• 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!

Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme court has struck down a law that disenfranchised voters in Arizona. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and John Roberts was also a part of the majority decision.

Well done, Supremes. :)

Article is here.

It's a good day for progressives and their fight for voter fraud....
 
We are not required to have ID in the U.S.

Spending hundreds of millions to get a hundred people is not a money saver.

It is political ploy.

Really?

You know what? you cant do anything legal in the US without an ID.....

You cant have a job without an ID, you cant buy or rent a house without an ID, you cant legally drive a car without an ID, you cant have a checking account without an ID, you cant get loans or a credit card without an ID, you cant smoke or drink without an ID, you cant buy insurance without an ID....

Name one thing someone can do without an ID that isn't voting????

The only people who benefit from this ruling are those who intend to commit voter fraud and illegal aliens.....
 
Here's another link about how difficult it is to detect voter fraud. The legalistic definition for voter fraud is when one person impersonates another and casts a vote, but there are other ways in which voter fraud is committed. As of right now, we don't have any definitive good ways to discover voter fraud. According to this article and others, absentee ballot fraud is MUCH more common and voter ID laws would not effect that, but I still don't see that as being a reason to NOT require a voter ID. Especially since the experts pretty much agree that it is a vague crime that is difficult to discover.

Voter Fraud: Hard to Identify - WSJ.com

It doesn't matter if its hard or easy, you have to prove it when you claim it. That's just the way it works. And rightly so.
 
It doesn't matter if its hard or easy, you have to prove it when you claim it. That's just the way it works. And rightly so.

If I wanted to I could commit epic voter fraud.

You can register to vote under any pseudonym you want - especially under "grass roots" registration drives...

Without question progressives don't care if you vote 10-20 or 100 times under pseudonyms because they don't give a **** - as a matter of fact in urban areas they condone it.... That's why ACORN got popped...
 
It doesn't matter if its hard or easy, you have to prove it when you claim it. That's just the way it works. And rightly so.

Wrong. Obviously you didn't read the link either.

"I reject the premise" that establishing the extent of voter fraud is important, said J. Christian Adams, an election lawyer in Alexandria, Va., and advocate for voter-ID laws. "One unit of voter fraud is bad, and should be dealt with." He cited a Supreme Court decision in 2008 ruling that Indiana didn't need to establish that voter fraud existed in the state to pass a voter-ID law.
 
It's a good day for progressives and their fight for voter fraud....

Ahh, yes. Let's not forget about those despicable Leeeebrrrruuuullllssss...... Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, and John Roberts.

Give it a rest already. It's getting old.
 
This is a cop out. Yes, the problem has been being ignored. Obviously you didn't read the link I posted.

I read the link. It said fraud might reach hundreds of votes. Our population is over 300 million so there is no problem.
 
Really?

You know what? you cant do anything legal in the US without an ID.....

You cant have a job without an ID, you cant buy or rent a house without an ID, you cant legally drive a car without an ID, you cant have a checking account without an ID, you cant get loans or a credit card without an ID, you cant smoke or drink without an ID, you cant buy insurance without an ID....

Name one thing someone can do without an ID that isn't voting????

The only people who benefit from this ruling are those who intend to commit voter fraud and illegal aliens.....

Madison would cringe that liberty has become government going papers please.
 
I read the link. It said fraud might reach hundreds of votes. Our population is over 300 million so there is no problem.

No, it doesn't say that. It talks about how difficult it is to detect voter fraud.
 
Madison would cringe that liberty has become government going papers please.

Put away the high horse, Madison has been rolling in his grave for almost two centuries now. The country he and the founders envisioned bears only passing resemblence to what it's become.
 
If I wanted to I could commit epic voter fraud.

You can register to vote under any pseudonym you want - especially under "grass roots" registration drives...

Without question progressives don't care if you vote 10-20 or 100 times under pseudonyms because they don't give a **** - as a matter of fact in urban areas they condone it.... That's why ACORN got popped...

Talk is cheap. :shrug:
 
Put away the high horse, Madison has been rolling in his grave for almost two centuries now. The country he and the founders envisioned bears only passing resemblence to what it's become.

I'm high but don't own a horse.
 
The SC speaks for the country, right?

They only struck down the Arizona law though. And I can't understand how anyone cannot get an ID. What a cop out. My 17 year old has one because he needed one to work.
 
They only struck down the Arizona law though. And I can't understand how anyone cannot get an ID. What a cop out. My 17 year old has one because he needed one to work.

Whether you understand it or not isn't the point. The fact is legal voters do struggle and the effort to correct a problem they can't prove exists was meant as voter suppression. There have been clips of republicans saying just that,

but before I go extreme over something, spending money to change a law, Iwant to see evidence of a problem.

As for the SC, didn't they give an opinion? Didn't it address the lack of proof of a problem?
 
Whether you understand it or not isn't the point. The fact is legal voters do struggle and the effort to correct a problem they can't prove exists was meant as voter suppression. There have been clips of republicans saying just that,

but before I go extreme over something, spending money to change a law, Iwant to see evidence of a problem.

As for the SC, didn't they give an opinion? Didn't it address the lack of proof of a problem?

I think it should be up to the states. The federal government can't and doesn't do it's job well at all. The federal government is a huge bureaucratic mess. It isn't even aware of what it's own departments are up to and is completely incapable, which they prove to us time and time again. Leave it to the feds to check voters with their easily forged forms and documents. Great idea. :roll:
 
I think it should be up to the states. The federal government can't and doesn't do it's job well at all. The federal government is a huge bureaucratic mess. It isn't even aware of what it's own departments are up to and is completely incapable, which they prove to us time and time again. Leave it to the feds to check voters with their easily forged forms and documents. Great idea. :roll:

Looking at some of the states, the same can be said about them. But the states law didn't hold up. That's a legal issue. And feel free to prove there is a significant issue with voter fraud.
 
Back
Top Bottom