Posted on 11/26/2024 8:37:25 AM PST by Roadrunner383
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said a state law requiring a photo ID to vote being upheld in court is a "huge win for election security.
The Missouri court’s decision to uphold the voter ID law came after heavy criticism from groups arguing that such requirements could disenfranchise voters.
However, Bailey’s office successfully presented evidence supporting the law’s necessity and effectiveness in maintaining the integrity of the voting process. The court’s ruling confirmed that the voter ID law does not impose a burden on voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I seldom hear anyone mention that the US Supreme Court has upheld voter ID laws.
I don’t understand why there are continual lawsuits over voter ID when the Supreme Court has ruled. But here we see apparently liberals sued in state court in Missouri over this.
The leftists have near unlimited money to fund any litigation they want on laws they disagree with or want overturned.
such requirements could disenfranchise voters. Show a single state where voter ID is required that this has happened.
leftists are the real racists. To them all minorities are just stupid
It is just mind boggling to me that we have to fight for Voter ID.
Disenfranchise cheaters.
“The court’s ruling confirmed that the voter ID law does not impose a burden on voters.”
Now tell me where in the constitution it says that voting is not a burden.
In Oklahoma and Texas we have had voter ID for quite some time without question. The USSC has ruled in favor of it so I can’t see why anyone would think they had a leg to stand on to question it.
Missouri AG Bailey was really celebrating yesterday.
Not only did he win this case, but the Court ruled the state’s law against sexually mutilating minors could remain in effect. Another great win!
He would make a great AG for a GOP President.
Here is an article by the NYTs whining about NC’s voter ID laws. They are adamant that the ID laws are passed in order to suppress the minority vote. The only ones who think minorities are too ignorant to obtain an ID are leftists.
“Minorities have no problem with the process, inspite of liberal wailing to the contrary.”
In 2012, Minnesota had a constitutional amendment on the ballot that, if passed, would have required a photo ID when voting.
The liberals pulled out all the stops, saying that it was mean to minorities and could disenfranchise them. Others said “Gosh, the poor can’t afford the cost of the photo ID! It’s just like Jim Crow all over again!”
Forget the fact that the constitutional amendment allowed for a free photo ID for those who didn’t have one.
The amendment failed to get to amount of votes necessary for passage. But it is worth noting that also on the ballot was a constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage. There was much furor over that with even big businesses like General Mills saying “Oh, if we pass this ban, we will have a hard time attracting people to work here”.
The marriage amendment got a lot of liberals worked up and they turned out at the polls.
A lady I know moved from Oregon to Ohio and although she has an unexpired Oregon driver’s license, she can’t get an Ohio driver’s license because in addition to her official copy of her birth certificate, Ohio DMV wants official records of all her name changes since birth, and she’s missing a record of a name change done by her parents when she was a child.
When she sent away to Oregon for it, they said there was no record of the name change at the state/county records.
So, how could she prove her parentage and thus her US citizenship?
A passport application would want the same paper trail as the DMV.
Wow, Missouri is on a roll. First, they got their anti-transing kids law affirmed, now they get to have safer elections.
Indeed it needs to be nation wide as well as English as the national langue it’s time.
“So, how could she prove her parentage and thus her US citizenship.”
Birth certificate and use her previous name.
L
Lurker wrote:
“
“So, how could she prove her parentage and thus her US citizenship.”
Birth certificate and use her previous name.
L
“
So her names may go in this sequence:
1) Birth name on birth certificate (she has official copy of this document)
2) New name given by parents when a minor (can’t get official copy of this document; county docs dept doesn’t have record of it)
Item 2 would be her maiden name used currently if not married, or on marriage certificate if she got married.
3) If applicable, official marriage certificate; it would show maiden name (item 2) and married name (she may have official copy of this document)
4) Current name on Oregon driver’s license.
Problem is, there’s no —legal— proof, i.e. document, connecting her birth name to new name given by parents in step 2.
So, in your proposal, would she have to do a legal name change from what’s currently on her Oregon driver’s license to item 2, the new name that was given to her by her parents when a minor?
At this point I’d say consult a lawyer. I don’t live in Oregon.
L
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.