• 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!

Arkansas governor vetoes voter photo ID bill

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,858
Reaction score
8,338
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
This is too funny.

Arkansas governor vetoes voter photo ID bill | The Salt Lake Tribune

Little Rock, Ark. • Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe vetoed legislation Monday that would have required voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot, saying the measure was "an expensive solution in search of a problem" and would establish a requirement impairing the right to vote.
<snip>
"At a time when some argue for the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy and for reduced government spending, I find it ironic to be presented with a bill that increases government bureaucracy and increases government expenditures, all to address a need that has not been demonstrated," Beebe wrote. "I cannot approve such an unnecessary measure that would negatively impact one of our most precious rights as citizens."
Click to expand...
my emphasis


What is a good conservative to think? A Democratic Governor shooting down a bill because it would "increase government expenditures" -- funny that some on the right are all for spending "taxpayers' dollars" when it is for a cause they believe in but when they might be spent on something they oppose.
 
Somerville said:
What is a good conservative to think? ...
Click to expand...

They SHOULD think this is great! But the author framed the issue erroneously. First, the argument for the 'unnecessary bureaucracy and for reduced government spending' is aimed at the federal level as the VAST majority of the states have balanced budget amendments...second, this is a CLASSIC Conservative example of 'let the states decide'...

I'm sure you support the Governor's decision but will you be just as supportive if the Legislature overrides his veto? As this will be the 'will of the people'...of Arkansas.
 
For the life of me I cannot understand why there is opposition to the idea that one has to show ID before they vote. I can't do a number of things without showing ID, check into a hotel, rent a car, buy OTC meds (for some medications). It is a big political football IMO.
 
Somerville said:
This is too funny.

my emphasis


What is a good conservative to think? A Democratic Governor shooting down a bill because it would "increase government expenditures" -- funny that some on the right are all for spending "taxpayers' dollars" when it is for a cause they believe in but when they might be spent on something they oppose.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how showing an id will cost govt money?
 
Neosteve said:
For the life of me I cannot understand why there is opposition to the idea that one has to show ID before they vote. I can't do a number of things without showing ID, check into a hotel, rent a car, buy OTC meds (for some medications). It is a big political football IMO.
Click to expand...

Voting is the single fundamental right in a democracy. Comparing it to renting a car is silly and disingenuous.

Any truly "small government" supporter should be immediately and powerfully skeptical about any effort to make voting more difficult. It's voting. It's the most important right we have. Efforts such as voter ID's deserve tremendous scrutiny. For example, if ID's are legally required to vote, and ID's cost money, voting ends up indirectly costing money. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. So you issue free IDs, costing the state money, but it doesn't stop there. When you start taking closer looks at the states trying to add voter ID laws, you'll find that poor, minority districts just happen to have far less access to DMV services. Fewer DMVs, fewer hours of operation. Sometimes DMVs only open a few days a month. All coincidentally in heavily "blue" districts in states controlled by a "red" legislature.

And a believer in small government would also question the necessity. After all, we don't like it when government solves a problem that isn't a real problem, right? Especially when they do it wrong? So how prevalent is voter fraud, and how well would voter ID's address that? You'll find that most election fraud actually comes in the forms of voter suppression or voter registration fraud. Actual fraudulently-cast votes are quite rare, and most voter fraud occurs via absentee. Which voter ID laws would fail to prevent. So why aren't we cracking down on absentee voting instead? Is it because absentee votes happen to swing slightly red?

penn1954 said:
I'm not sure how showing an id will cost govt money?
Click to expand...

You need to redo the electoral process to involve checking IDs, recording that information, etc. Plus, poll taxes are unconstitutional so that would require states to issue IDs for free. (court cases have overturned ID laws on those grounds)
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Voting is the single fundamental right in a democracy. Comparing it to renting a car is silly and disingenuous.

Any truly "small government" supporter should be immediately and powerfully skeptical about any effort to make voting more difficult. It's voting. It's the most important right we have. Efforts such as voter ID's deserve tremendous scrutiny. For example, if ID's are legally required to vote, and ID's cost money, voting ends up indirectly costing money. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. So you issue free IDs, costing the state money, but it doesn't stop there. When you start taking closer looks at the states trying to add voter ID laws, you'll find that poor, minority districts just happen to have far less access to DMV services. Fewer DMVs, fewer hours of operation. Sometimes DMVs only open a few days a month. All coincidentally in heavily "blue" districts in states controlled by a "red" legislature.

And a believer in small government would also question the necessity. After all, we don't like it when government solves a problem that isn't a real problem, right? Especially when they do it wrong? So how prevalent is voter fraud, and how well would voter ID's address that? You'll find that most election fraud actually comes in the forms of voter suppression or voter registration fraud. Actual fraudulently-cast votes are quite rare, and most voter fraud occurs via absentee. Which voter ID laws would fail to prevent. So why aren't we cracking down on absentee voting instead? Is it because absentee votes happen to swing slightly red?



You need to redo the electoral process to involve checking IDs, recording that information, etc. Plus, poll taxes are unconstitutional so that would require states to issue IDs for free. (court cases have overturned ID laws on those grounds)
Click to expand...

So what would you have? Would you prefer that I walk into the voting place of my choice and cast a ballot at will? The political football is that people like you think that it is because the poor somehow will be disenfranchised by the showing of ID. The laws have to be written so a voter ID is free and easy to obtain, if that means we allocate some of our tax dollars to do this then so be it. There is so much waste in government that this cost could be offset without cutting the benefits to the poor stupid bastard that can't figure out how to get an ID. I would like to see some kind of competency test before some idiot gets to vote. Too many useful idiots in this country of ours.
 
Deuce said:
Voting is the single fundamental right in a democracy. Comparing it to renting a car is silly and disingenuous.

Any truly "small government" supporter should be immediately and powerfully skeptical about any effort to make voting more difficult. It's voting. It's the most important right we have. Efforts such as voter ID's deserve tremendous scrutiny. For example, if ID's are legally required to vote, and ID's cost money, voting ends up indirectly costing money. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. So you issue free IDs, costing the state money, but it doesn't stop there. When you start taking closer looks at the states trying to add voter ID laws, you'll find that poor, minority districts just happen to have far less access to DMV services. Fewer DMVs, fewer hours of operation. Sometimes DMVs only open a few days a month. All coincidentally in heavily "blue" districts in states controlled by a "red" legislature.

And a believer in small government would also question the necessity. After all, we don't like it when government solves a problem that isn't a real problem, right? Especially when they do it wrong? So how prevalent is voter fraud, and how well would voter ID's address that? You'll find that most election fraud actually comes in the forms of voter suppression or voter registration fraud. Actual fraudulently-cast votes are quite rare, and most voter fraud occurs via absentee. Which voter ID laws would fail to prevent. So why aren't we cracking down on absentee voting instead? Is it because absentee votes happen to swing slightly red?

penn1954 said:
I'm not sure how showing an id will cost govt money?
Click to expand...

You need to redo the electoral process to involve checking IDs, recording that information, etc. Plus, poll taxes are unconstitutional so that would require states to issue IDs for free. (court cases have overturned ID laws on those grounds)
Click to expand...


Then there are the various documents that are being demanded by those states before they will issue photo IDs, documents which cost money to obtain and therefore the state will have to pay for said documents for those incapable of paying. We also have states like Texas and Wisconsin either closing or reducing the hours of the offices which would issue the IDs in an "effort to save money" even though closing the offices imposes further problems for low income citizens. In Texas, there are counties where the only office open might entail a round trip of 50 or more miles for rural residents.
 
Why are states allowed to make different laws that effect Federal Elections.

There should be a unitary voting regulatory body for national elections and it should apply to every state equally.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Why are states allowed to make different laws that effect Federal Elections.

There should be a unitary voting regulatory body for national elections and it should apply to every state equally.
Click to expand...

That answer is easy. There are no federal elections. In the case of presidential elections, the people of the states go to the polls to elect the electors. In the last election, only 365 people actually voted for Obama.
 
Neosteve said:
So what would you have? Would you prefer that I walk into the voting place of my choice and cast a ballot at will? The political football is that people like you think that it is because the poor somehow will be disenfranchised by the showing of ID. The laws have to be written so a voter ID is free and easy to obtain, if that means we allocate some of our tax dollars to do this then so be it. There is so much waste in government that this cost could be offset without cutting the benefits to the poor stupid bastard that can't figure out how to get an ID. I would like to see some kind of competency test before some idiot gets to vote. Too many useful idiots in this country of ours.
Click to expand...

You cannot currently just walk in to any place and cast a vote at will, so that's not worth discussing.
I am not making any cost arguments. Merely explaining there is a cost.
If you live in the "black belt" in Alabama, there isn't a single full-time DMV in several adjacent counties. Fix those kinds of discrepancies and you fix the problem of access to IDs for the poor. We're not talking about widespread disenfranchisement efforts, instead it's a attempt to make voting less convenient in a manner that has a slightly disproportionate effect on democrats.

My compromise? Have stations to issue those IDs right at the voting location. Same requirements to get any other ID, no cost to the individual, nobody has to make extra trips to a DMV open 4 days a month during work hours.
 
If you live in the "black belt" in Alabama, there isn't a single full-time DMV in several adjacent counties. Fix those kinds of discrepancies and you fix the problem of access to IDs for the poor. We're not talking about widespread disenfranchisement efforts, instead it's a attempt to make voting less convenient in a manner that has a slightly disproportionate effect on democrats.

My compromise? Have stations to issue those IDs right at the voting location. Same requirements to get any other ID, no cost to the individual, nobody has to make extra trips to a DMV open 4 days a month during work hours.[/QUOTE]

Which leads me to ask why blacks so wholeheartedly support Democrats. I think your compromise is sound.
 
Neosteve said:
So what would you have? Would you prefer that I walk into the voting place of my choice and cast a ballot at will? The political football is that people like you think that it is because the poor somehow will be disenfranchised by the showing of ID. The laws have to be written so a voter ID is free and easy to obtain, if that means we allocate some of our tax dollars to do this then so be it. There is so much waste in government that this cost could be offset without cutting the benefits to the poor stupid bastard that can't figure out how to get an ID. I would like to see some kind of competency test before some idiot gets to vote. Too many useful idiots in this country of ours.
Click to expand...

I have no problem at all requiring photo ID in order to vote, as long as the ID is provided free of charge by the Government. Otherwise, it constitutes a poll tax and is unconstitutional.
 
danarhea said:
I have no problem at all requiring photo ID in order to vote, as long as the ID is provided free of charge by the Government. Otherwise, it constitutes a poll tax and is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I agree. We could pay for it by grounding Joe Biden.
 
danarhea said:
I have no problem at all requiring photo ID in order to vote, as long as the ID is provided free of charge by the Government. Otherwise, it constitutes a poll tax and is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Funny how the same people against paying for voter ID's because it "constitutes a poll tax" which is supposedly a tax put in place to restrict exercising a right yet are all for not only requiring those wanting to buy a gun pay taxes on that purchase but also want HIGHER taxes and additional taxes in the form of making them pay for things like CCW's, background checks and in some states registration of those guns.

Hypocrits.

And before you all get huffy about poll taxes only applying to voting just can it. Ultimately poll taxes were enacted to restrict a right. And ultimately SCOTUS struck it down as being a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. If you seriously don't think that equal protection shouldn't apply to the right of the people to bear arms yet support it for requiring people to pay for ID's in order to vote then you are a hypocrit.

BTW, this is not directed at you Dan, I just used your post for an example.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Funny how the same people against paying for voter ID's because it "constitutes a poll tax" which is supposedly a tax put in place to restrict exercising a right yet are all for not only requiring those wanting to buy a gun pay taxes on that purchase but also want HIGHER taxes and additional taxes in the form of making them pay for things like CCW's, background checks and in some states registration of those guns.

Hypocrits.

And before you all get huffy about poll taxes only applying to voting just can it. Ultimately poll taxes were enacted to restrict a right. And ultimately SCOTUS struck it down as being a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. If you seriously don't think that equal protection shouldn't apply to the right of the people to bear arms yet support it for requiring people to pay for ID's in order to vote then you are a hypocrit.

BTW, this is not directed at you Dan, I just used your post for an example.
Click to expand...

Poll taxes are explicitly unconstitutional as per the 24th amendment. The same is not true of gun registration taxes.

Do you think gun registration fees were explicitly introduced to make people less likely to buy a gun? Or rather because bureaucracy costs money and politicians look bad when they raise taxes, so implementing "fees" is a quieter way of raising revenue? Because that's how I look at the myriad other fees we see at the state and federal level. Registering my car costs an arbitrary amount of money because the state wants more money but raising taxes is unpopular.
 
Deuce said:
Poll taxes are explicitly unconstitutional as per the 24th amendment. The same is not true of gun registration taxes.

Do you think gun registration fees were explicitly introduced to make people less likely to buy a gun? Or rather because bureaucracy costs money and politicians look bad when they raise taxes, so implementing "fees" is a quieter way of raising revenue? Because that's how I look at the myriad other fees we see at the state and federal level. Registering my car costs an arbitrary amount of money because the state wants more money but raising taxes is unpopular.
Click to expand...

Yes.........
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes.........
Click to expand...

Do you think the same about automobile registration? Marriage certificate applications? Insurance sales licensing?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not a right so irrelevent.



Yes.



Not a right so irrelevent.
Click to expand...
It was a question of motivation, not of rights. Why are some fees designed at hindering an activity but others are not? And really, marriage license fees are designed to stop people from getting married? That's a new one.
 
Deuce said:
It was a question of motivation, not of rights. Why are some fees designed at hindering an activity but others are not? And really, marriage license fees are designed to stop people from getting married? That's a new one.
Click to expand...

So are you denying that there are laws that are designed to allow things yet discourage and or stop them also?
 
Kal'Stang said:
So are you denying that there are laws that are designed to allow things yet discourage and or stop them also?
Click to expand...

We're on to laws now instead of fees?
 
why not scan index finger prints prior to voting, no scan, no vote, that cost no one anything but some soap to clean the ink off
 
Deuce said:
We're on to laws now instead of fees?
Click to expand...

When the law mandates that a person pay a back ground check fee or registration fee or excessive tax what else do you call it? Common sense would dictate that it is the law. Now...want to answer the question or evade more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom