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

I don't think it actually costs a lot of money. I think that is a myth.

I'll ask you how much extra would it cost to verify a SSN?

 

The age isn't unconstitutional since it's IN the Constitution. giddy strikes again...

 

So a 14 YO can vote?

Yes, he does strike again. Your "constitution" in this case is limiting voter eligibility not expanding it. That was MY point.

 

Why should you need a Photo ID to vote when we already know that there is no significant problem with voter fraud the way it is now?

The putting in place of additional requirements like a voter ID law won't help fix a problem that doesn't currently exist.

 

Ok. My point is if you want to further restrict it go and get yourself a constitutional amendment and get back with us. Otherwise you are in violation of that document.

 

The Fifteen Amendment prohibits the denial of suffrage based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

How does conventional proof of identity/citizenship abridge any of the above: race, color or previous condition of servitude?

Just because voter fraud has not been a widespread boogeyman yet does not mean it could not become one. That's why I raised the question about fraudulent voter registration which could be the ground preparation for voter fraud. Couple that with the "satisfaction" with casually open borders and you can see the dilemma developing.

 

You miss the point the Right does not want to make it easy to vote for demographics that don't generally support them. They want to make it expensive and difficult for folks to prove ID for voting. How could I be so unfair? Not just a theory. They know that when you make it easy to vote the poor and young tend to vote at a higher rate. Those states that make registration easier have shown that.

We could think of lots of schemes to make it fraud proof and virtually eliminate the strawman .0001% of voting fraud and yet make it easy for all to vote.Why should each state even have the right to have different bs and bureaucratic rules for and ID on Federal elections. They can't make such rules as you have to be 25 to vote. Or our senators will be elected in an electoral college type bs approach.

E.g off the top of my head. Make applications free. All post offices could register you to vote. Make the voter ID last 10 years like a passport. Better yet make it permanent. Many post offices take passport applications and then a centralized bureaucracy issues the passport. Don't think a passport has to be as secure as an Id to vote? Give me a break. If you do that than government hater bots will claim OMG the budget.

If some sort of ID scheme prevents the demographics they don't want the GOP is perfectly willing to spend lots of money to do so. Hey even better, privatize the bureaucracy and send it to a right wing supporter to profit off. Sweet ! Might cost a lot but the precious voter integrity is priceless. Not grandma's health care Got to make a ballsy Paul Ryan choice.

Worried about a peson using the same ID to vote on one day. Don't be silly. Consult Mastercard if you need some verification technology. Internet anyone.

 

The distinction between this and the Supreme Court case (Crawford v. Marion County) where the law was originally upheld---

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/09/indiana-appeals-court-overturns-voterid-law.html

May I kindly remind you---

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nMWGXt979yg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

14th Amendment, Section 1: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So why can't 14 year-olds vote?

 

See: WTF, seriously?

 

I feel like I'm typing to a four year old all of a sudden - but just for grins I'll amuse you.

What you just posted stated that a STATE cannot pass any law. This does not prevent a constitutional amendment, explicitly spelling out the rules in respect to voting age, from being valid; in fact it directly means that it takes precedent over any state law in respect to voting age.

We have other amendments that protect the right to vote and spell out the circumstances and parameters. I suggest you read them - and more importantly attempt to comprehend them.

 

Because state governments have decided to not lower their voting ages.

That is Equal Protection; no state shall set the minimum voting age higher than 18. It says nothing of the other direction.

I suggest, if you would like to advance your nonsensical metaphor, that if you believe in the right of the very young to vote, you advance that cause in state legistatures, knowing that there is nothing explictly written in the Constitution to stop you. If you are even more fanciful, I suggest a constitutional amendment based on mandating a minimum voting age at 14, similar to the 26th. See how that passes muster (you have quite a fight ahead of you!).

Also, many brownie points if you manage to advocate a good legal case that leads to the federal government CRUSHING state precedent. Spoken like a true WARREN COURT libbbberrul!

 

I feel like you are a four year old.... can we just quit with the insults? May I remind you:

The main point is that the rules which you think are iron-clad have changed over the centuries and likely will change again.

The 26th amendment which affirmed the voting age at 18 was only ratified in 1971. The 15th amendment was ratified in 1869... 102 years earlier.

 

I can only wish upon you better breadth and depth of knowledge, if you think the judicial case for voter ID laws is as sound, principled and overwhelming in need as the right for 18-year-olds to vote.

You want to pass a constitutional amendment?

Good luck with that.

 

After much internal debate and consideration from many posters. I have rethought my position on this issue. I still think it is important that our elections be protected, and that means stopping illegal votes from being cast. I just no longer think that these requirements will rectify the issue.

There has to be a cheap and effective way for States to develop a database of eligible voters to ensure felons and illegals can not vote and that no one can tamper with votes. I know they have looked into these before and have not found anything effective.

 

blah, blah, blah Any right winger that went to one year of law school and many others can play with court cases and drag out voter suppression nearly indefinitely when backed by the GOP Court.

The theory of legal realism: "What is Consitutional is what five sitting justices say it is."

Prof Chemerinski noted constitutional law professor and hornbook on constitutional law author. "If you want to predict the decisions of the S. Ct. you would do better to look at the last GOP presidential platform than the Federalist Papers." Nailed it.

 

Yes, you are confused.

I never said I wanted or we needed a constitutional amendment. I did suggest we may need laws in place as the circumstances of illegal immigration are making us more prone to voter fraud. Please don't put words in my mouth. I know it's your easiest way to claim victory but it's either lazy or dishonest.

I don't claim to be a lawyer in these matters. Your arrogance on the matter is so Ivory Tower.

Constitutional Amendments prove the evolution of the Constitution. It may continue. In fact, I learned that there is an Amendment on Child Labor which has been languishing awaiting approval since 1924.