Posted on 10/19/2006 9:35:15 AM PDT by Reindeercards
The idea of universal suffrage has long been controversial. Indeed, it took this country nearly two centuries to extend the franchise to all citizens; women didn't get the right to vote until 1920. Voters have the power to shift the political consensus in their favor, so it's a radical proposition to believe that every citizen -- regardless of race, creed or color, income, education or ZIP code -- should be able to cast a ballot. It is a testament to the vitality of this nation's democratic ideals that the franchise is now universally applied.
Recently, however, a new wave of rebellion against that egalitarian ideal has cropped up; a new generation of politicians, mostly Republicans, is determined to snatch the franchise away from some Americans. Just a month ago, the GOP-dominated House passed a bill that would require government-issued photo IDs to vote in federal elections. And several Republican-led state legislatures have either passed stringent voter ID rules or imposed onerous regulations for voter registration.
Republican leaders have strained mightily to convince the courts that they are just protecting the franchise from voter fraud. Consider the widespread threat of illegal immigrants sneaking into the polls to vote, just as they sneaked into our country to work. Or those Dumpster-diving impostors who steal someone's light bill out of the trash and then use it as ID to cast a fraudulent ballot. Come on. I've heard 7-year-olds spin more convincing yarns.
According to USA Today, a preliminary report commissioned by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the sort of fraud that the burdensome new regulations purport to prevent. The bipartisan report found that "there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, noncitizen voting and felon voters,"
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Based on the article title, the barf alert is implied.
Cynthia Tucker is a commie-pinko on the Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial board.
Cynthia's a *ucker.
Another solution might be facial recognition technology in the voting booth itself. However, most Demoncrats would then wear their Halloween masks to the polls.
Maybe you missed the point. If there are sufficient cameras "documenting" the non-fraud, that may help prevent fraud.
Does anyone like the idea of crashing the party at vote counting locations with camcorders? It'd shock the hell out of the Democrats in close House elections who were counting on getting to sit there for a few hours filling out ballots.
But let's take the claim at face value and say that all of these allegations every election of widespread voter fraud is overblown. ""
I believe that Voter Fraud is more prevalent that anyone has thought in their worst scenarios.
B-1 Bob Dornan was beated in his district by voter fraud, and by the time he could trace it all, they barely would listen to him.
There is a reason for all the billboards telling illegal immirgrants to vote and a reason why Demorats are turning a blind eye to them crossing the border and refusing to support asking for ID to vote or register.
I have to show ID to cash a check at stores I shop at regularly, and voting is far more important that buying $40 worth of groceries.
Oops, sorry, I missed your point.
Rossi took the election to court, where they produced evidence that there were more illegal votes cast than the margin of victory, implying that Rossi should have won. However, the court ruled that even if they could show that voters voted illegally, they couldn't show how each illegal voter actually voted, therefore they couldn't overturn the election and give the result to Rossi.
Even if the judge were to disqualify Gregoire, that would not have made Rossi the winner, it would only have promoted the Lt. Governor to Governor; Rossi would still have to wait to run again in the next election.
-PJ
The Missouri Supreme Court struck down that states' Photo ID law last week on state constitutional grounds. This week, the 7th Circuit heard oral argument on Indiana's law, which a lower court had upheld.
Here is an article on it:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IN_VOTER_ID_APPEAL_INOL-?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-10-18-14-18-33
The observers I have heard from think it will be 2-1 to uphold the law. Here is another synopsis I found:
"This will be an important decision, because if the 7th Circuit reverses the district court decision, it would appear that the strong weight of the appellate courts is towards striking down the new wave of more restrictive voter i.d. laws. On the other hand, if the 7th Circuit affirms, this could be an issue that winds up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Posner (and the other two judges) asked a number of interesting questions regarding what the state can do to prevent impersonation fraud. There was a lot of focus on the lack of evidence of fraud to support the Indiana law, and a great deal of questioning about lack of evidence that many people were in fact being burdened by the law.
Judge Posner asked if anyone besides the poor was discriminated against by the law (there is an indigency exception and one for voters over 65, who can apply for absentee ballots). Some Judge Posner questions: "Do we know what percentage of eligible voters in Indiana do not have identification needed for voter i.d.?" "How would you ever catch an impersonator [without an i.d. requirement]?" The state relied heavily on the Carter-Baker commission's recommendations in defending its argument that fraud is a real problem.
Judge Posner said that the test is not whether this is a narrowly tailored law. There are voting rights on both sides of the case. The fraud dilutes the voting rights of those who vote legitimately. Challengers say the fraud problem is small, and state says burden is small. I think he is likely, though not certain, to vote to uphold the law, given what he sees as a lack of evidence on either side of either a great benefit or burden. Doubt goes to the state. It was unclear to me how the other judges were leaning.
There was a discussion of standing, and Judge Posner appeared concerned that none of the plaintiffs in the case lacked the documents required for i.d. In essence, he said: We are not convinced there is substantial disenfranchisement. It would be nice to find someone who does not have photo id, but I am not indigent. Why not plaintiff in that category? Why upset the law?
Judge Posner noted along the way it was unlikely there would be an opinion issued by the court before the election. Also (in a point that would interest appellate junkies, Judge Posner was unhappy the challengers split their oral argument time between two advocates making essentially the same argument.
It's not a myth.
Washington state has a Democrat governor thanks to voter fraud. It was pretty brazen too. They kept "finding" more ballots, and "interpreting" "mismarked" ballots, until they had enough to win.
The part that burned me the most was mailing absentee ballots to our armed forces too late to be returned in time. The dem hack responsible apologized, but "mistakes were made", and nothing could be done. Naturally, military ballots that got back too late were not counted.
The dem hack most responsible for stealing the election is still in the same position in King County. In Washington state anyway, you must win by quite a bit or dem fraud will take it away.
Here in AZ, our lovely governor was bemoaning that poor people and old people would be hardest hit by prop 200 requiring ID to vote""
What a crock of crap.
Poor people have ID, the same as the rest of us. Id doesn't tell anyone if you are wealthy or "poor".
Old people have had ID longer than any of the rest of us.
Her concerns are just plain crap. Vote or impeach her out of office. She is NOT protecting the citizens of Arizona.
I've always thought that a representative Meritocracy was a better form of government that universal suffrage Republic or a Democracy.
My honest guess is that across the entire nation...we are talking about 400,000 votes that are in the fraud category. This involves guys who vote in two states or more....the guys who register their whacked-out older relatives to vote when the relative can't pass a mental test...the poll mafia who arranges for non-citizens to walk in and vote...the folks who live in Florida six months out of the year and call it home yet they live in New Jersey as well thus voting by absentee ballots in both states...and finally the group who simply arranges absentee ballots for people who are actually dead.
So if we all agree that 400,00 votes are being tossed around...does it bother anyone? Doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservitive....does it really bother you? Would approve of a democracy where dead people's votes actually count? Would you approve of 1,000 non-Americans walking into a Seattle polling station and voting there? Would you have a problem with your uncle who registers his mentally deranged wife who sits in a mental hospital as a voter? Would you have a problem with your nephrew who votes by absentee in his home state, but also votes in Florida at the local campus?
Its a simple yes or no answer situation....does these things bother you? If so....then....I guess this Loch Ness monster has to be actually caught in the act. My simple suggestion is to add some flavor to presidential year voting...any illegal actions by poll station monitors or by voters (like registering in two states)...then give them a simple 2-year sentence in a state jail for each occurance...and take away their vote for 20 years. There isn't a need to be sorrowful about these characters...they earn their situation.
Sarcasm is not needed there. Its true. They are already planning on starting the Vote Fraud in areas that they lose.
Vote Fraud, appeals court hearing information.
Or Seattle, Washington.
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.