Voting law should apply nationwide

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | November 15, 2005 | Jim Wooten

[Cincinatus' Wife]

***....Under the ostensibly temporary Section 5, due to expire in 2007, prior approval must be obtained from the U.S. Department of Justice for any change in voting standards, practices or procedures in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, Alaska and Arizona. A handful of counties and townships elsewhere are also covered.

It is a form of martial law selectively applied. And yet, the odds are strong that the U.S. Congress will extend pre-clearance requirement, even though the original justification is no longer valid.

The point is, however, that the original case for seizing the right of Georgia's elected officials to draw districts and to conduct elections is no longer valid. Now it is rank discrimination, without rational basis.....***

[sabatino28]

Ping

[jec1ny]

Given Georgia's recent attempt to pass a law requiring voter IDs for those without a drivers license, and the fact that these IDs were to be moderately expensive (esp for low income persons) and that there were coincidentally only a few locations where they could be obtained in GA (not helpful if they are for ppl w/o a drivers license), I am all in favor of keeping the law as it is. I am no raving liberal but that was a blatant attempt to establish a poll tax and disenfranchise an entire segment of the population that would likely vote for the dems. It was denounced by both liberals and conservatives (thank God) across the country and rightfully so. Fortunately the courts are in the process of killing it. Sorry my heart does not bleed for Georgia.

[topher]

If this is needed anywhere, it is in New Jersey, Philadelphia, Chicago (Daly machine), California (illegal alien vote), NYC, and Louisiana (especially after Katrina).

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Excuse me.

Voter ID would be available for all. Give me a break. How many people don't have a picture ID? I think there are about 17 different forms of ID that are eligible.

[Past Your Eyes]

"Gov. Sonny Perdue, who is 58, was just old enough to vote."

Hmmm. I happen to be 58 as well and I couldn't vote until I was 21, which would have been 1968. No wonder Georgia needs a little extra help. ";^o

[Terridan]

Since Bush senior left office, I have noticed that no precinct asks for photo ID... coincidence? In Kalifornia, before I left, I pulled out my DL and the ol'bats there were angry with me! They said it was "unnecessary." Go figure... I hope it is law someday, again, and don't give me that it will disinfranchise poor voters who can't afford an ID... I mean, how do you get state and federal assistance without it?

[Popman]

Democrats in one-party Georgia were denying blacks the right to vote.

Startling admission from the AJC.

I'm surprised it wasn't stated in the more PC way or at least a disclaimer that all those evil democrats voters are now republicans

[HelloooClareece]

Disenfranchisement? You have got to be kidding me. An ID is required for everything from bank transactions to buying liquor. It is not unreasonable to expect people to have a state id at least. Especially when they will come to your house and give you one for free.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Exactly!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Jim Wooten is a conservative columnist at the AJC.

That means, he has his head on straight.

[Wonder Warthog]

I see you get your information from "The Nation".

Of course, you are wrong on all counts. Did you sign up from DU just today???

[kevkrom]

Nice try, but very wrong. The voter ID would be free to those who can't afford it, and they would come to you if you can't get to them.

"Poll tax" is the DNC talking point tip-off that you're just spreading rumor and innuendo, without knowing the facts.

[conservativehusker]

"Given Georgia's recent attempt to pass a law requiring voter IDs for those without a drivers license, and the fact that these IDs were to be moderately expensive (esp for low income persons) ......"

----------------------------------------------------------

These aren't the facts I understand...what I've heard is that they will come to the peoples home and issue a NO COST id....even if folks have to go a couple blocks to register it's still supposed to be a free ID...

I didn't know anything about the voters rights law..but seeing it only applies to a handful of states it appears to based more on emotion now in the 21st century than fact.

Being against an ID being required to perform as serious a right as voting for the nations leadership is asking for fraud...Picture ID is required to cash a $10 check for Pete's Sake.

[armydawg1]

Georgia, the "repressive" state was the first in the country to give 18 year olds the right to vote during WW2 and one of only four to do so until the mid 1960s.

The IDs would be free to anyone requesting one. Currently there are 17 forms of Id accepted for voting in GA and the new law would narrow that to 6.

You have to have a photo id to drive, cash a check, get on a plane, most everything. Is voting not so important as those????

If the Voting Rights Act is good enough for GA and the deep South, its good enough for the whole country.

[DaiHuy]

"Gov. Sonny Perdue, who is 58, was just old enough to vote." Actually he would have only been 18yo at the time, not even old enough to vote in 1965 (you had to be 21).

[DaiHuy]

"Gov. Sonny Perdue, who is 58, was just old enough to vote."

Actually he would have only been 18yo at the time, not even old enough to vote in 1965 (you had to be 21).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Amendment XXVI (1971)

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I remember ten years or so that the Federal Supreme Court declared politcal districts designed to give one race a advantage over another to be Unconstitutional.

This dealt with the district that supported blacks in Georgia that ran up the Northeast side of the side. The district was broken up.

[Savage Beast]

"that was a blatant attempt to establish a poll tax and disenfranchise an entire segment of the population that would likely vote for the dems."

It was no such thing.

It was a blatant attempt to prevent non-citizens from voting and to prevent other forms of illegal voting, e.g. voting multiple times by the same person, voting for dead and fictitious people, et al.

But you are right in that illegal voting practices favor the Democrats, such is the extent of their corruption, and preventing them is not in the interest of Democrats.

That's why the Democrats were so strongly opposed to this legal provision, which is--in fact--a wise safeguard against government corruption, sedition, and an assault on the voting process by enemies of the U.S., both domestic and foreign.

Considering the importance of the vote to a republic, protection of its sanctity by careful assurance of the right of an individual to vote could not be more important--both to protect the right of a citizen to vote and to prevent illegal voting.