Replies

Heh. No major surprises here. Lots of hot air and the usual FR invective. OK lets take this point by point.

1. The law does indeed allow for those who are indigent to get their IDs for free. But it fails to define what indigent is.

2. The law assesses criminal penalties on anyone falsely claiming to be indigent.

3. In the entire state of GA there were at the time the law was signed supposed to be 58 places to go to get one of these special IDs. NONT ONE was located in Atlanta!!!

4. In theory (LMAO) the state would send someone to your home to provide you with an ID at no cost if you could prove you were indigent(what is that?). Exactly how many people does the state of GA have on the payrolls to actually do this for the roughly million or so people who would qualify state wide (by conservative estimates. The dems not surprisingly quote a much higher number). And all this would of course have to be done before the election to avoid disenfranchising large numbers of people.

5. The 24th ammnd says "Section 1. 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.

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

6. I am a strict constructionist. This means that if you are going to mandate some form of ID (which is perfectly reasonable and I support) you CAN NOT charge for it period. I don't care if your Bill Gates and you decide not to bother with a drivers license because you have a 24 hr limo. No one can charge any kind of fee for voting. If you are going to offer or require a voter ID it must be free to all irrespective of their financial status. States can choose to accept IDs which are used for other purposes (and for which they can reasonably charge a fee) such as drivers licenses. But they can not actually charge anyone a dime for the right to vote.

7. Both the district Federal Courts and the United States Court of Appeals has ruled against this law. The Court of Appeals that covers Georgia is also one of the most conservative in the country.

You have not refuted anything that I said in posts # 20 and 21.

If the law was written in such a way as to allow injustice, it should be re-written so as not to allow it, but, especially in these dangereous times, when international terrorists have declared war on the United States, when the U.S. has been flooded with illegal immigrants, when the veracity of the "Mainstream Newsmedia" cannot be trusted, and corruption is rife in the Democrat Party, a law such as this, to protect the sanctity of the vote, is very much needed.

Refute this:

"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."

The protection of the sanctity of the vote is the reason the law was written--not as you allege, to establish a deterrent to citizens' voting or to disenfranchise any legal voter.