Mich. court upholds voter photo ID law

[red states rule]

Another blow to Democrats. Now people will have to show a photo ID before voting - now it will be harder for illegals, dead people, and for people to vote multiple times for the Dems on the ballot

Of course, the left is outraged over this ruling - without fraud - Dems will now have to actually convince people their ideas are better then Republicans

Mich. court upholds voter photo ID law

By DAVID EGGERT, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jul 18, 6:00 PM ET



LANSING, Mich. - A state law requiring voters to show photo identification or swear to their identity is constitutional, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The court's five Republicans voted to uphold the law while two Democrats dissented. The issue has fiercely divided Democrats and Republicans for a decade.

The law was passed in 1996 and renewed in 2005, but it never took effect because former Attorney General Frank Kelley, a Democrat, ruled it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to vote.

Critics say the ID requirement is essentially a poll tax that would hit the poor, elderly, disabled and minorities hardest and keep them away from the polls. Supporters say it's needed to prevent election fraud.

The Michigan law requires voters to show photo ID to get a ballot, but it still allows those who don't have photo IDs to vote if they sign an affidavit swearing to their identity.

The high court's majority found Wednesday that the ID requirement isn't a poll tax because voters can choose to sign the affidavit instead.

Justice Robert Young Jr., in the majority opinion, said the ID requirement is a "reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction designed to preserve the purity of elections and to prevent abuses of the electoral franchise."

Dissenting justices argued the state has no compelling interest in requiring ID because there is no evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Michigan. Justice Marilyn Kelly said that "history will judge us harshly for joining those states that have limited the precious constitutional right to vote."

Several states have faced legal battles over laws requiring voters to show photo IDs. Judges have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Indiana but struck down Missouri's. Last month, the Georgia Supreme Court threw out a challenge to that state's voter ID law but sidestepped a decision on whether the requirement was constitutional.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070718/ap_on_re_us/voter_id

[Trigg]

I never could figure out what the big problem with requiring photo ID was anyway.

There can't be but a handfull of people, who are old enough to vote, that don't have a drivers license.

[red states rule]

I never could figure out what the big problem with requiring photo ID was anyway.

There can't be but a handfull of people, who are old enough to vote, that don't have a drivers license.

With people having to show an ID, Dems can no longer count on a huge turnout of the cemetery vote on Election Day

[Trigg]

With people having to show an ID, Dems can no longer count on a huge turnout of the cemetery vote on Election Day

Agreed, I always thought it was a great idea.

[red states rule]

Agreed, I always thought it was a great idea.

Of course, libs whine how minorities and the poor will be hurt the most with having to show an ID

How the hell do they cash their welfare checks if they don;t have an ID?

[Trigg]

Of course, libs whine how minorities and the poor will be hurt the most with having to show an ID

How the hell do they cash their welfare checks if they don;t have an ID?

That was mean. :laugh2: :slap:

Minorities/poor have a license just like everyone else. Take a bus down to the license branch, it's not like it's a hard thing to do.

[red states rule]

That was mean. :laugh2: :slap:

Minorities/poor have a license just like everyone else. Take a bus down to the license branch, it's not like it's a hard thing to do.

Just pointing out the holes in the DNC talking points

I never said the libs talking points made any sense

[Yurt]

Just pointing out the holes in the DNC talking points

I never said the libs talking points made any sense

you're evil :coffee:

[red states rule]

you're evil :coffee:

Thank you

[truthmatters]

4

[Gunny]

http://tinyurl.com/ysvmaz

The studies that have been done on voter IDs is that is keeps people from voting and yes I mean LEGAL voters from voting.

The type of vote fraud it is "designed" to stop does not exsist in any significant numbers yet the program is VERY costly and stops legal voters from voting.

Is that very American?


Study: Stricter voting ID rules hurt '04 turnout
Posted 2/19/2007
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Voter identification requirements designed to combat fraud can reduce turnout, particularly among minorities, a new study shows.
A study by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University shows turnout in 2004 was about 4% lower in states that required voters to sign their name or produce documentation. Hispanic turnout was 10% lower; the difference was about 6% for blacks and Asian-Americans.

The study, presented to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission this month, comes as voter identification requirements are being subjected to increased scrutiny. Two researchers last year told the Election Assistance Commission that they found little evidence of voter fraud at polling places.

Thomas O'Neill, who led the Eagleton research team, said the new study shows that "the harm may be as great as the benefit."

Tough shit. You're required by law in most states to have proper ID on you anyway. If the responsibility of voting is too much, then you don't deserve to vote.

Since you have to have a voter's registration to begin with, this is just more of your trying to create controversy where none exists.

[Trinity]

The last couple of times I went to vote I had to show ID in Ohio.

[truthmatters]

The last couple of times I went to vote I had to show ID in Ohio.


And these laws have shown to decrease legal voters is that what you want them to do?

[Missileman]

And these laws have shown to decrease legal voters is that what you want them to do?

I'll tell you what's practically non-existent...it's someone showing up to vote who doesn't own a valid form of ID. Pull your head out of your ass!

[manu1959]

I'll tell you what's practically non-existent...it's someone showing up to vote who doesn't own a valid form of ID. Pull your head out of your ass!

no shit....it is harder to cash a check than vote....

[Gunny]

And these laws have shown to decrease legal voters is that what you want them to do?

The decision is STILL the voters, period. They can follow the rules or not vote. Way most of life goes.

It appears from this thread and the other you only have a problem with regulated, legal voting. Why would that be?

[actsnoblemartin]

voter id, should be required. Maybe a 2nd form of id too?


no shit....it is harder to cash a check than vote....

[5stringJeff]

And these laws have shown to decrease legal voters is that what you want them to do?

Half of legal voters don't show up in the first place. And if these people can't take the time to find a piece of identification, then tough titties, don't vote.

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2mqq4u


There is no evidence that these types of laws stop voter fraud.
There is evidence that says it trims the voter roles of legal voters.

[actsnoblemartin]

exactly its a privalege not a right to vote.

People have died for it, and people take it for granted.


Half of legal voters don't show up in the first place. And if these people can't take the time to find a piece of identification, then tough titties, don't vote.

[darin]

http://tinyurl.com/2mqq4u


There is no evidence that these types of laws stop voter fraud.
There is evidence that says it trims the voter roles of legal voters.

What's worse? inconveniencing legal voters or having illegal votes 'count'?

[manu1959]

http://tinyurl.com/2mqq4u


There is no evidence that these types of laws stop voter fraud.
There is evidence that says it trims the voter roles of legal voters.

how can you have evidence that it prevents people from voting when it hasn't happened yet?

[truthmatters]

What's worse? inconveniencing legal voters or having illegal votes 'count'?


That is just the thing. This type of fraud is so small that it is insignificant and studies have shown that.
Studies have also shown a much more significant amout of legal voters beig intimidated from voting.

So with these laws you end up with less legal voters and no significant vote fraud stopped.

So the tax dollars get spent to keep legal voters from voting.

[avatar4321]

http://tinyurl.com/ysvmaz

The studies that have been done on voter IDs is that is keeps people from voting and yes I mean LEGAL voters from voting.

The type of vote fraud it is "designed" to stop does not exsist in any significant numbers yet the program is VERY costly and stops legal voters from voting.

Is that very American?


Study: Stricter voting ID rules hurt '04 turnout
Posted 2/19/2007
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Voter identification requirements designed to combat fraud can reduce turnout, particularly among minorities, a new study shows.
A study by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University shows turnout in 2004 was about 4% lower in states that required voters to sign their name or produce documentation. Hispanic turnout was 10% lower; the difference was about 6% for blacks and Asian-Americans.

The study, presented to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission this month, comes as voter identification requirements are being subjected to increased scrutiny. Two researchers last year told the Election Assistance Commission that they found little evidence of voter fraud at polling places.

Thomas O'Neill, who led the Eagleton research team, said the new study shows that "the harm may be as great as the benefit."

if people dont care enough about voting to bother getting an ID, then they really dont need to be voting anyway.

I have no problem with lazy unmotivated and often thoughtless people culling themselves out of the voting process. It isnt the government preventing them from voting, its their own lack of action.

[truthmatters]

if people dont care enough about voting to bother getting an ID, then they really dont need to be voting anyway.

I have no problem with lazy unmotivated and often thoughtless people culling themselves out of the voting process. It isnt the government preventing them from voting, its their own lack of action.


So you submitt the secretary of each state should try to trim the voting roles of every state in every way they can?

Do you really want to stand with the idea that America designed as a democracy should seek to keep people from voting?


http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100

here is a little reading for you

[avatar4321]

So you submitt the secretary of each state should try to trim the voting roles of every state in every way they can?

Do you really want to stand with the idea that America designed as a democracy should seek to keep people from voting?

they should always check to see if the voting roles are up to date. They should always remove convicted felons from those roles.

But this is the case where people choose not to vote. Its their right not to vote just as much as its our right to vote. No one is seeking to keep legitimate voters to vote. But if they choose to not vote, then I am not going to get upset over it. It was their choice.

[truthmatters]

they should always check to see if the voting roles are up to date. They should always remove convicted felons from those roles.

But this is the case where people choose not to vote. Its their right not to vote just as much as its our right to vote. No one is seeking to keep legitimate voters to vote. But if they choose to not vote, then I am not going to get upset over it. It was their choice.

In some states Felons hwo have done their time get their voting rights restored.

Why would you want people to not vote if they are perfectly legal voters?

This type of fraud has (every time it is studied) been shown to be statisically non exsistant.

[truthmatters]

So you submitt the secretary of each state should try to trim the voting roles of every state in every way they can?

Do you really want to stand with the idea that America designed as a democracy should seek to keep people from voting?


http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100

here is a little reading for you

could you answer my question please?

[darin]

That is just the thing. This type of fraud is so small that it is insignificant and studies have shown that.
Studies have also shown a much more significant amout of legal voters beig intimidated from voting.

So with these laws you end up with less legal voters and no significant vote fraud stopped.

So the tax dollars get spent to keep legal voters from voting.

What's worse? Inconvenienced legal voters, or illegal votes?

[truthmatters]

What's worse? Inconvenienced legal voters, or illegal votes?


Inconvenienced legal voters who then dont vote.

I would rather one illegal voter got to vote than 10 legal voters were scared away from voting.

[Gunny]

Inconvenienced legal voters who then dont vote.

I would rather one illegal voter got to vote than 10 legal voters were scared away from voting.

BS. They aren't scared away. Proving one is a legally registered voter is simple common sense. Why don't you just tell the truth for once?

In the other thread, you didn't mind dual-registered voters because odds are good they vote Democrat because they're nanny-state refugees from New Orleans.

You just reinforce it here. You're okay with illegal voters but IF any of those illegal voters turned out to be Republicans you'll be the FIRST one screaming global conspiracy to commit voter fraud by the GOP.

[manu1959]

Inconvenienced legal voters who then dont vote.

I would rather one illegal voter got to vote than 10 legal voters were scared away from voting.

why would someone be afraid to show their id to vote.....aren't they proud of who they are?

[5stringJeff]

That is just the thing. This type of fraud is so small that it is insignificant and studies have shown that.

You know what else was "so small?" Bush's margin of victory over Gore in Florida in 2000. So small or not, the integrity of votes is a huge thing.

[Gunny]

why would someone be afraid to show their id to vote.....aren't they proud of who they are?

I'm going over to the Westside tomorrow and getting three of four different ones and register to vote 3-4 times.

Truthmatters says it's okay to commit vote fraud.:laugh2:

[manu1959]

I'm going over to the Westside tomorrow and getting three of four different ones and register to vote 3-4 times.

Truthmatters says it's okay to commit vote fraud.:laugh2:

can you imagine being married to her?

[Gunny]

can you imagine being married to her?

:slap:

[manu1959]

:slap:

that is her on the left huh?

[Gunny]

that is her on the left huh?

Nah ... would use your policy from women's clothing thread ... leave on side of road. :laugh2:

[manu1959]

Nah ... would use your policy from women's clothing thread ... leave on side of road. :laugh2:

what is she is really hot....but dumb....like miss teen usa...

[darin]

Inconvenienced legal voters who then dont vote.

I would rather one illegal voter got to vote than 10 legal voters were scared away from voting.



So - Voters to lazy to bring ID, and having to go home and GET ID is worse than Illegal votes being cast.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[April15]

Just like having to go through metal detectors to go pay a ticket I refuse to subject my basic right to vote or court to what amounts to an illegal search. Thank goodness I know everybody at the polls. And the court can kiss my ass!

[manu1959]

Just like having to go through metal detectors to go pay a ticket I refuse to subject my basic right to vote or court to what amounts to an illegal search. Thank goodness I know everybody at the polls. And the court can kiss my ass!

gotta go through a metal detector to go to court.....

[jimnyc]

Just like having to go through metal detectors to go pay a ticket I refuse to subject my basic right to vote or court to what amounts to an illegal search. Thank goodness I know everybody at the polls. And the court can kiss my ass!

You think being asked to provide photo ID equates to an illegal search? I'm trying hard not to laugh, but can you please give me some legal standing to understand your thought process a little better?

[Mr. P]

Just like having to go through metal detectors to go pay a ticket I refuse to subject my basic right to vote or court to what amounts to an illegal search. Thank goodness I know everybody at the polls. And the court can kiss my ass!

I'll bet you have a problem with STOP signs too.

[April15]

I'll bet you have a problem with STOP signs too.In california that means Slight Tap On Pedal. Actually stop signs are practical. They prevent others from running into me as i run my sign!

[jimnyc]

I wish I would have known all of this long ago. Who would have thought that all those tickets I got over the years could have easily been thrown out of court due to an illegal search when the officers asked for my ID.

[truthmatters]

So - Voters to lazy to bring ID, and having to go home and GET ID is worse than Illegal votes being cast.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


You would rather disenfranchise 10 legal voters to keep on illegal voter from voting?

I wont even insist on a yes or no like you do with me.

You see when you ask a question like "did you stop beating your wife last night" a yes or no wont do.

[April15]

I wish I would have known all of this long ago. Who would have thought that all those tickets I got over the years could have easily been thrown out of court due to an illegal search when the officers asked for my ID.No. It is when you go to the court house now you have to submit to a search of your body. Even when requested for jury duty.

[jimnyc]

No. It is when you go to the court house now you have to submit to a search of your body. Even when requested for jury duty.

Ok, please show us how this amounts to an illegal search.

[April15]

Ok, please show us how this amounts to an illegal search.Unreasonable is the operative word. That makes it illegal. Jurists may argue but I just don't go to anyplace that wants me to surrender my civil rights! Even if I could fly I wouldn't subject myself to the search prior to getting on an airplane. Why people do is beyond belief. They think that it will make them safe. Balderdash.

[jimnyc]

Unreasonable is the operative word. That makes it illegal. Jurists may argue but I just don't go to anyplace that wants me to surrender my civil rights! Even if I could fly I wouldn't subject myself to the search prior to getting on an airplane. Why people do is beyond belief. They think that it will make them safe. Balderdash.

Unreasonable to you = illegal?

Please tell me you have no legal background and you haven't the ability to represent any poor soul in our country.

I don't consider ensuring people who will be around a building full of government officials aren't packing heat to be unreasonable.

[Abbey Marie]

What is considered legally unreasonable changes with the exigencies of the times, and the makeup of the courts. There is no set in stone all-time definition. The mature person learns to deal with it. For the greater good, of course. ;)

[truthmatters]

You would rather disenfranchise 10 legal voters to keep one illegal voter from voting?


I was hoping someone might answer this question.

[manu1959]

You would rather disenfranchise 10 legal voters to keep one illegal voter from voting?

I was hoping someone might answer this question.

10 legal voters will not be disenfranchised....they show their id to buy cigarates and booze and cash and get their welfare checks and get their food stamps....they will show id to vote for obillary.....be proud of who you are....

[truthmatters]

10 legal voters will not be disenfranchised....they show their id to buy cigarates and booze and cash and get their welfare checks and get their food stamps....they will show id to vote for obillary.....be proud of who you are....


What are you saying ?

What makes you think these people take welfare?

[manu1959]

What are you saying ?

What makes you think these people take welfare?

sorry that is as slow as i can type.....

i was taking the piss out of you....their ID seems to work ok when they need other things....why is broken when they need to vote...

[truthmatters]

sorry that is as slow as i can type.....

i was taking the piss out of you....their ID seems to work ok when they need other things....why is broken when they need to vote...


So you are suggestig that all the Katirna victims collect welfare?

[Gunny]

Just like having to go through metal detectors to go pay a ticket I refuse to subject my basic right to vote or court to what amounts to an illegal search. Thank goodness I know everybody at the polls. And the court can kiss my ass!

That's bullshit. Voter ID is a common sense way to reduce/restrict voter fraud, and if you have a driver's license and drive, don't give me the selective, feigned indignation act over a voter ID.

[Gunny]

In california that means Slight Tap On Pedal. Actually stop signs are practical. They prevent others from running into me as i run my sign!


Voter IDs are practical ... they prevent voters from voting more than once and/or illegals from voting.

[truthmatters]

That is not what all the studies doe on the subject say.

They come to conclusions that this type of fraud is not worth wasting money on.

I dont understand why people support spending Tax dollars that will do nothing but make it harder for people to vote?

[manu1959]

So you are suggestig that all the Katirna victims collect welfare?

ya that is what i wrote....fucking hell ......

[Yurt]

That is not what all the studies doe on the subject say.

They come to conclusions that this type of fraud is not worth wasting money on.

I dont understand why people support spending Tax dollars that will do nothing but make it harder for people to vote?

How does having to show ID make it harder to vote?

[manu1959]

How does having to show ID make it harder to vote?

it doesn't....they ask you your name....same thing...

[Yurt]

That's bullshit. Voter ID is a common sense way to reduce/restrict voter fraud, and if you have a driver's license and drive, don't give me the selective, feigned indignation act over a voter ID.

Absolutely. What is it with people and this ID/vote issue? And mean, wouldn't you want to know that someone just can't come in and vote in your name? At some places, all they have to have is your address and they can be you. And guess what, if you vote after them, then there will be a pottystorm because the vote is already in with other votes. If dems are soooooo concerned about voter fraud, then wtf is their problem with needing ID.

Could it possibly rhyme with dillpickles?

[Yurt]

it doesn't....they ask you your name....same thing...

Actually, because I would have to expend the strenuous effort to get my ID out, I probably would not vote :rolleyes:


Everybody should have ID's. I had one as a kid because when I went out my mom wanted some sort of ID on me in case something happened. Everybody who is here legally has an ID. If you don't have an ID, then you are shady or are so far off the "grid" that voting probably doesn't matter to you anyways.

[truthmatters]

You guys can state what YOU believe to be true all day long but that does not change the facts that this type of fraud has proven to be vertually nonexsistant in the real world.

Why do you refuse proof?

Why do you want to waste tax payer money just to keep people from voting?

[truthmatters]

ya that is what i wrote....fucking hell ......



Is this why you dont wat them to vote?

[jimnyc]

Why do you want to waste tax payer money just to keep people from voting?

How is asking prospective voters for ID costing taxpayers money?

[truthmatters]

How is asking prospective voters for ID costing taxpayers money?

Because the law has desided that the burden of the cost amounts to a pole tax so the community has to provide them at no cost to the voter.

Many older people no longer have an ID because their SS check is automatically deposted and they no longer drive.

There is the burden of them going to the place where the ID is made for them and the fear they will be denied an ID because they have nothing but a birth certificate or no longer even know where their BC is.

You can say these peopel dont matter to you but under the law they are legal voters and this country should promote legal voting not be in the market to knock people off the polls.

[Yurt]

You guys can state what YOU believe to be true all day long but that does not change the facts that this type of fraud has proven to be vertually nonexsistant in the real world.

Why do you refuse proof?

Why do you want to waste tax payer money just to keep people from voting?

Where is your "proof?"

Waste? Are you nuts? What is the waste? Is it a waste to help tackle voter fraud? Maybe you think passports are a waste too. My ID to buy beer, what a waste.

Do you even know what truth is?

[jimnyc]

Because the law has desided that the burden of the cost amounts to a pole tax so the community has to provide them at no cost to the voter.

Many older people no longer have an ID because their SS check is automatically deposted and they no longer drive.

There is the burden of them going to the place where the ID is made for them and the fear they will be denied an ID because they have nothing but a birth certificate or no longer even know where their BC is.

You can say these peopel dont matter to you but under the law they are legal voters and this country should promote legal voting not be in the market to knock people off the polls.

There are many types of acceptable ID outside of a drivers license. These things are almost a necessity to get by in todays world and are needed at countless places. To all of a sudden not have one when it comes time to vote is ridiculous.

I still don't see how this is costing taxpayers money. The only way I can see money involved is if some dumbass has no ID whatsoever, and has to pay to get a renewal of some sort, and that doesn't cost me a dime for them to do so.

Are you against the FAA and all the airlines as well? You know you can't fly without ID. And what about buying alcohol? I believe you need ID for that too. What if you want to drive to Mexico or Canada? I believe you'll need ID to re-enter the country. Get my point yet?

Whining over not having ID, or that it's requested, is not only a non-issue, but ridiculous in today's times.

[manu1959]

Is this why you dont wat them to vote?

i want everyone to vote early and often in as many states as possible....holy shit....did your mum drink....a lot

[Yurt]

Because the law has desided that the burden of the cost amounts to a pole tax so the community has to provide them at no cost to the voter.

Many older people no longer have an ID because their SS check is automatically deposted and they no longer drive.

There is the burden of them going to the place where the ID is made for them and the fear they will be denied an ID because they have nothing but a birth certificate or no longer even know where their BC is.

You can say these peopel dont matter to you but under the law they are legal voters and this country should promote legal voting not be in the market to knock people off the polls.


A POLL tax is not about the community paying the price of voting :poke: It is making a set group pay a SPECIAL tax :poke:

Truth.............obviously does not matter to you.

You have a burden right now for voting. YOUR tax dollars pay for the whole voting process. Who do you think paid for all those recounts YOU wanted?

:slap:

[truthmatters]

A POLL tax is not about the community paying the price of voting :poke: It is making a set group pay a SPECIAL tax :poke:

Truth.............obviously does not matter to you.

You have a burden right now for voting. YOUR tax dollars pay for the whole voting process. Who do you think paid for all those recounts YOU wanted?

:slap:


THE COURT DEEMED THE BURDEN OF THE ID COST AMOUNTED TO A POLL TAX, that is just the facts.

Lets stick to the facts OK?

[jimnyc]

THE COURT DEEMED THE BURDEN OF THE ID COST AMOUNTED TO A POLL TAX, that is just the facts.

Lets stick to the facts OK?

And the fact is - asking potential voters to show ID costs the taxpayers NOTHING.

[truthmatters]

There are many types of acceptable ID outside of a drivers license. These things are almost a necessity to get by in todays world and are needed at countless places. To all of a sudden not have one when it comes time to vote is ridiculous.

I still don't see how this is costing taxpayers money. The only way I can see money involved is if some dumbass has no ID whatsoever, and has to pay to get a renewal of some sort, and that doesn't cost me a dime for them to do so.

Are you against the FAA and all the airlines as well? You know you can't fly without ID. And what about buying alcohol? I believe you need ID for that too. What if you want to drive to Mexico or Canada? I believe you'll need ID to re-enter the country. Get my point yet?

Whining over not having ID, or that it's requested, is not only a non-issue, but ridiculous in today's times.


No one is whining its that in America you are not forced to get any ID and that is the fact.

[manu1959]

THE COURT DEEMED THE BURDEN OF THE ID COST AMOUNTED TO A POLL TAX, that is just the facts.

Lets stick to the facts OK?

i could argue the cost to get to the poll is a poll tax....and thus unfair....

[Trinity]

That is just the thing. This type of fraud is so small that it is insignificant and studies have shown that.
Studies have also shown a much more significant amout of legal voters beig intimidated from voting.

So with these laws you end up with less legal voters and no significant vote fraud stopped.

So the tax dollars get spent to keep legal voters from voting.

and why exactly would you be intimidated from voting because you had to show ID? You have to show ID for many things.

[jimnyc]

No one is whining its that in America you are not forced to get any ID and that is the fact.

Not unless you want to buy a home, get a loan, get a bank account, fly on a plane, travel outside the country...

Your "facts" are warped by reality.

[Trinity]

BS. They aren't scared away. Proving one is a legally registered voter is simple common sense. Why don't you just tell the truth for once?

In the other thread, you didn't mind dual-registered voters because odds are good they vote Democrat because they're nanny-state refugees from New Orleans.

You just reinforce it here. You're okay with illegal voters but IF any of those illegal voters turned out to be Republicans you'll be the FIRST one screaming global conspiracy to commit voter fraud by the GOP.

:laugh2:

[Yurt]

THE COURT DEEMED THE BURDEN OF THE ID COST AMOUNTED TO A POLL TAX, that is just the facts.

Lets stick to the facts OK?

A court decision is NOT a fact. It is just a decision by a lower court. Until the USSC says so, it is not even law because voting constitutional issues are federal law.

Please google "fact" next time. And what court deemed it a poll tax?

[truthmatters]

Not unless you want to buy a home, get a loan, get a bank account, fly on a plane, travel outside the country...

Your "facts" are warped by reality.

Is there a law in this country which forces someone to get an ID?

no there is not.

If you make it so people have to present IDs to vote what will it accomplish?

It makes it so you have to get an ID if you wish to vote.

Why do we need this when every study has shown that this type of vote fraud is non exsistant?

Why are we doing this it makes no sense.

You dont force your kids to get a shot that there is no disease for do you?

Why waste tax money to cure something that does not exsist?

[Trigg]

You would rather disenfranchise 10 legal voters to keep on illegal voter from voting?

I wont even insist on a yes or no like you do with me.

You see when you ask a question like "did you stop beating your wife last night" a yes or no wont do.

If this has been answer already than sorry.

YES, I WOULD.

I have had to show my ID the last few times I voted.

I don't know anyone who is old enough to drive who doesn't have an ID. Military or drivers lisence are both valid ID's because they have your PICTURE on it.

How many people are running around the US who are registered voters and don't have a drivers lisence. My guess would be the number is so small as to be insignificant.

[avatar4321]

You would rather disenfranchise 10 legal voters to keep one illegal voter from voting?


I was hoping someone might answer this question.

You still dont get it do you?

The only reason anyone is "disenfranchised" is because they choose to be.

And most people I know, dont have a single problem with someone who chooses not to vote not voting. It is their decision. If they dont want to vote, I dont want them voting. If they are too lazy to show an ID then they are certainly way to lazy to be educated when voting. Why should we encourage ignorant voting?

[Yurt]

Is there a law in this country which forces someone to get an ID?

no there is not.

If you make it so people have to present IDs to vote what will it accomplish?

It makes it so you have to get an ID if you wish to vote.

Why do we need this when every study has shown that this type of vote fraud is non exsistant?

Why are we doing this it makes no sense.

You dont force your kids to get a shot that there is no disease for do you?

Why waste tax money to cure something that does not exsist?

Yes or no, do you know anyone 18 and over who does NOT have ID?

Yes or no.

[avatar4321]

You guys can state what YOU believe to be true all day long but that does not change the facts that this type of fraud has proven to be vertually nonexsistant in the real world.

Why do you refuse proof?

Why do you want to waste tax payer money just to keep people from voting?

why do you want people voting illegally?

[jimnyc]

Is there a law in this country which forces someone to get an ID?

no there is not.

If you make it so people have to present IDs to vote what will it accomplish?

It makes it so you have to get an ID if you wish to vote.

Why do we need this when every study has shown that this type of vote fraud is non exsistant?

Why are we doing this it makes no sense.

You dont force your kids to get a shot that there is no disease for do you?

Why waste tax money to cure something that does not exsist?

First off, not mandatory, but I'm begging you, can you not properly write a paragraph? Your writing style is childish in manner and very hard to follow.

You don't think requiring to prove who you are in order to vote is necessary, yet you whine about election fraud in every other thread. Which is it, do you want them to minimize potential fraud or not? It may be low, but don't say it's non-existent as that's just false.

And yes, I do force my son to get shots for things he does not have - it's for prevention - and it's MANDATORY to get into school.

And again, it doesn't cost me a damn red cent to have someone else provide proper ID at the polls.

[Yurt]

First off, not mandatory, but I'm begging you, can you not properly write a paragraph? Your writing style is childish in manner and very hard to follow.

You don't think requiring to prove who you are in order to vote is necessary, yet you whine about election fraud in every other thread. Which is it, do you want them to minimize potential fraud or not? It may be low, but don't say it's non-existent as that's just false.

And yes, I do force my son to get shots for things he does not have - it's for prevention - and it's MANDATORY to get into school.
And again, it doesn't cost me a damn red cent to have someone else provide proper ID at the polls.

come on truthinessmattering.... what say you.

[avatar4321]

THE COURT DEEMED THE BURDEN OF THE ID COST AMOUNTED TO A POLL TAX, that is just the facts.

Lets stick to the facts OK?

That of course is a huge lie. If you dont believe me, just read the freaking story that started this thread. You know the one where the court upheld Photo ID laws.

[Trigg]

Is there a law in this country which forces someone to get an ID?

no there is not.

If you make it so people have to present IDs to vote what will it accomplish?

It makes it so you have to get an ID if you wish to vote.

Why do we need this when every study has shown that this type of vote fraud is non exsistant?

Why are we doing this it makes no sense.

You dont force your kids to get a shot that there is no disease for do you?

Why waste tax money to cure something that does not exsist?

You are so out in left field on this and you aren't even bright enough to know it.

It would be next to impossible to live in this country without an ID. No house, No bank accout, No driving, No renting anything.

How does this cost us ANYTHING??????? The people at the polls as for an ID we show it. End of story.

[Trigg]

i want everyone to vote early and often in as many states as possible....holy shit....did your mum drink....a lot

I tried to rep you for this, but it would let me.

[manu1959]

You are so out in left field on this and you aren't even bright enough to know it.

It would be next to impossible to live in this country without an ID. No house, No bank accout, No driving, No renting anything.

How does this cost us ANYTHING??????? The people at the polls as for an ID we show it. End of story.

your turn to bang your head on the rock.......

[jimnyc]

your turn to bang your head on the rock.......

I'm afraid it's too late. My head has broken the poor little rock.

[avatar4321]

I'm afraid it's too late. My head has broken the poor little rock.

Then its time for a bigger rock.

[Gunny]

You guys can state what YOU believe to be true all day long but that does not change the facts that this type of fraud has proven to be vertually nonexsistant in the real world.

Why do you refuse proof?

Why do you want to waste tax payer money just to keep people from voting?


You're shittin' me right? You, Miss Left-wingut extraordinnaire who probably STILL believes Bush stole the 2000 election?

GMAFB please. You were harping about voter fraud on the other board. Now it suits your cause to say it's "virtually nonexistent"?

:alcoholic:

[manu1959]

You're shittin' me right? You, Miss Left-wingut extraordinnaire who probably STILL believes Bush stole the 2000 election?

GMAFB please. You were harping about voter fraud on the other board. Now it suits your cause to say it's "virtually nonexistent"?

:alcoholic:

no shit......i watched her beat her own ass in an argument with the same issue....

[Trigg]

your turn to bang your head on the rock.......

I tried that on the Katrina victims thread. I've now come to the conclusion that truthdoesn'tmatter has someone else turn on the computer for her. I'm not sure she could figure it out on her own.

[truthmatters]

I tried that on the Katrina victims thread. I've now come to the conclusion that truthdoesn'tmatter has someone else turn on the computer for her. I'm not sure she could figure it out on her own.

All insult and no substance?

[manu1959]

All insult and no substance?

all ignorance all the time.....

[Trigg]

All insult and no substance?

I've tried substance. Obviously you didn't read my prior posts, and since you keep repeating the same thing instead of listening to others. I'm left with insults, sorry.

Does it consern you that you get no back up from your fellow libs??

[Trigg]

all ignorance all the time.....


:laugh2::laugh2: I need to get busy spreading that rep around.

[avatar4321]

All insult and no substance?

why not answer the other posts you are ignoring?

[Gunny]

All insult and no substance?

Geez ... could you try something new just ONCE? Like making an argument without excuses, and when all else fails, accuse others of insulting you?

YOU are exasperating and YOU are every bit the cause of people finally insulting you. There's enough substance in this thred to write a bestseller and you STILL just go skipping right along through La-La Land.

[manu1959]

:laugh2::laugh2: I need to get busy spreading that rep around.

i'll wait.......:coffee:

[Abbey Marie]

All insult and no substance?

Trigg's not big on insults. You had to go a long way to get her going.

Think about it.

:poke:

[truthmatters]

You're shittin' me right? You, Miss Left-wingut extraordinnaire who probably STILL believes Bush stole the 2000 election?

GMAFB please. You were harping about voter fraud on the other board. Now it suits your cause to say it's "virtually nonexistent"?

:alcoholic:

here is an example of not really listening to what is said and why I have to repete myself.

You people keep asking the same questions over and over and I answer them over and over.

There are different types of fraud and the type of fraud that has been trumped up by the republicans are they types for which there is not much evidence it even exsists.
They keep trying to fix what is not broken and hold back the fixing of what is broken.

There is next to no evidence that individual voters try to vote while dead, vote more than once , vote where they are not registered( with the exception of Ann Coulter who did just that an got no punishment but I guess you dont want her punished anyway because she is well........Ann Coulter and right wing) ,Illegals voting.

These are trumped up charges while our electronic machines have been condemed by pretty much anyone who has looked into them.

Why do you not care about the danger to the validity of voting that has been PROVEN to exsist and yet are bully bully about wasting tax dollars for a program which will stop legal voters from voting.

The studies have also shown that to be the case.

[Dilloduck]

here is an example of not really listening to what is said and why I have to repete myself.

You people keep asking the same questions over and over and I answer them over and over.

There are different types of fraud and the type of fraud that has been trumped up by the republicans are they types for which there is not much evidence it even exsists.
They keep trying to fix what is not broken and hold back the fixing of what is broken.

There is next to no evidence that individual voters try to vote while dead, vote more than once , vote where they are not registered( with the exception of Ann Coulter who did just that an got no punishment but I guess you dont want her punished anyway because she is well........Ann Coulter and right wing) ,Illegals voting.

These are trumped up charges while our electronic machines have been condemed by pretty much anyone who has looked into them.

Why do you not care about the danger to the validity of voting that has been PROVEN to exsist and yet are bully bully about wasting tax dollars for a program which will stop legal voters from voting.

The studies have also shown that to be the case.

politicos only care about the kind of voter fraud that hurts them.

[shattered]

Is there a law in this country which forces someone to get an ID?

no there is not.

If you make it so people have to present IDs to vote what will it accomplish?

It makes it so you have to get an ID if you wish to vote.



No, there's not..but, how do you get through life without an ID? You need one of those just to get a job. You need an ID for almost anything you do in life.. Buying a house, buying alcohol, buying cigarettes, paying for things with a credit card, and the list goes on..

If you HAVE an ID, how do you "forget" it, when it's time to vote? That's something you carry with you at all times.

HOW is this an inconvenience, exactly? What possible reason could there be for fighting it?

I've been asked to present an ID for voting. I open my wallet, show my ID, and go vote. Simple as that.

[shattered]

Incidently, even those WITHOUT a job need an ID, to collect welfare benefits.. So, we'll keep it simple:

If you're a legal resident of the United States, how is it remotely possible one does NOT have an ID?

[Gunny]

here is an example of not really listening to what is said and why I have to repete myself.

You people keep asking the same questions over and over and I answer them over and over.

There are different types of fraud and the type of fraud that has been trumped up by the republicans are they types for which there is not much evidence it even exsists.
They keep trying to fix what is not broken and hold back the fixing of what is broken.

There is next to no evidence that individual voters try to vote while dead, vote more than once , vote where they are not registered( with the exception of Ann Coulter who did just that an got no punishment but I guess you dont want her punished anyway because she is well........Ann Coulter and right wing) ,Illegals voting.

These are trumped up charges while our electronic machines have been condemed by pretty much anyone who has looked into them.

Why do you not care about the danger to the validity of voting that has been PROVEN to exsist and yet are bully bully about wasting tax dollars for a program which will stop legal voters from voting.

The studies have also shown that to be the case.

Claiming "everybody else" isn't listening to you is rather lame. We read what you post, and then it gets ripped apart. The problem might not be the
rest of the world" ... it might just be YOU.

One, everything is post is partisan crap. You put no thought into it, nor do you research the topic thoroughly. You just regurgitate, then when questioned cannot respond having no real thoughts of your own.

It doesn't matter how you wish to subdivide the topic of "voter fraud," be it voter registration or machines. The fact remains, you accuse conservatives/Republicans of some baseless, conspiratorial crap.

The machines were at the insistence of YOU liberals. I personally have NO problem with punchcards ... but then, I can read, comprehend and punch a hole completely through a piece of paper exactly where I want that hole to be.

The machines apparently aren't 100% foolproof, so you now want to whine about THAT and cast it some sinister light as the mechanizations of the great right wing conspiracy. Voting will NEVER be foolproof.

But, turn around and try to do something about voter fraud by initiating common sense practice of voter identification and you start squealing about that.

Too bad. If you can register to vote, and want your vote counted, and actually wish to minimize voter fraud, having a voter ID is NOT asking too much.

You have a driver's license, right? Because you want to drive. That's the rules. Get over yourself. If you want to vote, get a voter ID and quit whining about the small shit.

Oh, and yes, in most states you are required by law to possess identification on your person.

It's all just too simple, and your agenda all too transparent.

[Trigg]

No, there's not..but, how do you get through life without an ID? You need one of those just to get a job. You need an ID for almost anything you do in life.. Buying a house, buying alcohol, buying cigarettes, paying for things with a credit card, and the list goes on..

If you HAVE an ID, how do you "forget" it, when it's time to vote? That's something you carry with you at all times.

HOW is this an inconvenience, exactly? What possible reason could there be for fighting it?

I've been asked to present an ID for voting. I open my wallet, show my ID, and go vote. Simple as that.

We keep repeating this point and liesmatter just keeps ignoring it.

Who of voting age, in this country legally, and registered to vote doesn't have an ID already???????????????????????????????????????

[Trigg]

Claiming "everybody else" isn't listening to you is rather lame. We read what you post, and then it gets ripped apart. The problem might not be the
rest of the world" ... it might just be YOU.

One, everything is post is partisan crap. You put no thought into it, nor do you research the topic thoroughly. You just regurgitate, then when questioned cannot respond having no real thoughts of your own.

It doesn't matter how you wish to subdivide the topic of "voter fraud," be it voter registration or machines. The fact remains, you accuse conservatives/Republicans of some baseless, conspiratorial crap.

The machines were at the insistence of YOU liberals. I personally have NO problem with punchcards ... but then, I can read, comprehend and punch a hole completely through a piece of paper exactly where I want that hole to be.

The machines apparently aren't 100% foolproof, so you now want to whine about THAT and cast it some sinister light as the mechanizations of the great right wing conspiracy. Voting will NEVER be foolproof.

But, turn around and try to do something about voter fraud by initiating common sense practice of voter identification and you start squealing about that.

Too bad. If you can register to vote, and want your vote counted, and actually wish to minimize voter fraud, having a voter ID is NOT asking too much.

You have a driver's license, right? Because you want to drive. That's the rules. Get over yourself. If you want to vote, get a voter ID and quit whining about the small shit.

Oh, and yes, in most states you are required by law to possess identification on your person.

It's all just too simple, and your agenda all too transparent.


I have nothing to add, good post :clap::clap:

[shattered]

We keep repeating this point and liesmatter just keeps ignoring it.

Who of voting age, in this country legally, and registered to vote doesn't have an ID already???????????????????????????????????????

My heads kinda numb today, so that brick wall isn't hurting me as much as y'all, yet. :cool:

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2wmo8m
What are DOJ's findings regarding the ID requirement?

In August the Attorney General's office announced that the ID law had received preclearance under Section 5, arguing that the need to combat fraud cited by the bill's proponents was a valid concern and that the requirement did not appear to impose a burden on African Americans.

However, that finding has been called into question based on a recently publicized memo in which DOJ staff assigned to review Georgia's case, after an exhaustive analysis, recommend the law be rejected under Section 5. (See news coverage in the Washington Post and Atlanta Journal Constitution.) The memo relates how the state of Georgia failed to present a serious case for the new requirement:

No proof of fraud presented. Beyond scattered anecdotal evidence and reference to general sources, Georgia failed to prove that fraud was a serious problem in state elections. In one much publicized comment, a sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Sue Burmeister, resorted to an unsubstantiated allegation that "when black voters in her black precincts are not paid to vote, they do not go to the polls." (p. 6)


No proof that the law won't impact minority voters. DOJ reports that the state failed to conduct any statistical analysis of the legislation's effect on minority voters, instead, "they relied on the statistic that more citizens had driver's licenses than were registered to vote, the John Fund book [Stealing Elections], and other anecdotal information." (p. 6-7)
The DOJ staff then offers its own analysis of available evidence, concluding that the ID requirement would likely be retrogressive. Primary arguments include:

Racial disparities in access to facilities where ID can be obtained. DOJ reports that statewide, 17.7 percent of black households in Georgia lacked access to a vehicle compared to just 4.41 percent of white households. In the two thirds of counties without an ID facility where access to a vehicle would be especially important, the memo finds five times more black households than white households lack access to a vehicle. (p. 15-16)


Lower rates of possession of photo ID among black voters. Since direct registration data in Georgia is highly flawed, DOJ considers the relationship between vehicle access and drivers licenses which has been shown elsewhere and estimates the disparity between black and white residents who possesses drivers licenses at 20 to 35 percent. (p. 27)


Elimination of previously accepted identification would hurt black voters more. The new ID law would eliminate types of non-photo ID and government documents which black voters are especially likely to possess, due to higher participation rates in government benefit programs. (p. 29)


Fee waiver for ID cards would not reduce the financial burden of IDs. DOJ finds that Georgia's offering indigent voters recourse to obtain a fee waiver would have little effect on the financial burden of the ID cards, since the supporting documents a voter would need to supply (i.e. birth certificates, naturalization documents) carry their own costs. (p. 30)


Other forms of acceptable photo ID would not reduce the disparity in driver's licenses. The memo shows that minority voters are also less likely to have other forms of photo ID acceptable under the law, such as passports (which are extremely expensive to obtain) and employer identification (the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that of whites in Georgia). (p. 27-28)


Please read what I present for a change?

[Gunny]

http://tinyurl.com/2wmo8m
What are DOJ's findings regarding the ID requirement?

In August the Attorney General's office announced that the ID law had received preclearance under Section 5, arguing that the need to combat fraud cited by the bill's proponents was a valid concern and that the requirement did not appear to impose a burden on African Americans.

However, that finding has been called into question based on a recently publicized memo in which DOJ staff assigned to review Georgia's case, after an exhaustive analysis, recommend the law be rejected under Section 5. (See news coverage in the Washington Post and Atlanta Journal Constitution.) The memo relates how the state of Georgia failed to present a serious case for the new requirement:

No proof of fraud presented. Beyond scattered anecdotal evidence and reference to general sources, Georgia failed to prove that fraud was a serious problem in state elections. In one much publicized comment, a sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Sue Burmeister, resorted to an unsubstantiated allegation that "when black voters in her black precincts are not paid to vote, they do not go to the polls." (p. 6)


No proof that the law won't impact minority voters. DOJ reports that the state failed to conduct any statistical analysis of the legislation's effect on minority voters, instead, "they relied on the statistic that more citizens had driver's licenses than were registered to vote, the John Fund book [Stealing Elections], and other anecdotal information." (p. 6-7)
The DOJ staff then offers its own analysis of available evidence, concluding that the ID requirement would likely be retrogressive. Primary arguments include:

Racial disparities in access to facilities where ID can be obtained. DOJ reports that statewide, 17.7 percent of black households in Georgia lacked access to a vehicle compared to just 4.41 percent of white households. In the two thirds of counties without an ID facility where access to a vehicle would be especially important, the memo finds five times more black households than white households lack access to a vehicle. (p. 15-16)


Lower rates of possession of photo ID among black voters. Since direct registration data in Georgia is highly flawed, DOJ considers the relationship between vehicle access and drivers licenses which has been shown elsewhere and estimates the disparity between black and white residents who possesses drivers licenses at 20 to 35 percent. (p. 27)


Elimination of previously accepted identification would hurt black voters more. The new ID law would eliminate types of non-photo ID and government documents which black voters are especially likely to possess, due to higher participation rates in government benefit programs. (p. 29)


Fee waiver for ID cards would not reduce the financial burden of IDs. DOJ finds that Georgia's offering indigent voters recourse to obtain a fee waiver would have little effect on the financial burden of the ID cards, since the supporting documents a voter would need to supply (i.e. birth certificates, naturalization documents) carry their own costs. (p. 30)


Other forms of acceptable photo ID would not reduce the disparity in driver's licenses. The memo shows that minority voters are also less likely to have other forms of photo ID acceptable under the law, such as passports (which are extremely expensive to obtain) and employer identification (the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that of whites in Georgia). (p. 27-28)


Please read what I present for a change?

Thanks for reinforcing my last post. You ignore everything in it, and just keep right on acting as though WE aren't the ones paying attention. It's as simple as this:

Voter fraud CAN and DOES happen. Voter ID's are a simple, commonsense approach to minimizing it.

This little article that tries to make it an issue of race is just absolute bullshit. The burden on blacks is no different than the burden on whites, hispanics, asians, africans, europeans nor even the little green men that live in your head.

[shattered]

fees for obtaining photo ID create an unfair financial burden for low-income voters;
traveling to an ID facility places an undue burden on voters without access to a vehicle;
a disproportionate number of minority voters are unlikely to have photo ID; and
only one-third of the state's counties have offices where photo ID can be obtained.

Fees are minimal - for an ID, at least here, it's $5.00. A small price for such an important piece of information.

Traveling? Take a bus. That's another what.. $2.00? If traveling to get an ID is a burden, obviously, traveling to vote is a burden.

Those minority voters are typically on welfare - they have an ID - it's a requirement for CASHING THEIR WELFARE CHECKS.

Next?

[Dilloduck]

http://tinyurl.com/2wmo8m
What are DOJ's findings regarding the ID requirement?

In August the Attorney General's office announced that the ID law had received preclearance under Section 5, arguing that the need to combat fraud cited by the bill's proponents was a valid concern and that the requirement did not appear to impose a burden on African Americans.

However, that finding has been called into question based on a recently publicized memo in which DOJ staff assigned to review Georgia's case, after an exhaustive analysis, recommend the law be rejected under Section 5. (See news coverage in the Washington Post and Atlanta Journal Constitution.) The memo relates how the state of Georgia failed to present a serious case for the new requirement:

No proof of fraud presented. Beyond scattered anecdotal evidence and reference to general sources, Georgia failed to prove that fraud was a serious problem in state elections. In one much publicized comment, a sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Sue Burmeister, resorted to an unsubstantiated allegation that "when black voters in her black precincts are not paid to vote, they do not go to the polls." (p. 6)


No proof that the law won't impact minority voters. DOJ reports that the state failed to conduct any statistical analysis of the legislation's effect on minority voters, instead, "they relied on the statistic that more citizens had driver's licenses than were registered to vote, the John Fund book [Stealing Elections], and other anecdotal information." (p. 6-7)
The DOJ staff then offers its own analysis of available evidence, concluding that the ID requirement would likely be retrogressive. Primary arguments include:

Racial disparities in access to facilities where ID can be obtained. DOJ reports that statewide, 17.7 percent of black households in Georgia lacked access to a vehicle compared to just 4.41 percent of white households. In the two thirds of counties without an ID facility where access to a vehicle would be especially important, the memo finds five times more black households than white households lack access to a vehicle. (p. 15-16)


Lower rates of possession of photo ID among black voters. Since direct registration data in Georgia is highly flawed, DOJ considers the relationship between vehicle access and drivers licenses which has been shown elsewhere and estimates the disparity between black and white residents who possesses drivers licenses at 20 to 35 percent. (p. 27)


Elimination of previously accepted identification would hurt black voters more. The new ID law would eliminate types of non-photo ID and government documents which black voters are especially likely to possess, due to higher participation rates in government benefit programs. (p. 29)


Fee waiver for ID cards would not reduce the financial burden of IDs. DOJ finds that Georgia's offering indigent voters recourse to obtain a fee waiver would have little effect on the financial burden of the ID cards, since the supporting documents a voter would need to supply (i.e. birth certificates, naturalization documents) carry their own costs. (p. 30)


Other forms of acceptable photo ID would not reduce the disparity in driver's licenses. The memo shows that minority voters are also less likely to have other forms of photo ID acceptable under the law, such as passports (which are extremely expensive to obtain) and employer identification (the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that of whites in Georgia). (p. 27-28)


Please read what I present for a change?

If we are going to stretch our unwarranted sympathy so far as to not even expect minorities to make SOME kind of attempt to adhere to a norm, we may as well give up. Are you happy portraying them as helpless, stupid and lazy babies ?

[truthmatters]

Fees are minimal - for an ID, at least here, it's $5.00. A small price for such an important piece of information.

Traveling? Take a bus. That's another what.. $2.00? If traveling to get an ID is a burden, obviously, traveling to vote is a burden.

Those minority voters are typically on welfare - they have an ID - it's a requirement for CASHING THEIR WELFARE CHECKS.

Next?

Your comments are opinion the information I gave you comes out of a study by a non partisan group which tries to promote free and fair elections.

They have found NO evidence for the NEED and the proponents have presented no evidence of the need for these types of laws.

ID laws are designed to disenfranchise low income voters.

[shattered]

Your comments are opinion the information I gave you comes out of a study by a non partisan group which truies to promote free and fair elections.

They have found NO evidence for the NEED and the proponents have presented no evidence of the need for these types of laws.

ID laws are designed to disenfranchise low income voters.

Oh, bullshit. Stop being a fucking enabler of lazy, good for nothing shits that just want the world handed to them on a silver platter..

Oh, wait. I forgot.. You have firsthand experience with such a life - why would you want it changed?

Rhetorical question, dear.. You need not waste the wear and tear on your keyboard to answer.

[truthmatters]

Oh, bullshit. Stop being a fucking enabler of lazy, good for nothing shits that just want the world handed to them on a silver platter..

Oh, wait. I forgot.. You have firsthand experience with such a life - why would you want it changed?

Rhetorical question, dear.. You need not waste the wear and tear on your keyboard to answer.


Are the facts just to much for you to ovecome?

[shattered]

Are the facts just to much for you to ovecome?

There are no "facts" there - just a bunch of whiney, weak bullshit.

[Dilloduck]

ID laws are designed to disenfranchise low income voters.

Wrong--they are designed to create a standard for ALL voters to follow to protect against fraud. Your implication that poor voters are targeted and that they just "can't" play by this incredibly simple rule is evidence that you are a bigot.

[Trigg]

, "they relied on the statistic that more citizens had driver's licenses than were registered to vote,

Does this tell you ANYTHING??????




such as passports (which are extremely expensive to obtain)

They cost $50, NOT extremely expensive. A little pricy? Yes.

Even a few credit cards have pictures on them now.


Lower rates of possession of photo ID among black voters. Since direct registration data in Georgia is highly flawed, DOJ considers the relationship between vehicle access and drivers licenses which has been shown elsewhere and estimates the disparity between black and white residents who possesses drivers licenses at 20 to 35 percent. (

OK, so it's not a problem to register to vote, just to take the time, even without a vehicle to get a $5 drivers license????? Or state ID????????

This paragraph even states they made estimates gathered from elsewhere to show the disparity.

[jimnyc]

Are the facts just to much for you to ovecome?

How about this fact - it doesn't cost me, as a taxpayer, a red cent for some dumbasses to provide ID when they go to vote. I've said this over and over and you've yet to dispute it in anyway whatsoever. It may cost a few voters who were too stupid to have proper ID before hand a few extra dollars to get the ID they should have had already anyway, but doesn't cost me anything.

So why do you keep on claiming this is wasting taxpayer dollars when it ISN'T?

[Gunny]

Your comments are opinion the information I gave you comes out of a study by a non partisan group which tries to promote free and fair elections.

They have found NO evidence for the NEED and the proponents have presented no evidence of the need for these types of laws.

ID laws are designed to disenfranchise low income voters.

Bullshit. ID laws are designed to combat voter fraud. I hardly consider a group out to disprove something "non-partisan." But then, I bet you think you're a moderate, don't you?

[Trigg]

Are the facts just to much for you to ovecome?

Actually you seem to be the only one here who's having trouble grasping the facts.

An ID is not going to hamper low income voters. They already have an ID to get their checks from the gov. and cash them.

Or do you think these people walk in and say "Hi, my names Jane Smith" and they hand her a check without any proof???????

[Gunny]

Are the facts just to much for you to ovecome?

What facts? Your so-called "facts" have been swatted around here so badly you'd think they were the only tennis ball in the tournament at Wimbledon.

[Trigg]

What facts? Your so-called "facts" have been swatted around here so badly you'd think they were the only tennis ball in the tournament at Wimbledon.


:laugh2:

[Missileman]

Your comments are opinion the information I gave you comes out of a study by a non partisan group which tries to promote free and fair elections.

They have found NO evidence for the NEED and the proponents have presented no evidence of the need for these types of laws.

ID laws are designed to disenfranchise low income voters.

It's this simple; You want to drive? Get a license. You want to vote? Get an ID!

[truthmatters]

Actually you seem to be the only one here who's having trouble grasping the facts.

An ID is not going to hamper low income voters. They already have an ID to get their checks from the gov. and cash them.

Or do you think these people walk in and say "Hi, my names Jane Smith" and they hand her a check without any proof???????


Again I have provided facts and studies you are providing opinion.

Your opinion is important but it does not over ride facts and studies.

[Missileman]

Wrong--they are designed to create a standard for ALL voters to follow to protect against fraud. Your implication that poor voters are targeted and that they just "can't" play by this incredibly simple rule is evidence that you are a bigot.

You mis-spelled idiot!

[truthmatters]

What facts? Your so-called "facts" have been swatted around here so badly you'd think they were the only tennis ball in the tournament at Wimbledon.

That is a really cute little bit of fun Gunny but again this is merely opinion and it does not negate facts and studies.

[truthmatters]

It's this simple; You want to drive? Get a license. You want to vote? Get an ID!


Yet again its just your opinion and I respect your opinion but it does not overcome facts and studies.

[truthmatters]

How about this fact - it doesn't cost me, as a taxpayer, a red cent for some dumbasses to provide ID when they go to vote. I've said this over and over and you've yet to dispute it in anyway whatsoever. It may cost a few voters who were too stupid to have proper ID before hand a few extra dollars to get the ID they should have had already anyway, but doesn't cost me anything.

So why do you keep on claiming this is wasting taxpayer dollars when it ISN'T?


Please if you would read my posts I woulkd not have to keep repeting my self.

The courts have detirmined that the cost of the ID would amount to a poll tax and so have determined you can not require people pay for an ID.
The ID people desided then that the government should have to provide them for free.

Thaqt means these IDs have to be free to who ever wants it thus the cost to the tax payer and YES it does cost you.

This cost has no proof that it is needed because the people who are pushing these IDs have never proven with any facts that this type of fraud exsists and the people who have studied it say it is statistically non exsistant.

[jimnyc]

Please if you would read my posts I woulkd not have to keep repeting my self.

The courts have detirmined that the cost of the ID would amount to a poll tax and so have determined you can not require people pay for an ID.
The ID people desided then that the government should have to provide them for free.

Thaqt means these IDs have to be free to who ever wants it thus the cost to the tax payer and YES it does cost you.

This cost has no proof that it is needed because the people who are pushing these IDs have never proven with any facts that this type of fraud exsists and the people who have studied it say it is statistically non exsistant.

You're the one who keeps shouting about FACTS. Please cite me proof that asking them to provide ID is costing me as a taxpayer any money. It costs the person that needs to purchase an ID if they don't already have one - not me.

[Mr. P]

Yet again its just your opinion and I respect your opinion but it does not overcome facts and studies.

Actually you haven't provided one "study" yet, just some opinion based on a few things in the ONLY real "study" done to date.

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2wmo8m
What are DOJ's findings regarding the ID requirement?

In August the Attorney General's office announced that the ID law had received preclearance under Section 5, arguing that the need to combat fraud cited by the bill's proponents was a valid concern and that the requirement did not appear to impose a burden on African Americans.

