• 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

Dont say that, the Republicans think we do already. ;)
Kanstantine said:
How is citizenship confirmed? I don't know.

But I'm sure its done. Otherwise we would have millions of tourists every year flooding to the USA in November voting in our elections.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Dont say that, the Republicans think we do already. ;)
Click to expand...

Then there are college students. My daughter can probably still vote in New Jersey and in New York, in addition to her beloved Madiganistan.
 
wbcoleman said:
In reality, a six-month statewide recount conducted by a consortium of leading newspapers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, concluded that George Bush almost certainly won Florida in 2000.
Click to expand...

Well, Bush did cheat, but guess what? So did Gore, by attempting to cherry pick Democratic counties for the recount. That's what led to the Supreme Court decision.

In the end, Bush was just a better cheater than Gore was. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
Well, Bush did cheat, but guess what? So did Gore, by attempting to cherry pick Democratic counties for the recount. That's what led to the Supreme Court decision.

In the end, Bush was just a better cheater than Gore was. LOL.
Click to expand...

Bush didn't cheat, he had good lawyers.
 
wbcoleman said:
In reality, a six-month statewide recount conducted by a consortium of leading newspapers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, concluded that George Bush almost certainly won Florida in 2000.
Click to expand...

You're only talking about the study that addressed hanging chads/dimples/whatever else they were talking about. Using the "strict" standard, where only fully removed "chads" were counted, Gore would have won by three votes. Any other form of counting would have led Bush to win.

But if you take into consideration all of the other issues argued, it's not clear at all who would have won. Unfortunately, a hand recount was blocked by Bush's lawyers, the most striking modern evidence we've ever seen of a candidate literally not caring about the will of the people.
 
Mustachio said:
You're only talking about the study that addressed hanging chads/dimples/whatever else they were talking about. Using the "strict" standard, where only fully removed "chads" were counted, Gore would have won by three votes. Any other form of counting would have led Bush to win.

But if you take into consideration all of the other issues argued, it's not clear at all who would have won. Unfortunately, a hand recount was blocked by Bush's lawyers, the most striking modern evidence we've ever seen of a candidate literally not caring about the will of the people.
Click to expand...

Look, substantively, they could just as well have tossed a coin. The results were way too close to ever derive an unambiguous conclusion.
 
clownboy said:
I agree the GOP is where the dems were in the early 2000s, but this old sod about gerrymandering is getting lame. Gerrymandering is a legal tactic used by both parties. Charges of "voter oppression" are silly and baseless. I for one feel oppressed as a voter over the latest indignity heaped upon us by the SCOTUS. They just decided the vote of American citizens just doesn't matter, that instead we must protect the illegal's right to vote.

But the pendulum-like nature of politics in America is still active. Today the dems ride ascendent, tomorrow they'll be in the dust moaning about how they might not survive. Rinse, repeat. Meanwhile, while you play cheerleader for one side or the other, the court shapes our county through absolute fiat. They are what the founders warned us they would be if they were allowed the power. In short, the SCOTUS have become our Ayatollahs, our ruling council - with lifetime appointments.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is illegal when used to disenfranchise a particular ethnic group. Although generally legal, gerrymandering is sleazy and immoral and should be eliminated. Ending gerrymandering will require action by the public since it benefits incumbent politicians.

The Arizona law with proof of birth requirement was intentionally created to disenfranchise poor people, elderly people and Native Americans and legal immigrant citizens, not just illegal immigrants. The court ruled correctly when it rejected the law as unconstitutional, which it has not done with every state voter ID law.
 
Hard Truth said:
Gerrymandering is illegal when used to disenfranchise a particular ethnic group. Although generally legal, gerrymandering is sleazy and immoral and should be eliminated. Ending gerrymandering will require action by the public since it benefits incumbent politicians.

The Arizona law with proof of birth requirement was intentionally created to disenfranchise poor people, elderly people and Native Americans and legal immigrant citizens, not just illegal immigrants. The court ruled correctly when it rejected the law as unconstitutional, which it has not done with every state voter ID law.
Click to expand...

Asking for proof of citizenship disenfranchises aliens, that's it.
 
wbcoleman said:
Look, substantively, they could just as well have tossed a coin. The results were way too close to ever derive an unambiguous conclusion.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. A hand recount, with officials from both sides observing, is much more accurate than any other method. We've seen this to be the case in the past, so why would a person argue against the most accurate possible measure? Look, pertaining to this issue, I'm certainly not against requiring proof of citizenship during registration (I don't like the way that Arizona did it, but I digress) because it ensures legitimacy. If you're interested in accuracy, then look at proof. Count the ballots.

This whole "who knows?" business is just an attempt to rationalize not doing the only logical thing to do when you have an election result with less than .1 percent difference between the 2 sides. If Bush had lost by 10 votes in Florida, you would have the exact opposite thing to say as you do right now.
 
Mustachio said:
That's absurd. A hand recount, with officials from both sides observing, is much more accurate than any other method. We've seen this to be the case in the past, so why would a person argue against the most accurate possible measure? Look, pertaining to this issue, I'm certainly not against requiring proof of citizenship during registration (I don't like the way that Arizona did it, but I digress) because it ensures legitimacy. If you're interested in accuracy, then look at proof. Count the ballots.

This whole "who knows?" business is just an attempt to rationalize not doing the only logical thing to do when you have an election result with less than .1 percent difference between the 2 sides. If Bush had lost by 10 votes in Florida, you would have the exact opposite thing to say as you do right now.
Click to expand...

Let me remind you that Algore didn't go to court demanding a statewide recount, he went to court demanding a recount in four heavily Democratic counties.
 
Deuce said:
Nothing has been gutted.
Click to expand...

That's not true. A huge hole was blown in AZ voter registrations. People who want to register and avoid questions about their citizenship can now just use the motorvoter cards and they're in. If they mail in their ballot they don't even need to show ID. The door for serious fraud has not only been opened but it's been blown off the hinges and thrown in the trash. There is no longer any protection whatsoever that an AZ vote was cast by a citizen.
 
wbcoleman said:
What do you mean? Are you still claiming that the applicant's citizenship status is checked? It isn't, because in the absence of paper evidence it can't be.
Click to expand...

States issue birth certificates. Feds issue passports. Are their methods insufficient? Do you think they keep no records of any of it?
 
Kanstantine said:
When we fill out the standard voter registration form, our citizenship is confirmed by the voter registration people.

No need to provide photo ID, BC, Passport, or whatever at the time of registration.

No foreigner can register to vote using the standard form.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Here's a link to the form and instructions - http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Registration_1209_en9242012.pdf
If you look at box 6 it refers you to the instructions and the instructions indicate that if you don't have an AZ issued ID or an SSN you just write "NONE" in the box and the Sec State has to issue you a voter number. You're still registered. You still get a ballot. You can still vote. All of that can happen as long as you signed off that you're a citizen.
 
wbcoleman said:
Asking for proof of citizenship disenfranchises aliens, that's it.
Click to expand...

Many legal citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport or tribal ID.
 
Deuce said:
States issue birth certificates. Feds issue passports. Are their methods insufficient? Do you think they keep no records of any of it?
Click to expand...

Do you think that state voter registration officials check the State Department passport files? That's fine for citizens who have passports, right? As for birth certificates, if one is not presented, do you think that the voter officials go to state birth records? Which state.... does the federal Motor Voter form even ask for place of birth?
 
Kanstantine said:
They have records somewhere.

Its clear that the purpose of this law in AZ was simply to keep people from registering to vote.
Click to expand...

That's correct. It was done to prevent INELIGIBLE people to vote.
 
Lutherf said:
Nope.

Here's a link to the form and instructions - http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Registration_1209_en9242012.pdf
If you look at box 6 it refers you to the instructions and the instructions indicate that if you don't have an AZ issued ID or an SSN you just write "NONE" in the box and the Sec State has to issue you a voter number. You're still registered. You still get a ballot. You can still vote. All of that can happen as long as you signed off that you're a citizen.
Click to expand...

And then they take your information and verify it. If you are doing this on Election Day, you cast a provisional ballot which isn't counted until registration is verified.
 
Deuce said:
And then they take your information and verify it. If you are doing this on Election Day, you cast a provisional ballot which isn't counted until registration is verified.
Click to expand...

With whom is citizenship verified? By the way, did you miss my post explaining that my daughter [through no effort of her own] is registered at two separate addresses within the City of Chicago?
 
Deuce said:
And then they take your information and verify it. If you are doing this on Election Day, you cast a provisional ballot which isn't counted until registration is verified.
Click to expand...

Verify what? They can check to see if you pay an electric bill at the address you gave but that doesn't mean a damned thing as far as citizenship goes. Besides, if they get 1,000,000 of these forms then who will do the checking, how long will it take and how much will it cost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom