• 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!

SC allows N. Dakota VOTER ID's

S

SmokethatGreen

Banned
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
299
Reaction score
56
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-allows-north-dakota-to-enforce-voter-id-laws

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to toss out an appeals court order that allows North Dakota to enforce its voter ID requirement during the 2018 elections.

The request to toss out the order came from a group of Native American residents who are challenging a new state law that requires voters to present identification that includes a current residential street address.

The challengers argued the new rule disenfranchises a disproportionate share of the population because many Native American voters live on reservations without standard addresses.
Click to expand...

Immediate winning with the new SC.
 
I am surprised I hadn’t thought of that before because I know people who don’t have street addresses, including my own father who lives in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. There are no roads within 10 or 15 miles of his home.

How do homeless people vote?
 
SmokethatGreen said:
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-allows-north-dakota-to-enforce-voter-id-laws



Immediate winning with the new SC.
Click to expand...

LMAO


the "new" court had nothing to do with this "The court's newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, did not take part in the decision.":lamo

also FYI the vast majority of americans right, left and center have ZERO issues with voter ID laws as long as they are done the right way.
As long as the law is about ID and that ID is free, readily available including from the polling place and all the other government accepted forms of ID are still accepted the amount of people that object to voter ID are VERY small.

Its when the voter ID law has a special ID not easily obtained or includes other things that have nothing to do with ID like closing polling places, redoing where polls are, cancelling early voting, absentee voting, extreme restricting of voting to certain times and cancelling voting on sunday etc etc ..........thats when it bothers people.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Bob said:
I am surprised I hadn’t thought of that before because I know people who don’t have street addresses, including my own father who lives in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. There are no roads within 10 or 15 miles of his home.

How do homeless people vote?
Click to expand...


You can’t have an ID if your homeless?
 
SmokethatGreen said:
You can’t have an ID if your homeless?
Click to expand...

I’m no expert, but a quick google search indicates that in many places of the country it it is virtually impossible for a homeless person to get an ID because they can’t meet the requirements to get one. Some jurisdictions make special accommodations for the homeless but not all of them.

They can’t even access much of the social welfare programs available to the non-homeless poor, like food stamps.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I’m no expert, but a quick google search indicates that in many places of the country it it is virtually impossible for a homeless person to get an ID because they can’t meet the requirements to get one. Some jurisdictions make special accommodations for the homeless but not all of them.

They can’t even access much of the social welfare programs available to the non-homeless poor, like food stamps.
Click to expand...

This seems like a bigger issue than voter ID laws to me.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I’m no expert, but a quick google search indicates that in many places of the country it it is virtually impossible for a homeless person to get an ID because they can’t meet the requirements to get one. Some jurisdictions make special accommodations for the homeless but not all of them.

They can’t even access much of the social welfare programs available to the non-homeless poor, like food stamps.
Click to expand...

Correct. and in some states where there are ways to get a general ID with no actual address its not an easy process, it requires transportation to certain locations and the ID cost money itself.
 
SmokethatGreen said:
This seems like a bigger issue than voter ID laws to me.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I’m sure most homeless people have bigger things to worry about than how they are going to vote. Voting probably doesn’t even register on most of their radars. But in principle I think most of us would agree they should be ABLE to.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
How is disenfranchizing thousands of Native America tribespeople 'winning'?

Please be very specific.
Click to expand...

Like 14 people live in North Dakota. What do you expect when the state tree is the telephone pole. Also I hear if you stand on a chair you can see the entire state.
 
Having a P.O. Box does not stop them from voting.
 
Crovax said:
From your article, “The court's newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, did not take part in the decision.”
Click to expand...

failure to read is always an issue with them for some reason.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I am surprised I hadn’t thought of that before because I know people who don’t have street addresses, including my own father who lives in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. There are no roads within 10 or 15 miles of his home.

How do homeless people vote?
Click to expand...

They can't that is the point, Republicans know that for the most part the homeless that vote, vote Democrat...

Years ago I found AN ALAC memo on the net distributed to California representatives that stated voter ID would decrease . minority participation by as much as ten percent.

Unfortunately I had it saved on an old computer that died, and I have not been able to track it down again.

The point is is that IDs are not about identification, they are about voter suspension...
 
SmokethatGreen said:
Like 14 people live in North Dakota. What do you expect when the state tree is the telephone pole. Also I hear if you stand on a chair you can see the entire state.
Click to expand...


No you can't at least not through all the pheasants and ducks, great hunting in North Dakota...
 
SmokethatGreen said:
I can hunt right here thx
Click to expand...


I can as well, I live on a bluff overlooking tbe upper Mississippi River refuge.

But sometimes it's fun to hunt different places.

BTW the entire refuge open to hunting fishing a d trapping,, except for some owed areas during duck season..

I don't live where I do by accident...
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
How is disenfranchizing thousands of Native America tribespeople 'winning'? Please be very specific.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t call it “winning” but I wouldn’t call it disenfranchisement either. Just looking at a map, there’s one reservation which straddles the border with South Dakota, another one which straddles both of those States plus Minnesota, and a third that looks to be on the Canadian border. So who counts as a resident of which State seems to be a messy business especially since not all of the people who live on these reservations have a standard residential address.

But perhaps more to the point - how can you reconcile the fact that these reservations are sovereign territory with considering their residents as residents of any State? If you live on a reservation then you live in sovereign tribal territory and you are represented by your tribal government.
 
Napoleon said:
I wouldn’t call it “winning” but I wouldn’t call it disenfranchisement either. Just looking at a map, there’s one reservation which straddles the border with South Dakota, another one which straddles both of those States plus Minnesota, and a third that looks to be on the Canadian border. So who counts as a resident of which State seems to be a messy business especially since not all of the people who live on these reservations have a standard residential address.

But perhaps more to the point - how can you reconcile the fact that these reservations are sovereign territory with considering their residents as residents of any State? If you live on a reservation then you live in sovereign tribal territory and you are represented by your tribal government.
Click to expand...

None of which is particularly relevant to the fact that this still disenfranchises thousands of native American tribespeople and was done so in a calculating manner. There was no problem with how they were actually voting, and this makes it clear the only problem for those who passed this law is that they were, in fact, voting.

That they live on tribal territory is meaningless. They are US citizens.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
None of which is particularly relevant to the fact that this still disenfranchises thousands of native American tribespeople and was done so in a calculating manner. There was no problem with how they were actually voting, and this makes it clear the only problem for those who passed this law is that they were, in fact, voting.

That they live on tribal territory is meaningless. They are US citizens.
Click to expand...

Of course it’s relevant. How do you know which State a person living on a reservation that straddles up to three States should be voting in and how do you make that decision without incorporating tribal land into State boundaries? And yes, there have always been problems for this very reason. P.O. Boxes were never a solution. It only meant that people drove sometimes hundreds of miles to cast a ballot in a congressional district they don’t live in.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Of course it’s relevant. How do you know which State a person living on a reservation that straddles up to three States should be voting in and how do you make that decision without incorporating tribal land into State boundaries? And yes, there have always been problems for this very reason. P.O. Boxes were never a solution. It only meant that people drove sometimes hundreds of miles to cast a ballot in a congressional district they don’t live in.
Click to expand...

They're US citizens who've essentially been stripped of their right to vote at the last moment when there was no evidence of registering with PO boxes ever having been a problem.

This was a 'solution' to a problem that never existed.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
They're US citizens who've essentially been stripped of their right to vote at the last moment when there was no evidence of registering with PO boxes ever having been a problem.

This was a 'solution' to a problem that never existed.
Click to expand...

The problem was that Congressional districts are defined based on how many people live in a given area. Can’t have people choosing where they vote based on where they have their mail delivered. They may be US citizens, but they are not residents of any State and never have been.
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
None of which is particularly relevant to the fact that this still disenfranchises thousands of native American tribespeople and was done so in a calculating manner. There was no problem with how they were actually voting, and this makes it clear the only problem for those who passed this law is that they were, in fact, voting.

That they live on tribal territory is meaningless. They are US citizens.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it is not the states job to find ways they can't vote it is there job to find ways they can...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom