• 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!

Voter Laws

Sorry guys. This was meant to be a poll.
 
The ACLU is butting in again, so it prompted me to start this thread. The question is, should we just do away with current voting laws and let Non-US Citizens go ahead and vote?

North Carolina's sweeping voter ID law faces legal challenge | Fox News

No. The ACLU is very hypocritical, IMHO, as they have no objection to high cost CHL/CCW permits or the requiring of the very same valid, state issued, photo ID used for alcohol, tobacco, gun or ammo purchases. If there was genuine ACLU concern expressed over all of the limitations imposed on citizens (or even illegal aliens) based on not "having access" to these IDs (or high "user fees" for constitutional rights) then I would have (a bit) more respect for this lame argument.
 
No. The ACLU is very hypocritical, IMHO, as they have no objection to high cost CHL/CCW permits or the requiring of the very same valid, state issued, photo ID used for alcohol, tobacco, gun or ammo purchases. If there was genuine ACLU concern expressed over all of the limitations imposed on citizens (or even illegal aliens) based on not "having access" to these IDs (or high "user fees" for constitutional rights) then I would have (a bit) more respect for this lame argument.


I don't know if its hypocritical, because regardless if you have a CHL/CCW you can still open carry. Now I know there are exceptions like some "gun-free" cities which I think is BS.

Where as if an ID is required you will not be allowed to vote at all if you don't have it.
 
I don't know if its hypocritical, because regardless if you have a CHL/CCW you can still open carry. Now I know there are exceptions like some "gun-free" cities which I think is BS.

Where as if an ID is required you will not be allowed to vote at all if you don't have it.

Texas is not handgun free state, since open carry is illegal in Texas, even with a concealed carry license.

Texas Open Carry Explained | Texas Gun Laws

‘Open carry’ bill latest proposal to expand gun laws in Texas | Texas Politics | a Chron.com blog
 
Texas is not handgun free state, since open carry is illegal in Texas, even with a concealed carry license.

Texas Open Carry Explained | Texas Gun Laws

‘Open carry’ bill latest proposal to expand gun laws in Texas | Texas Politics | a Chron.com blog

And things like this are the example I was talking about which is BS. Open carry should be legal everywhere in public (private property would be at the discretion of owner) as long as you aren't drunk, felon, etc.
 
Only if I get to vote in the elections of all those other countries.
 
No, we should keep current federal voting laws. Voter fraud is very rare. We shouldn't make it more difficult for people to participate in elections. That's exactly what the North Carolina voter law does.

States set the voting requirements for themselves as is outlined in the Constitution...
 
Almost any amount of ID will get you a voter registration card and you have years to get ready between elections.

I favor making it easy, but in the complete absence of effort or ID, no, you shouldn't be voting.
 
States cannot add or go beyond federal voting requirements.

Federal law only states who may not be restricted from voting. States set the requirements for voting for their election process within those laws...
 
Federal law only states who may not be restricted from voting. States set the requirements for voting for their election process within those laws...

Wasn't the reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Arizona voter ID provision because that it went above and beyond the federal voting registration requirements?
 
Wasn't the reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Arizona voter ID provision because that it went above and beyond the federal voting registration requirements?

You're comparing registration to voting which is apples and oranges...
 
Do you believe in 50 different early voting laws. Isn't that what Rushbo really meant by using the word bastardization, though I use it for the civil war amendment? And same-day registration? He's on the offensive as always.
You're comparing registration to voting which is apples and oranges...
 
Look at the 34 different laws actually passed right now for the ID. I love a National ID, keep all those illegals from voting who come here to work for Repub corporations.
Almost any amount of ID will get you a voter registration card and you have years to get ready between elections.

I favor making it easy, but in the complete absence of effort or ID, no, you shouldn't be voting.
 
This is just a warm-up until the 2nd civil war, coming to a state near you. Repubs plant the seeds every day with their hate on radio/TV and America is now reaping what it voted for in 2010, 1994 and 1980 for starters.
Wasn't the reasoning behind the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Arizona voter ID provision because that it went above and beyond the federal voting registration requirements?
 
Do you believe in 50 different early voting laws. Isn't that what Rushbo really meant by using the word bastardization, though I use it for the civil war amendment? And same-day registration? He's on the offensive as always.

I don't believe in early voting unless there are extenuating circumstances...
 
Look at the 34 different laws actually passed right now for the ID. I love a National ID, keep all those illegals from voting who come here to work for Repub corporations.

This isn't one of my issues but I think there needs to be a reasonable standard so those awful Republicans don't round up a bunch of drunk Salvadorans and bus them to the polls. More seriously, I don't feel it's unreasonable to allow voter registration with a minimum of documentation. When I worked for a crisis center, we helped people to get their birth records in the (useless) hope they would then get ID and get stuff like jobs.

I doubt voter fraud is a significant problem. Then again, I don't think having ID is all that difficult. Even for special circumstances like the very elderly, I would be fine if voter cards were issued by sworn statement with any element of substantiation.

Now, if you're a 90 year old homeless man, you might find this challenging but then again what are the odds you feel the need to participate in the political process?
 
What about the 8-hour or more lines in precincts where they already had early voting? Are Repub states allowed to bastardize the distribution of quantity and quality of voting machines as in OH and FL and then say as in NC's new law that polls are closed, thanks for waiting, but you can't vote? You're a better man than that AP.

?
I don't believe in early voting unless there are extenuating circumstances...
 
What you should do is make sure everyone has ID, then ask for it. Cart after the horse not before, is in this case.

I really don't understand the so-called "issue" of poor people not being able to acquire IDs.

Hear in Ontario, a photo ID card can be acquired by anyone who wants one for $35. People who don't drive or no longer drive, like seniors, like these cards. And there's nobody who can convince me that any government that wants to can't set up such a system of their own. And, likewise, nobody can convince me that anyone with the inclination to vote in an election can't be bothered or can't afford $35.

It's a phony issue driven by those who wish to propogate political discord rather than promote sound government policy.
 
Your Governor Sandoval will never sign a drakkkonian law like this. Neither will Martinez in New Mexico. If repubs had any brains, they would have waited until Holder could not have sued them in time next year. What does it say that the VRA adopted by a 97-0 vote last time is now being filibustered? Each different Repub law is aimed at specific constituencies. Alito and Thomas taught these guys well in 2009 at the Koch conferences.
This isn't one of my issues but I think there needs to be a reasonable standard so those awful Republicans don't round up a bunch of drunk Salvadorans and bus them to the polls. More seriously, I don't feel it's unreasonable to allow voter registration with a minimum of documentation. When I worked for a crisis center, we helped people to get their birth records in the (useless) hope they would then get ID and get stuff like jobs.

I doubt voter fraud is a significant problem. Then again, I don't think having ID is all that difficult. Even for special circumstances like the very elderly, I would be fine if voter cards were issued by sworn statement with any element of substantiation.

Now, if you're a 90 year old homeless man, you might find this challenging but then again what are the odds you feel the need to participate in the political process?
 
What about the 8-hour or more lines in precincts where they already had early voting? Are Repub states allowed to bastardize the distribution of quantity and quality of voting machines as in OH and FL and then say as in NC's new law that polls are closed, thanks for waiting, but you can't vote? You're a better man than that AP.

?

Open more precincts for a longer period. Problem solved...
 
Open more precincts for a longer period. Problem solved...

But they won't Paul. But I'll resist saying you know that and just point out what the Ohio Sec'y of state did. Their dream is to impeach the POTUS. Close Senate elections in Red/red-ruled states are the key. WV, SD, MT are gone. KY, SC and GA must hold. LA, AR, AK, NC will all be federal elections held with different state laws. I don't believe that is why Madison convened the Constitutional Convention
 
Back
Top Bottom