• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

taxigirl said:
If you are trying to explain that Obama had connections to ACORN I concede that, but why do I care?
Click to expand...

Are you going to vote in the next election? If so you should care. We have to decide which crooked thieving lier is going to lead our nation for the next four years.
 
jamesrage said:
Many elderly do drive and many elderly cash and write checks.There is no reason why someone can not get an ID even in states that have people pay for IDs.IDs are not expensive.Seeing how many elderly do not work they have time to obtain a birth certificate from their state of birth. The ACLU is full of **** on this one.
Click to expand...

It is not just the ACLU. The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (oh, yeah -- homeless can't vote because they have no address to get an ID with).

NBC Politics - In legislatures and courtrooms, busy weeks ahead for voter ID
 
I couldn't help but notice that you cut off the quote from the story just before the statement that the Governor is addressing the issue for the people that have been affected adversely.
 
PeteEU said:
Problem is often not the idea of voter identification. The problem is that it is often a specific identification that is required, and getting said specific identification is not easy. That is specifically designed to disenfranchise certain segments of the population. It is no different than the racist rules for voting that was present in the south during segregation.

When you have situations like this..

Longtime state employee may be blocked from voting - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee



can happen, then you know that the laws being made are made for denying people the right to vote, instead of making the system safe from fraud. And it is not an isolated situation.
Click to expand...
You're using individual cases where certain seniors are inconvenienced to justify accusations of broad, sweeping voter suppression. For the vast majority of Americans, a voter ID should not be a problematic request.
 
taxigirl said:
ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law - chicagotribune.com





We have gone through so many years in the United States without Voter ID laws, and we now suddenly need them? Voter fraud is not something that is not common in the United States and this seems like an attempt to disenfranchise certain sets of voters. :usflag2:
Click to expand...

While there are issues with a voter id law, they can mitigated by offering free or very low cost ID's.

This type of overblown hyperbole serves no one.
 
taxigirl said:
I don't think a poll worker would let Fred Flintstone vote.

Minimal voter fraud or suppression from 2009 article. Now we need ID.
Early Voting Fraud: Rhetoric Or Reality? - CBS News
Click to expand...



Seeing how many states do not check for ID or even a voter registration(which many states do not require someone show an ID for) cards all they will do is ask for name and party affiliation and have you sign a sign-in sheet. They hand you a ballot that you mark what you want candidates and or ballot issues you support and put the ballot into a machine with no way of identifying who marked that ballot.So yes they would allow a Fred Flinstone to vote if some guy came up and said he was Fred Flinstone.
 
SgtRock said:
Are you going to vote in the next election? If so you should care. We have to decide which crooked thieving lier is going to lead our nation for the next four years.
Click to expand...

So I care that Obama has connections to ACORN just like I care that Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, and Frank L. VanderSloot bankroll the republican candidates?

I do not think you have any idea what my ideals are or who I would support for the presidency.
 
Chiefgator said:
If you want to argue that the types of ID accepted may make it unfair, your argument has merit. To me, this a totally different topic. Any photo ID that is good enough for a bank should be good enough to establish identification to vote.
Click to expand...

I agree fully, however that is NOT how most of these laws require... and it is being done in many especially states under GOP leadership, which only adds fuel to the usual arguments against the GOP that they want to disenfranchise certain parts of the population.. and that argument has considerable merit.
 
Chiefgator said:
I couldn't help but notice that you cut off the quote from the story just before the statement that the Governor is addressing the issue for the people that have been affected adversely.
Click to expand...
If you are talking to me I do not think that I quoted a story, I provided a link to MSNBC and listed the groups who have filed suits in Wisconsin.
 
jamesrage said:
Seeing how many states do not check for ID or even a voter registration(which many states do not require someone show an ID for) cards all they will do is ask for name and party affiliation and have you sign a sign-in sheet. They hand you a ballot that you mark what you want candidates and or ballot issues you support and put the ballot into a machine with no way of identifying who marked that ballot.So yes they would allow a Fred Flinstone to vote if some guy came up and said he was Fred Flinstone.
Click to expand...

No, there is no way to know who marked a ballot, but when you approach the poll workers to get a ballot you have to verify your name and address to make sure you are at the correct polling place. If someone is registered as Adolf Hitler, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I think someone at some point would notice. The city / county clerks have to put your info at the correct polling place so they do see names and addresses.
 
taxigirl said:
If you are talking to me I do not think that I quoted a story, I provided a link to MSNBC and listed the groups who have filed suits in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

Nope. I was not talking to you. I just did not get the post in quickly enough.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Police can command you to identify youreself for no reason at all so I think presenting ID before you vote is going to stand up in court.
Cops can demand ID, high court rules - politics - msnbc.com
Click to expand...

if you read about the case more in depth you will find that in Hiibel the man in question was being DETAINED. There is a difference is requirement if the stop is consenual vs. detention. You determine which the situation is by asking "Am I being detained" or "Am I free to go".
 
taxigirl said:
No, there is no way to know who marked a ballot, but when you approach the poll workers to get a ballot you have to verify your name and address to make sure you are at the correct polling place. If someone is registered as Adolf Hitler, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I think someone at some point would notice. The city / county clerks have to put your info at the correct polling place so they do see names and addresses.
Click to expand...

For every Adolf Hitler there is reason to assume there is a registration for an Adolf Reyes, for every Fred Flintstone there is a Fred Lantz. Not every fraudulent registration is that obvious. The fact that the obvious ones were done just lend credence to the assumption that there are many others that are not so obvious.
 
SgtRock said:
Are you going to vote in the next election? If so you should care. We have to decide which crooked thieving lier is going to lead our nation for the next four years.
Click to expand...

So I have the choice of the lesser of two evils? My point exactly. Do I vote for the person who is accused of criminal / terrorist affiliations or do I vote for the person who is accused of being bankrolled / bought by a multi-millionaire's for their own entertainment?

I would prefer to vote for the person who does not have anyone accusing them of any untoward behavior, but that is not going to happen here, because we fight dirty.
 
taxigirl said:
ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law - chicagotribune.com

We have gone through so many years in the United States without Voter ID laws, and we now suddenly need them? Voter fraud is not something that is not common in the United States and this seems like an attempt to disenfranchise certain sets of voters. :usflag2:
Click to expand...

Actually, after every election where Republicans win, the news is awash with stories of alleged voter fraud and "disenfranchisement."

But if you say it's not common, and those stories are bogus, I tend to agree.
 
Harshaw said:
Actually, after every election where Republicans win, the news is awash with stories of alleged voter fraud and "disenfranchisement."

But if you say it's not common, and those stories are bogus, I tend to agree.
Click to expand...
I guess there is no way we can ever "know", but I like to think that people are generally good. From all the bad out there that we see on TV etc.. it does not seem like it, but no one tells stories about the scout who helped the old lady across the street anymore.

Republicans win, Dems win, lots of noise about something. When do we win?
 
"Akin to Jim Crow?" Hyperbole much?

My only problem with requiring ID is this: it wouldn't solve voter fraud. It would just mean that you need a fake ID to do it. Fake ID's aren't that hard to get, and any well financed group with a vested interest in the outcome of the election can (and probably will) game the system.

It's also such a small problem. Something like 1% or less of votes cast. It's a solution in search of a problem.

The Republicans insistence on this makes me wonder if it's just that they've already figured out how to game that system. Democrats hate it because they haven't yet.

All this talk of "it'll solve voter fraud" or "it'll disenfranchise people" is all just the partisan BS that the two parties are putting into it. Some of you are buying it hook, line and sinker.
 
Last edited:
taxigirl said:
No, there is no way to know who marked a ballot, but when you approach the poll workers to get a ballot you have to verify your name and address to make sure you are at the correct polling place. If someone is registered as Adolf Hitler, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I think someone at some point would notice. The city / county clerks have to put your info at the correct polling place so they do see names and addresses.
Click to expand...

Telling the poll worker a name and party affiliation and the poll worker handing you a sign in sheet is not verification of anything.Verify implies that they made sure that something is correct by way of researching, comparing or examining something. Someone telling you their alleged name doesn't verify anything except that maybe the name they provided matches the one of the sheet, it does not prove who you are.
 
rocket88 said:
"Akin to Jim Crow?" Hyperbole much?

My only problem with requiring ID is this: it wouldn't solve voter fraud. It would just mean that you need a fake ID to do it. Fake ID's aren't that hard to get, and any well financed group with a vested interest in the outcome of the election can (and probably will) game the system.

It's also such a small problem. Something like 1% or less of votes cast. It's a solution in search of a problem.

The Republicans insistence on this makes me wonder if it's just that they've already figured out how to game that system. Democrats hate it because they haven't yet.

All this talk of "it'll solve voter fraud" or "it'll disenfranchise people" is all just the partisan BS that the two parties are putting into it. Some of you are buying it hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...

You make some very valid points here. Thanx.
 
To those who believe actual voter fraud exists and is a problem: how many people have been convicted of voter fraud in the last decade?
 
jamesrage said:
Telling the poll worker a name and party affiliation and the poll worker handing you a sign in sheet is not verification of anything.Verify implies that they made sure that something is correct by way of researching, comparing or examining something. Someone telling you their alleged name doesn't verify anything except that maybe the name they provided matches the one of the sheet, it does not prove who you are.
Click to expand...

I'll give you the matching part, but I still think voter ID is a bad precedent.

And, WHOA Nelly, you do not have to reveal your party affiliation. You do not even have to have a party affiliation. In a closed primary you do, not in an open primary or a general election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom