• 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

poweRob said:
Fortunately, that would be a great thing for this country.
Click to expand...

If your goal is to be Venezuela or Greece, you're right. Fret not, we're fast-tracking that way for you.
 
iacardsfan said:
Fair enough. Unfortunately there needs to be a change in the federal law.
Click to expand...

That's what's required of citizens in a democracy -- they need to take their voting seriously, take their government seriously, and take political change seriously. Democracy isn't for adolescents who just complain (i.e., the libertarian, knownothing, "I hate Big Gummit" types).

But before voting for that change we need to know the facts: like is this really a problem, and what's the magnitude of it? And if we require proof of citizen to register (sounds reasonable I agree) what is the practical effect on certain demographic groups (such as the elderly and poor)? Will such a law actually disenfranchise more eligible voters than the number of ineligible voters it excludes? If so is it a good idea, at least in isolation? Should such a change in the law be carried out with a global reform and regularization of voting laws throughout the country, so that we don't get the kind of gamesmanship the GOP played in Florida in the 2000 election? Not to mention the long lines, the lack of voting places, and so forth? Maybe we should fix that first -- meaning PAYING for it -- rather than dealing with what might be a small problem.
 
Erod said:
If your goal is to be Venezuela or Greece, you're right. Fret not, we're fast-tracking that way for you.
Click to expand...

Pssst: conservatives ran Greece for a decade before its financial collapse. Go figure.
 
head of joaquin said:
Pssst: conservatives ran Greece for a decade before its financial collapse. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Figures. They love to waste money and then blame Liberals when the **** hits the fan.

Kind of like what happened with our mortgage crisis. 8 years of Bush leads to the worst financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.
 
jonny5 said:
Do you accept that there is any fraud at all? People voting who shouldnt be able to, voting for other people, voting more than once?
Click to expand...

Yes. I have seen some figures that a very teeny tiny number of people are convicted of voter fraud. And they are punished under the law for those offenses. And that is how it should be.

We had a particularly ugly case of election fraud here in Michigan that went on for several years undetected until it was discovered.

http://www.freep.com/article/201208...se-fallout-How-does-Michigan-stamp-out-fraud-

So why are we then embracing new restrictions on voting for ALL PEOPLE in order to combat a rather tiny problem that is already being dealt with in the law today?
 
Grant said:
Republican Candidate In Arizona Accused Of Voter Fraud | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

You Leebrul, you. :mrgreen:

Seriously, Arizona did not present that as evidence. And, since no charges were brought against him, I have a feeling that Think Progress was on a fishing expedition.

From the article in Think Progress said:
Enright has not been charged with any crime and told the Arizona press “I look forward to learning more about these allegations. If they are indeed formal allegations, I will defend myself. I very much look forward to clearing my name.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
You Leebrul, you. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

No need to use foul language!
Seriously, Arizona did not present that as evidence. And, since no charges were brought against him, I have a feeling that Think Progress was on a fishing expedition.
Click to expand...

Dang! And i thought i had a Gotcha!
 
In my opinion, ID or similar verification requirements for voting would be acceptable IF there was a four year delay before implementation and funding for outreach, education and assistance with obtaining an ID. That would provide time for students, the poor, and elderly etc to get their ID so that they are not disenfranchised. Theoretically everybody should be happy with such a compromise solution.
 
I have no problem with requiring ID, just so the default is allowing people to vote. Then arrest them if they voted illegally. Your delay idea is good too.
Hard Truth said:
In my opinion, ID or similar verification requirements for voting would be acceptable IF there was a four year delay before implementation and funding for outreach, education and assistance with obtaining an ID. That would provide time for students, the poor, and elderly etc to get their ID so that they are not disenfranchised. Theoretically everybody should be happy with such a compromise solution.
Click to expand...
 
I am in two minds about this, I agree with the decision because it mostly is written towards Hispanic people but on the other hand I believe in people showing their ID before being allowed to vote.

Here every person who is registered in the basic governmental registry (which in theory is everyone) gets their voter card sent to the place they are registered at (if you move you are by law mandated to make this known to the city you are departing from and registering in the city you move to, if you stay within a city you just give your new address). With this voter card and you ID you go to a voting location close to you and vote. It is that simple, no illegals need apply, they cannot vote. Registered aliens who have a permit to live in the Netherlands also get this card in local elections but from what I remember not in national elections.

Voter suppression should be fought with all legal means and with logical and humane intentions, and not with partisan designs to make it harder or impossible for supporters of the opposing side to vote.
 
Hard Truth said:
In my opinion, ID or similar verification requirements for voting would be acceptable IF there was a four year delay before implementation and funding for outreach, education and assistance with obtaining an ID. That would provide time for students, the poor, and elderly etc to get their ID so that they are not disenfranchised. Theoretically everybody should be happy with such a compromise solution.
Click to expand...

That seems like a lot of time, money, and manpower to address a non-existent or, at minimum, microscopic problem. I've never heard of a single case of in-person voter fraud at the polls. The problem has always been with absentee ballots. How are ID laws going to resolve anonymous fraud?
 
jonny5 said:
We arent talking about one in a million here, but a million in millions. We dont know the extent of the problem because no one is investigating.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Arizona couldn't prove ONE instance of voter fraud, when asked by SCOTUS. I wish you luck in doing better.
 
danarhea said:
Prove it. Arizona couldn't prove ONE instance of voter fraud, when asked by SCOTUS. I wish you luck in doing better.
Click to expand...

How would one go about proving something the State has no "right" to check?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
How would one go about proving something the State has no "right" to check?
Click to expand...

The state of Arizona, under THEIR law, was already checking, until they went before SCOTUS. SCOTUS asked for proof of voter fraud, and they could provide NONE. Now they can't check any more, which is good, because they were using the so-called check to deny the vote to many who were eligible. It's the new version of Jim Crow, but that crow just got it's wings clipped.
 
danarhea said:
The state of Arizona, under THEIR law, was already checking, until they went before SCOTUS. SCOTUS asked for proof of voter fraud, and they could provide NONE. Now they can't check any more, which is good, because they were using the so-called check to deny the vote to many who were eligible. It's the new version of Jim Crow, but that crow just got it's wings clipped.
Click to expand...

And you believe checking who is registering to vote is actually eligible to vote is not a good practice?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
And you believe checking who is registering to vote is actually eligible to vote is not a good practice?
Click to expand...

Why can't they work within the framework of Federal law? A person shouldn't be prevented from voting just because the State thinks they might be ineligible. Thats the problem with all of these GOP driven voter roll initiatives; they don't want to remove people based on objective criteria and facts, but merely on suspicion. I don't believe anyone opposes the concept of ensuring that those on the voter rolls are eligible to vote, but the States needs to definitively proof that a person is ineligible BEFORE removing them.

Its the same gap in logic that Ohio Secretary of State John Husted had. He argued that the dead should be removed from voter rolls and he based that determination on whether or not a person has voted in x number of elections; not on any objective criteria such as bumping the list of registrants against a list of death certificates. He basically wanted to declare a person dead to remove them from the voter rolls without actually verifying that they are dead.

I know that people, Republicans in-particular, try to frame this debate as a battle between those who want illegal immigrants or the dead to cast ballots and those who don't, but thats a false dichotomy. Their refusal to use objective criteria and facts to clean up the rolls reveals their efforts as thinly veiled attempts at disenfranchisement. That is what this debate is about.
 
Last edited:
AlabamaPaul said:
And you believe checking who is registering to vote is actually eligible to vote is not a good practice?
Click to expand...

Not when you are depriving thousands of eligible voters of their right to vote. Scalia called this one right.
 
Napoleon said:
Why can't they work within the framework of Federal law? A person shouldn't be prevented from voting just because the State thinks they might be ineligible. Thats the problem with all of these GOP driven voter roll initiatives; they don't want to remove people based on objective criteria and facts, but merely on suspicion. I don't believe anyone opposes the concept of ensuring that those on the voter rolls are eligible to vote, but the States needs to definitively proof that a person is ineligible BEFORE removing them.
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
Not when you are depriving thousands of eligible voters of their right to vote. Scalia called this one right.
Click to expand...

Have either of you read the dissenting opinions?
 
danarhea said:
There were only 2 dissents. There were 7 in favor, which makes those dissents moot.
Click to expand...

Only to those who would not care to know the reasoning which, IMHO, would be exactly the direction I would have taken...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Only to those who would not care to know the reasoning which, IMHO, would be exactly the direction I would have taken...
Click to expand...

And when has anybody ever seen you give the same consideration to decisions on abortion, which, by the way, had twice as many dissents as this?
 
danarhea said:
And when has anybody ever seen you give the same consideration to decisions on abortion, which, by the way, had twice as many dissents as this?
Click to expand...

I only do fly byes on the abortion threads. Do you have a relevant point to make? If so, I'm here for about 10 minutes...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I only do fly byes on the abortion threads. Do you have a relevant point to make? If so, I'm here for about 10 minutes...
Click to expand...

You just made the point yourself. You only do fly byes, and don't demand people look at dissents, if it is something that SCOTUS rules on that goes your way, but of course, you demand that people look at the dissents if the decision does not go your way on something you DO support. It is stated in your own words, that I have just quoted for posterity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom