The results are in: Voter ID Fraud a myth - but we knew that

I am not confused. If you re-read the thread I made a very astute observation early on in respect to abridging the rights of the constitution. You mistakenly ended up defending yourself in respect to constitutional amendments which I believe missed the point:

If you want to modify the right to vote - or any right expressly granted by the constitution - then the only theoretical way of doing that is to pass a constitutional amendment.

I believe this also applies to voter ID laws unless the voter ID's are easily accessible and free of charge. I also believe that we will see this very case discussed in the Supreme Court before all is said and done.

None of this changes the fact that voter ID laws are not being passed in order to curb voter fraud. They are being passed to provide an advantage to one political party by disenfranchising voters from the next presidential election who would historically vote for the party they perceive as least likely to give them a proper ****ing.

 

Yeah, I should have blamed the state laws rather than the Constitution but the end result is the same: abridged rights of US citizens-- not saying there is anything wrong with that. It happens all the time.

I have no interest in modifying the right to vote; the point I made is that it has already been done. 14 YOs cannot vote in a federal or state or county election in any domicile even though they enjoy full US citizenship.

Why would you assume that voter IDs would be hard to access and expensive.... other than the fact that positing that allows you to rage more energetically about it. As others have said, on the surface a voter IDing requirement should be of little to no consequence to someone who values the "right" to vote.

 

So you think putting up another hurdle regarding the right to vote isn't modifying? That is a very strange definition of "modifying".

This again though misses the point about what rights are. As I just stated in the other thread, rights technically are not considered granted by the government. The wording of the First Amendment isn't that Congress shall grant freedom of speech and assembly" but that Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging those rights. That is a crucial distinction as it shows that the Framers considered those things to preexist government. In that case then the onus isn't on the voter to exercise the right but on the government to not limit the right.

 

Along that line of thinking, having to get up and go find a polling place (or fill out an absentee ballot) would modify voting "rights" because it, too, is just something you have to do to be able to be empowered to cast a vote

Some requirements (showing up to vote.... maybe with a voter ID) might modify voting behavior-- as witnessed by our generally low voter turnout-- but I don't think you can say they modify voting "rights" when all are subject to the same requirements.

In general, I agree with what you assertion here, but the government does limit our rights quite often and the onus is on the citizen to get out and vote. Voting doesn't just happen. It takes some kind of participation. Having or procuring some kind of simple, cost effective Voter ID is not really a "hurdle" in my opinion.

 

So you don't understand the difference between "rights" and "privileges" nor the term "modifying". If you are making a change to voting procedures that is by definition modifying voting.

Except a new ID system has not been shown to be simple or cost effective (I have yet to see a proposal about how this is going to be paid for) . Further even though government does limit our rights as noted the right to vote isn't the government's to grant. It is the government's role to guarantee it whether the citizens use it or not.

 

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...ly-voters-face-a-new-voter-id-hurdle-at-polls

Disabled and elderly voters face a new Voter ID hurdle at polls

From a continuing series of articles, Who Can Vote?, a News21 investigation of voting rights in America. Read the previous article, That student ID may not get you into the voting booth.

By Emily Nohr and Alissa Skelton
News21

Sami McGinnis remembers walking into a polling place and casting her vote for the first time.

“It was a wonderful feeling to have that freedom,” she said.

McGinnis, 67, whose vision is impaired, gave up that freedom eight years ago after her husband died. That’s when she first voted by absentee ballot. Having no family near her Mesa, Ariz., residence, she found it difficult arranging transportation — especially on Election Day.

She wishes it were possible for her to physically vote inside a polling place because she questions whether her absentee ballot is counted.

“It’s better than nothing,” she said, “but live my experience and tell me it’s better than nothing. It’s not the same.”

One in nine voting-age Americans is disabled, according to Census data. Of the 17 percent of voting-age Americans who are 65 years or older, at least 36 percent are disabled.

At a time when 37 states have considered photo ID legislation, some disabled and elderly Americans may face difficulty voting this November because they often don’t have a valid driver’s license. The result is that voter turnout among these groups probably will decrease, according to Rutgers University research.

“Voting is a big deal. It’s a big highlight of their years,” said Daniel Kohrman, a senior attorney for AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, in Washington, D.C.

“It’s really unfortunate, and indeed tragic, that this emphasis on restricting participation is presented in so many states,” Kohrman added.

Eighteen percent of Americans over 65 do not have a photo ID, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a public policy group that opposed many of the voting rule changes nationally. The Census estimates at least 7 million seniors don’t have driver’s licenses.

Many people with disabilities also don’t have a driver’s license. Beyond physical disabilities, persons can have learning disabilities — dyslexia for example — or poor hand-eye coordination.

“They’ve stopped driving because of vision or reflex issues. They, for reasons of various disability issues, have moved in with family who drive them around, or they’ve moved into an assisted living center,” said Jim Dickson, leader of the Disability Vote Project. The nonpartisan project of the American Association of People with Disabilities, a Washington, D.C., group that encourages political participation by those with disabilities.

AARP has opposed voter ID legislation in Missouri, Michigan, Indiana and Minnesota because the organization says “states should not impose unreasonable identification requirements that discourage or prevent citizens from voting.”

Voter ID requirements aren’t the only problem disabled and elderly people may face at the polls. People in these groups often have trouble accessing traditional polling places.

All polls are supposed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Among other things, the sweeping law says that people with disabilities shall not face discrimination at the polls. But, just under one-third of polling places are 100 percent barrier free, according to a 2009 Government Accountability Office study of the 2008 election.

Many states skirt the accessibility to polls by allowing absentee voting, mail voting or voting from curbsides, where a poll worker comes to a disabled person’s car with a ballot.

All states allow absentee and mail voting, but not all — Tennessee, for example — allow curbside voting.

“People with disabilities should have the same options as everyone else has. Voting in a polling places is an important and symbolic ritual,” said Lisa Schur, a Rutgers University associate professor who researches disabilities issues in employment and the ADA impact on public policy.

Leaving the disabled with only alternative voting methods “sends a clear message that people with disabilities are not fully welcome in the political sphere,” she said.

The convenience of absentee voting is appealing to Karin Kellas of Glendale, Ariz. She suffered a spinal cord injury as a result of a rollover car accident in 1966. In the ’90s, her legs were amputated above the knee.

“I’ve heard a lot of people feel their voice doesn’t count,” she said. “We need to make our opinions known and vote because that’s how we make any kind of change.”

Kellas votes absentee so she can skip the lines and volunteer to work the polls. If she wanted to vote in a traditional polling place, she’d find a way to get there as she did in the past.

She wants voting to be “as easy and accessible for able-bodied people as it is for disabled people.”

“I’m the exception to the rule because I don’t take no for an answer,” Kellas said. “There has to be a way I can vote.”

Inaccessible polling places can have “psychological consequences that say, ‘I don’t really want you here,’” Schur said.

“I see absentee voting and voting by mail as a convenience and it can help a lot of people with disabilities,” she said, “but I don’t see it as a substitute as making polling places accessible.”

Voter turnout among disabled people is a clear reflection of that, according to a Rutgers University study from the 2008 election.

The study showed turnout among voters who have disabilities was about 7 percentage points lower than those without disabilities.

And that’s not because disabled people are less interested in voting, said Douglas Kruse, a Rutgers University professor and director of the doctoral program in industrial relations and human resources. He and Schur co-authored the study.

Kruse, who uses a wheelchair, has a doctorate in economics from Harvard University. His research has found that disabled persons are less likely to be recruited to vote or participate in political activities.

“You’re not expected to participate,” he said, adding that such an attitude “probably reflects a lot of the polling place difficulties and the message that is sent by a polling place.”

It’s important for persons with disabilities to vote because political and social issues deeply affect them, McGinnis said.

“We take the time to get to know the issues because we live them,” she said.

 

Oh, I thought you meant something significant not trivial. Change a polling place and you are modifying a voting procedure. Technically I think you are modifying a voting requirement rather than a procedure.

People are using privilege in a pejorative fashion. I'm not. That is sensationalizing. I'm de-sensitizing the word.

 

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...-id-laws-tied-to-conservative-group-alec?lite

Something is rotten ....

 

Elderly and disabled? Pfft... They probably weren't going to vote anyway.

 

Good catch.

 

HO!

[Breaking] AP: Federal Court Rejects TX Voter ID Requirement

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal court rejects tough Republican-backed voter identification requirement for Texas.

 

As nice as it is that voter ID was struck down, I'm terrified what the Supreme Court might do.

I have a feeling that Section 5 of the VRA will be gone in a year. (I dont believe the USSC has the gumption to strike down the entire bill)

 

Ohio early voting was restored as well.

 

Interesting exchange between South Carolina Election Commission Executive Director Marci Andino and attorney during federal court trial:

Despite what giddy wants us to believe he believes, the purpose of these laws is to disenfranchise voters and nullify votes. Unbelievable.

Full article here.

 

Struck down in Florida

 

"Would?" Do you know what the rest of the world thinks of our elections as of the year 2000?

 

giddyup=Clint Eastwood minus the fame and fortune (and pro-choice position). Still, an old man yelling at a cloud is an old man yelling at a cloud.

Poor fellow.

 

You are the loon raking me over the coals for using a term that is well-established as a front in the fight against breast cancer (SaveTheTatas.com) and a term which, BTW, I had recently spotted at my mother-in-law's house on her car.

You castigate me for that being a bad joke and in poor taste and you call me an old man yelling at a cloud?!

You are Quixotic.

 

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...amer_pennsylvania_voter_id.php?ref=fpnewsfeed


CNBC host Jim Cramer said Tuesday that his father was among the estimated 750,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania who lack a state-issued form of identification.

“My dad, a vet, won’t be allowed to vote in Pa. because he does not drive, he is elderly, and can’t prove his citizenship,” Cramer wrote on Twitter.

Many elderly voters, including those who have voted in at least the past fifty elections, will have trouble voting under the law.

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of the state’s voter ID law begins on Thursday. The law is also the subject of a Justice Department investigation evaluating whether the law is discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act.

Here’s the “Mad Money” host’s tweet:

@Jim Cramer

I have a problem. My dad, a vet, won't be allowed to vote in Pa. because he does not drive, he is elderly, and can't prove his citizenship.