• 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!

Appeals court reinstates Texas voter ID law

apdst said:
Obviously, it is a real world problem. I posted evidence of such.
Click to expand...

I think you're just being stubborn. I don't think you really believe that 1 example in 10 years constitutes a real-world problem that can be solved with voter ID laws. If anything, the data you posted should make it clear to you and anyone else who reads it that voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem.
 
apdst said:
Why are you trippin', then? Jus' 'cause??
Click to expand...

What you posted:

apdst said:
Yeah, the ID I use to buy a gun? I paid for that mother****er!
Click to expand...

You were referring to paid IDs, the obvious implication being that if you had to pay for an ID to buy a gun, others should have to pay for an ID to vote. I explained why that was unconstitutional.
 
Napoleon said:
I think you're just being stubborn. I don't think you really believe that 1 example in 10 years constitutes a real-world problem that can be solved with voter ID laws. If anything, the data you posted should make it clear to you and anyone else who reads it that voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...

Did you read the link I posted?
 
apdst said:
Did you read the link I posted?
Click to expand...

I was wondering if you just stopped reading your source when you saw a big number so I broke it down all nice and neat for you the first time. Out of 10 years of data there was a grand total of 1 person who committed voter impersonation in Texas. So once you're done flogging that dead horse we can move on to how effective a voter ID law would be in stopping that 1 person from doing what she did in the future.
 
Paschendale said:
It's never about reluctance to prove one's identity. It's about one's ability to obtain the paperwork, which is more expensive and time consuming than conservatives are willing to admit. If these laws came with a method for providing ID cards, at no cost, to all voters, then liberals would probably get behind them. We're not at all opposed to making sure that votes are cast legally. We're opposed to people being turned away from the polls on election day and not getting to vote at all. We're opposed to putting any extra burdens on lawful voting.



It's probably because voting and gun ownership are different things, and different things are treated differently and have different levels of constitutional protection. One has nothing to do with the other.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Paschendale. :2wave:

What argument is being used in those states that provide the ID at no cost? I have also read that the Absentee Ballot is where most fraud is detected.
 
Kobie said:
What you posted:



You were referring to paid IDs, the obvious implication being that if you had to pay for an ID to buy a gun, others should have to pay for an ID to vote. I explained why that was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The IDs are free and will even be delivered to your residence if you request it.
 
My stance on voting remains as it's been for some time.

Federally issued Photo ID needed to vote.

Provide basic photo identification free of charge to those with a valid Social Security Card, Birth Certificate, or other generally accepted governmental form verifying identity as a legal citizen.

As a compromise, cut the amount of money needed to budget for such a thing (Which should be nominal in the grand scope of the federal budget) from the DOD's budget.

Absentee voting is allowed for those provably out of the county due to military or educational responsibilities. Absentee ballots can be submitted up to a week before the election.

Early voting starts a week before and no earlier. This should give everyone PLENTY of opportunities to vote, while allowing for the vast majority of the campaign to have run it's course.

Early voting numbers counted at the conclusion of each day with the voting totals being made known to the public.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Paschendale. :2wave:

What argument is being used in those states that provide the ID at no cost? I have also read that the Absentee Ballot is where most fraud is detected.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of fraudulent actions in elections come from those running the polls, not from any voters. If one is really interested in protecting the integrity of elections, that's where we should start.

Meanwhile, the argument is that those IDs aren't actually free. They require paperwork that isn't free. They require time to obtain, which the poorest among us often don't have. A single mother working three part time jobs, a person we could agree is more in need of government protection than any other adults, often can't spare the time to obtain these documents and go to a DMV or other location to get the ID. Sadly, the poorest also often can't spare the time to go vote, since a person working multiple part time jobs wouldn't have guaranteed time off during the day to vote. It is truly absurd that we hold our elections only on one day and on a weekday no less.

But I digress. Making voter ID truly free means the government undertaking all costs in getting such a card into every person's hands. This even includes the homeless, who often don't qualify for any forms of ID since they lack an address. No voter ID law has ever undertaken to accomplish this.
 
Zyphlin said:
My stance on voting remains as it's been for some time.

Federally issued Photo ID needed to vote.

Provide basic photo identification free of charge to those with a valid Social Security Card, Birth Certificate, or other generally accepted governmental form verifying identity as a legal citizen.

As a compromise, cut the amount of money needed to budget for such a thing (Which should be nominal in the grand scope of the federal budget) from the DOD's budget.

Absentee voting is allowed for those provably out of the county due to military or educational responsibilities. Absentee ballots can be submitted up to a week before the election.

Early voting starts a week before and no earlier. This should give everyone PLENTY of opportunities to vote, while allowing for the vast majority of the campaign to have run it's course.

Early voting numbers counted at the conclusion of each day with the voting totals being made known to the public.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much fine with this.
 
I'm sorry but this is all rather stupid. Y'all are all apoplectic over one person/one vote but corporations and big money get to buy the elected official. It matters little who gets to vote when corporations and big money can and do buy elections. I'm talking Democrats and Republicans.

BIG BUCKS from God knows where fund political campaigns. It works! Think about that people. Spending millions and millions on a particular candidate's campaign is very effective. Does anyone disagree? Corporations don't have to vote, the 1% don't have to vote, they simply dump millions into an election to greatly insure favorable odds and in doing so they buy the person elected. This isn't rocket science, but it seems to me that one hell of a lot of you are all worried about the illegal Mexican vote when it is campaign financing that most often determines elections and most often buys the politician.

It is a bit ironic that Republicans are the ones primarily concerned with voter identification, yet it is also Republicans who are primarily unsupportive of campaign finance reform. Make sure the illegals don't vote, but don't worry about who buys the election. WTF?

Recently all of the GOP members of the Senate voted against a Constitutional amendment that proposed:

Section 1 –

“To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”


Section 2 –

“Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.”


Section 3 –

“Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”
Click to expand...

But, by God, there had better not be anybody voting that shouldn't vote.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Wanna see what Republicans truly believe about voting issues? Couple voter-ID laws with a law that allows people to register to vote when they get their driver's licenses and you will watch Republicans run away faster than a kid chasing an ice cream truck. The reality is....Republicans know that when more people vote they lose elections....which is why they try as hard as they possibly can to keep people from voting.
Click to expand...

I'm entirely in favor of that. I think that people ought to be able to register to vote at the DMV, assuming they can prove they are American citizens. That's great. They get a legal ID to show at the polling place and get to register at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone.
 
Question Riskey...

What is the difference between spending X amount of resources to run an ad on television aimed at getting people to vote for your favored candidate and spending X amount of resources to physically pick up and bus people to the polling place that are likely to vote for your favored candidate?

Do you think money should be the only resource that is limited under the law? Or are you legally going to punish and restrict one type of resource (money) while allowing unlimited usage of other resourecs (like ones time)? Should there be similar limits on the amount of volunteer time that a campaign can utilize or can be done in support of a camapaign?
 
Risky Thicket said:
I'm sorry but this is all rather stupid. Y'all are all apoplectic over one person/one vote but corporations and big money get to buy the elected official. It matters little who gets to vote when corporations and big money can and do buy elections. I'm talking Democrats and Republicans.

BIG BUCKS from God knows where fund political campaigns. It works! Think about that people. Spending millions and millions on a particular candidate's campaign is very effective. Does anyone disagree? Corporations don't have to vote, the 1% don't have to vote, they simply dump millions into an election to greatly insure favorable odds and in doing so they buy the person elected. This isn't rocket science, but it seems to me that one hell of a lot of you are all worried about the illegal Mexican vote when it is campaign financing that most often determines elections and most often buys the politician.

It is a bit ironic that Republicans are the ones primarily concerned with voter identification, yet it is also Republicans who are primarily unsupportive of campaign finance reform. Make sure the illegals don't vote, but don't worry about who buys the election. WTF?

Recently all of the GOP members of the Senate voted against a Constitutional amendment that proposed:



But, by God, there had better not be anybody voting that shouldn't vote.
Click to expand...


I've found that the REAL reason that the Democrats are so up in arms over the Supreme court's decision on Citizens United is because they no longer have a monopoly on massive amounts of dirty money leveraging elections in their favor.

Unions have been doing what you just described for DECADES
 
apdst said:
How is it unconstitutional? I have a right to keep and bear arms. There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment about a background check, or having to produce an ID to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression this was about something else...?
 
Perotista said:
How can it be unconstitutional when the voter ID's are free? If I recollect right every state that offered free voter ID's, their law was ruled constitutional. My home state of Georgia is one of them.
Click to expand...

Ask the judges from the OP.


I'm not a judge, bro.
 
apdst said:
I'm making a comparison to prove my point.
Click to expand...

You're saying I need a license to utilize my first amendment rights.

You're argument FOR this is that you need a license to utilize your second amendment rights.

In between that, what you FAIL to see is that it's not about the license, in the 2A debate, but about being able to be identified as a person of sound mind with no criminal record, IE, someone less likely to use a gun for nefarious ends.

Now, I'm no anti 2A guy. But I gotta tell you, I KNOW you can produce a better argument than that.


In the meantime, I'm not so much again the CONCEPT of voter ID, as I am with the OP's determination of success, lol.

The judges are ONLY going ahead with this, because, and I quote, "It's too late now", lol.



Can you SMELL the win, lol?
 
KevinKohler said:
It's unconstitutional, which the majority of all the judges who have seen it agree....but now it's too late, so we're going forward with it.
Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:
The OP, and the link.
Click to expand...

It says a three judge panel overruled a single judge. How is that evidence of, "It's unconstitutional, which the majority of all the judges who have seen it agree"?
 
Cephus said:
I'm entirely in favor of that. I think that people ought to be able to register to vote at the DMV, assuming they can prove they are American citizens. That's great. They get a legal ID to show at the polling place and get to register at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone.
Click to expand...

That's how we do it in Ohio. It's called the "motor voter" law. Our republican governor thinks it's just peachy.
 
countryboy said:
It says a three judge panel overruled a single judge. How is that evidence of, "It's unconstitutional, which the majority of all the judges who have seen it agree"?
Click to expand...

Why did they overrule the judge?
 
I wonder if you lefties felt the same way about the judges in California overruling the referendum by the people......
 
countryboy said:
Please don't play games. Can't you simply present your evidence?
Click to expand...

It's in the OP. What you're going to want to do, is scroll down to the bottom right of the page, then click "first", then, once the page loads, you're going to want to read the OP from start to finish.
 
Navy Pride said:
This really stick it to Liberals who like to vote a couple of times........Every state should have voter ID laws.


Appeals court reinstates Texas voter ID law

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allows the law to be used in the November election, despite a lower judge's ruling that the law is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit did not rule on the law's merits; instead, it determined it's too late to change the rules for the election.
Click to expand...

How many liberals in Texas vote more than once?

It might be a bunch of conservatives having to vote more than once...in order to win? Well, nawwwh, that's not how it works. Conservatives do much better at gerrymandering to win election.

Carry on Sailor....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom