Page 32 of 50 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 497

Thread: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

  1. #311
    Sage
    mak2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    07-08-16 @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    I have no problem with requiring ID, just so the default is allowing people to vote. Then arrest them if they voted illegally. Your delay idea is good too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    In my opinion, ID or similar verification requirements for voting would be acceptable IF there was a four year delay before implementation and funding for outreach, education and assistance with obtaining an ID. That would provide time for students, the poor, and elderly etc to get their ID so that they are not disenfranchised. Theoretically everybody should be happy with such a compromise solution.
    God Bless the Marine Corps.

  2. #312
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    I am in two minds about this, I agree with the decision because it mostly is written towards Hispanic people but on the other hand I believe in people showing their ID before being allowed to vote.

    Here every person who is registered in the basic governmental registry (which in theory is everyone) gets their voter card sent to the place they are registered at (if you move you are by law mandated to make this known to the city you are departing from and registering in the city you move to, if you stay within a city you just give your new address). With this voter card and you ID you go to a voting location close to you and vote. It is that simple, no illegals need apply, they cannot vote. Registered aliens who have a permit to live in the Netherlands also get this card in local elections but from what I remember not in national elections.

    Voter suppression should be fought with all legal means and with logical and humane intentions, and not with partisan designs to make it harder or impossible for supporters of the opposing side to vote.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  3. #313
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,486

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    In my opinion, ID or similar verification requirements for voting would be acceptable IF there was a four year delay before implementation and funding for outreach, education and assistance with obtaining an ID. That would provide time for students, the poor, and elderly etc to get their ID so that they are not disenfranchised. Theoretically everybody should be happy with such a compromise solution.
    That seems like a lot of time, money, and manpower to address a non-existent or, at minimum, microscopic problem. I've never heard of a single case of in-person voter fraud at the polls. The problem has always been with absentee ballots. How are ID laws going to resolve anonymous fraud?

  4. #314
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    We arent talking about one in a million here, but a million in millions. We dont know the extent of the problem because no one is investigating.
    Prove it. Arizona couldn't prove ONE instance of voter fraud, when asked by SCOTUS. I wish you luck in doing better.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #315
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Prove it. Arizona couldn't prove ONE instance of voter fraud, when asked by SCOTUS. I wish you luck in doing better.
    How would one go about proving something the State has no "right" to check?
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  6. #316
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    How would one go about proving something the State has no "right" to check?
    The state of Arizona, under THEIR law, was already checking, until they went before SCOTUS. SCOTUS asked for proof of voter fraud, and they could provide NONE. Now they can't check any more, which is good, because they were using the so-called check to deny the vote to many who were eligible. It's the new version of Jim Crow, but that crow just got it's wings clipped.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #317
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The state of Arizona, under THEIR law, was already checking, until they went before SCOTUS. SCOTUS asked for proof of voter fraud, and they could provide NONE. Now they can't check any more, which is good, because they were using the so-called check to deny the vote to many who were eligible. It's the new version of Jim Crow, but that crow just got it's wings clipped.
    And you believe checking who is registering to vote is actually eligible to vote is not a good practice?
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  8. #318
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,486

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    And you believe checking who is registering to vote is actually eligible to vote is not a good practice?
    Why can't they work within the framework of Federal law? A person shouldn't be prevented from voting just because the State thinks they might be ineligible. Thats the problem with all of these GOP driven voter roll initiatives; they don't want to remove people based on objective criteria and facts, but merely on suspicion. I don't believe anyone opposes the concept of ensuring that those on the voter rolls are eligible to vote, but the States needs to definitively proof that a person is ineligible BEFORE removing them.

    Its the same gap in logic that Ohio Secretary of State John Husted had. He argued that the dead should be removed from voter rolls and he based that determination on whether or not a person has voted in x number of elections; not on any objective criteria such as bumping the list of registrants against a list of death certificates. He basically wanted to declare a person dead to remove them from the voter rolls without actually verifying that they are dead.

    I know that people, Republicans in-particular, try to frame this debate as a battle between those who want illegal immigrants or the dead to cast ballots and those who don't, but thats a false dichotomy. Their refusal to use objective criteria and facts to clean up the rolls reveals their efforts as thinly veiled attempts at disenfranchisement. That is what this debate is about.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 06-18-13 at 10:35 PM.

  9. #319
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    And you believe checking who is registering to vote is actually eligible to vote is not a good practice?
    Not when you are depriving thousands of eligible voters of their right to vote. Scalia called this one right.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #320
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    Why can't they work within the framework of Federal law? A person shouldn't be prevented from voting just because the State thinks they might be ineligible. Thats the problem with all of these GOP driven voter roll initiatives; they don't want to remove people based on objective criteria and facts, but merely on suspicion. I don't believe anyone opposes the concept of ensuring that those on the voter rolls are eligible to vote, but the States needs to definitively proof that a person is ineligible BEFORE removing them.
    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Not when you are depriving thousands of eligible voters of their right to vote. Scalia called this one right.
    Have either of you read the dissenting opinions?
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

Page 32 of 50 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •