional
Showing ID to vote? The horror.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer runs whiny AP writer's complaint about Indiana voter law
What is it with Democrats and showing ID at the polls? This article from an AP national writer certainly doesn't fit any reasonable standard for a wire service. It's just short of a screed, with no balance...just a minor jeremiad against asking people to show ID at the polls:
The Supreme Court's refusal to strike down an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo identification at the ballot box could disenfranchise minority and elderly voters at next week's primary and prompt other states to pass similar laws, voting advocates said Monday.
The court, in a splintered 6-3 ruling Monday, said Indiana's law, which took effect in 2006 and requires voters to present a state or federal photo ID card at the ballot box, does not violate the First or 14th amendments.
With the court constituted as it is, anything that is 6-3 is actually pretty lopsided. How about mentioning that Justice Stevens, not exactly a conservative originalist, wrote the opinion in favor of the law?
(Excerpt) Read more at modernconservative.com ...
These minority and elderly voters...
They drive without a license?
They cash checks or do other financial transactions without photo ID?
And by the way, the “right to vote” isn’t in the Constitution.
I think this was a very sensible decision by SCOTUS.
The Democrat’s Idea of Utopia
No ID to vote.
No ID at the border.
No ID for an abortion.
No ID for birth control.
Register bullets.
Register gun owners.
Register political speech.
How about buying a gun with no ID? The right to get a gun is CERTAINLY in the Constitution!
Means the dems want people to vote for them who don’t have the right to vote.
You post the results of “Undeniable truth about liberalism, #2”:
The left supports no freedoms except those that relate to uninhibited consequence-free sexual behavior.
I may have to add “and behaviors that keep them in power” in deference to your open borders reference.
It’s pretty undeniable, though they will.
The only reason you could have for not wanting to verify the eligibility of a voter is that you want ineligible voters to vote.
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
There are two schools of thought on “voter rights”. The left favors loose regulations, citing glowing stories of involvement and stating that anything less encourages de-facto disenfranchisement (especially of minorities). Looser means more opportunities for participation, but also more opportunities for mayhem, which is synonymous with the Dhimmicrat party.
The right favors tighter regulations, coupled with enforcement which discourages vote fraud, but also discourages “fringe” voters. Conservatives believe that voting is worth going to a little effort to participate.
Looks like the SCOTUS (mostly) agrees...
I think they should do the purple ink on the finger thing too...
It’s kind of a “Conflict of Visions” example.
The left prefers outcomes over rules and process. If the outcome isn’t to their liking, it’s because the rules were bad.
The right the opposite - more willing to accept an outcome as long as the rules were followed to get there.
BTW, glad to see someone else using “Dhimmi” to describe them, though I prefer “Dhimmirat” to “Dhimmicrat”.
Telling that dims are opposed to guaranteeing- one man, one vote.
dims have to show Id to get their Mary Jane Medical cards.
They cash checks or do other financial transactions without photo ID?"
Please allow me to tell you of my observations in my rural part of Louisiana. There is a whole ... I guess you would call it a 'class' ... of people who do not drive. Some of them own cars that somebody else drives. There is one neighborhood of about 25 homes that there are 2 or 3 designated drivers that do all of the running for the entire neighborhood ... all of the trips to the store, the doctor, the regional benefits offices.
These people, for the most part, do not have identification. They do not have bank accounts. These people have an inherent distrust of banks. If they receive a check that must be cashed, they go to one of the local stores where they are well known and the store charges them up to $5 a check to cash it for them (it has to be a check that the store owner knows is good, such as a government check).
Assistance programs like food stamps arrive in the form of a debit card and no local business asks for ID. If they are unable to complete a transaction that requires ID, they will get a relative with ID involved to get the transaction completed (this may take several attempts, but it will eventually get done). Bills (phone and utilities) are paid in cash, in person.
Now ... when it comes time to go to the polls for an election ... my husband and I are asked for identification each and every time. Please understand that this is an area where everybody knows everybody else and the poll workers are people that we live near, that we go to church with, that have known my husband all of his life.
This coming November, I think that I will hang around the polling places instead of my usual in-and-out, to see if the request for ID is made of some of these people that I know from experience have no ID.
In the same light, think of whom would come upon the FEDERAL Judiciary with either Clinton or Obama! Think also of decision upon such things as the 'Fairness Doctrine' that is CERTAIN to come up in the next Congress!
Simply breathtaking description of a large majority of the justices agreeing.
Usually it's the 5 to 4 rulings that the AP and other "scribes" refer to as "almost unanimous" and all such other rulings in the past as "settled law."
Embarrassing that such idiots now stream out of J schools and staff our media.
Now, if we can get a reversal and make it mandatory for the “voter” to be able to actually read his/her own ID, things might improve.
“Simply breathtaking description of a large majority of the justices agreeing.
Usually it’s the 5 to 4 rulings that the AP and other “scribes” refer to as “almost unanimous” and all such other rulings in the past as “settled law.”
Embarrassing that such idiots now stream out of J schools and staff our media.”
I was just thinking the same thing. Now if this had been a 6 - 3 ruling overturning the Indiana law...the headline would not use the word splintered but some glorious word like “decidedly” or “near unanimous” or “a vast majority”, etc. It is staggering what passes for jouralist intellect these days. Seems like any chimp with a pad and pencil can be an AP writer.
Talk about hypocrisy!
Asking for a drivers license is intimidation but making voters sign affidavits is not?!?...LOL
These people really have chutzpah:
......any voter whose party affiliation is challenged can either decline to vote for the party in question or sign an affidavit, swearing under oath that they voted in the last election for a majority of the regular nominees of the party.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040308/content/01125106.guest.html
PS - It’s a shame these poor intimidated people have never been able to cash a check, rent a video from Blockbuster, or ever drive a car.
The hospital I go to wanted me to show an photo id with my insurance card just for my mammo....I didn’t
Just of of curiosity, does Louisiana have a voter ID law?
Illegal-Americans and Dead-Americans sometimes have a hard time coming up with photo IDs that have the right pictures on them. They are thus in danger of disenfranchisement. It is a plot to diminish the Democrat turnout in elections.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I do not know, but I will try to find out because I’ve wondered myself. I very much doubt that we do because I don’t know how in the world they would have passed such a thing with the largest voting blocks having historically been New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Shreveport and Monroe.
No kidding. That’s why the libs are apoplectic about this.
It’s destroying their plan of “vote early and vote often”.
Well times change. Now, we’re faced with a crisis where anybody who feels as though they could come into this country and change the way we do things just because they don’t seem to think it’s “fair” how we run things can vote. Like I said, times change.
Just of of curiosity, does Louisiana have a voter ID law?
Yes, photo ID needed to vote. I think two other approved forms of ID can suffice if a photo ID isn’t available.
Seven states with Photo ID and 25 or so with some form of ID.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2008359/posts?page=11#11
Assuming, of course, that they are citizens and otherwise comply with ALL legal requirements.
Talk about red herrings!
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.