However, that finding has been called into question based on a recently publicized memo in which DOJ staff assigned to review Georgia's case, after an exhaustive analysis, recommend the law be rejected under Section 5. (See news coverage in the Washington Post and Atlanta Journal Constitution.) The memo relates how the state of Georgia failed to present a serious case for the new requirement:

No proof of fraud presented. Beyond scattered anecdotal evidence and reference to general sources, Georgia failed to prove that fraud was a serious problem in state elections. In one much publicized comment, a sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Sue Burmeister, resorted to an unsubstantiated allegation that "when black voters in her black precincts are not paid to vote, they do not go to the polls." (p. 6)


No proof that the law won't impact minority voters. DOJ reports that the state failed to conduct any statistical analysis of the legislation's effect on minority voters, instead, "they relied on the statistic that more citizens had driver's licenses than were registered to vote, the John Fund book [Stealing Elections], and other anecdotal information." (p. 6-7)
The DOJ staff then offers its own analysis of available evidence, concluding that the ID requirement would likely be retrogressive. Primary arguments include:

Racial disparities in access to facilities where ID can be obtained. DOJ reports that statewide, 17.7 percent of black households in Georgia lacked access to a vehicle compared to just 4.41 percent of white households. In the two thirds of counties without an ID facility where access to a vehicle would be especially important, the memo finds five times more black households than white households lack access to a vehicle. (p. 15-16)


Lower rates of possession of photo ID among black voters. Since direct registration data in Georgia is highly flawed, DOJ considers the relationship between vehicle access and drivers licenses which has been shown elsewhere and estimates the disparity between black and white residents who possesses drivers licenses at 20 to 35 percent. (p. 27)


Elimination of previously accepted identification would hurt black voters more. The new ID law would eliminate types of non-photo ID and government documents which black voters are especially likely to possess, due to higher participation rates in government benefit programs. (p. 29)


Fee waiver for ID cards would not reduce the financial burden of IDs. DOJ finds that Georgia's offering indigent voters recourse to obtain a fee waiver would have little effect on the financial burden of the ID cards, since the supporting documents a voter would need to supply (i.e. birth certificates, naturalization documents) carry their own costs. (p. 30)


Other forms of acceptable photo ID would not reduce the disparity in driver's licenses. The memo shows that minority voters are also less likely to have other forms of photo ID acceptable under the law, such as passports (which are extremely expensive to obtain) and employer identification (the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that of whites in Georgia). (p. 27-28)


Please read what I present for a change?


maybe you missed this post?

[Mr. P]

maybe you missed this post?

Didn't miss it and it's NOT a study.

[truthmatters]

Didn't miss it and it's NOT a study.

It is iself a study the DOJ did into the subject and they found that there was more likelyhood of a negative impact on voters as a positive for fraud protection.

They agree with me and the ohter studies provided.

[Mr. P]

It is iself a study the DOJ did into the subject and they found that there was more likelyhood of a negative impact on voters as a positive for fraud protection.

They agree with me and the ohter studies provided.

There is ONLY one study, the DOJ took some of their information from it and made a "REPORT".. You have failed to even provide one study. Show us the studies you claim exist.

[truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/ysvmaz


heres one Ill go get more

[Mr. P]

Read it...the conclusion by ALL involved is, more study is needed. The study exposes more questions than answers..

[Gunny]

That is a really cute little bit of fun Gunny but again this is merely opinion and it does not negate facts and studies.

Nor does your so-called "facts and studies" negate common sense and logic.

And NOTHING you posted supports your notion that voter IDs are an attempt to disenfranchise ANYONE but fraudulent voters. You're just as wrong now as you were with your first post.

[truthmatters]

Nor does your so-called "facts and studies" negate common sense and logic.

And NOTHING you posted supports your notion that voter IDs are an attempt to disenfranchise ANYONE but fraudulent voters. You're just as wrong now as you were with your first post.
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1133
here is more
http://www.eac.gov/docs/VoterIDReport%20062806.pdf

the peopel who are promoting these laws no the effect of them as well as the people who have done the studies yet they wont even commision their own study to prove their is individual vote fraud to worrry about.

Ask yourself why they dont do their own study?

[truthmatters]

..


I see only three lines of text in my sig.

sorry I thought you were talking to me about my signature ,I now see what happened

[Gunny]

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1133
here is more
http://www.eac.gov/docs/VoterIDReport%20062806.pdf

the peopel who are promoting these laws no the effect of them as well as the people who have done the studies yet they wont even commision their own study to prove their is individual vote fraud to worrry about.

Ask yourself why they dont do their own study?

Again, for the umpteenth billion time, bullshit. I'll point out your flip-flopping once again. There can't be alarm-level vote fraud when it suits you, then be inconsequential later down the line because it suits you. You're talking out both sides of your mouth.

And you have YET to address any of the many who have pointed out the simple common sense of voter ID's. Nor the logical fact that no one is more or less inconvenienced by having a voter ID than anyone else. As has been pointed out more than a few times ...

If you want to drive you get a license. If you want to vote, get a voter ID.

Just how is it that these voters who are supposedly disenfranchised by voter IDs managed to get registered to vote to begin with? If they can do one, they can do the other.

Please be a disenfranchised voter. The thought of someone who thinks like you voting is absolutely terrifying.:laugh2:

[truthmatters]

Again, for the umpteenth billion time, bullshit. I'll point out your flip-flopping once again. There can't be alarm-level vote fraud when it suits you, then be inconsequential later down the line because it suits you. You're talking out both sides of your mouth.

And you have YET to address any of the many who have pointed out the simple common sense of voter ID's. Nor the logical fact that no one is more or less inconvenienced by having a voter ID than anyone else. As has been pointed out more than a few times ...

If you want to drive you get a license. If you want to vote, get a voter ID.

Just how is it that these voters who are supposedly disenfranchised by voter IDs managed to get registered to vote to begin with? If they can do one, they can do the other.

Please be a disenfranchised voter. The thought of someone who thinks like you voting is absolutely terrifying.:laugh2:



Gunny My opinion has been steady all along and I do this by following the facts.The facts are that flaws exsist in parts of our voting system.The machines are insecure ad every entity who has looked at them agrees. The same with this issue ,Everyone who has looked at it agrees that when ever it is studied NO fraud is found that means any danger to our system.
You can live by opinion but it doies not make you better than I who trust facts ,research ,studies and experts.I have addressed EVERY question with these tools and you say opinion is better?

You again have provided nothing but opinion and insults.

[Gunny]

Gunny My opinion has been steady all along and I do this by following the facts.The facts are that flaws exsist in parts of our voting system.The machines are insecure ad every entity who has looked at them agrees. The same with this issue ,Everyone who has looked at it agrees that when ever it is studied NO fraud is found that means any danger to our system.
You can live by opinion but it doies not make you better than I who trust facts ,research ,studies and experts.I have addressed EVERY question with these tools and you say opinion is better?

You again have provided nothing but opinion and insults.

The facts are, voter fraud exists but you want to cherrypick what is done to minimize it as it suits your partisan agenda.

Further, voter fraud is voter fraud, period. If that's one fraudulent vote, it's one too many. If it's 100, it's 100 too many. If voter ID's stop so much as 5 fraudulent votes out of a hundred, it is a deterrent and worth whatever contrived inconvenience you keep attempting to present.

No, you are either against voter fraud, are for voter fraud, or don't care. If you're against it, then ANY effort to stop it is worthwhile. The base problem lies with the fact that you are against only Republican/conservative voter fraud, but are more than willing to let those you assume are Democrat/liberal New Orleans voters be dual-registered and vote twice.

Shit or get off the pot.

[jimnyc]

Anyone have any Extra Strength Tylenol they can give me?

I re-read this thread again to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I compared TM's arguments in this thread about voter fraud and read other threads about voter fraud and I'm left perplexed.

Now maybe I'm nuts, and maybe I do have comprehension issues, but it sure as hell looks like she argues against herself.

She is opposed to voter fraud.
She claims fraud could cost an election.
She is opposed to methods that prevent voter fraud.

Am I the only one who sees this?

I find this very odd. If someone feels the election was possibly "stolen" in 2000 due to voter fraud, wouldn't you think they would jump for joy at any attempt the system makes to stop any fraud?

She wouldn't be yanking my chain in the wrong direction just to support a democratic agenda, would she? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Your comments are opinion the information I gave you comes out of a study by a non partisan group which tries to promote free and fair elections.

They have found NO evidence for the NEED and the proponents have presented no evidence of the need for these types of laws.

ID laws are designed to disenfranchise low income voters.

Again:

do you know anyone that is 18 and older who does NOT have an ID.

yes or no.

[Abbey Marie]

Again:

do you know anyone that is 18 and older who does NOT have an ID.

yes or no.

My daughter already has a picture ID, and she's only 16. What a crock.

[jimnyc]

Again:

do you know anyone that is 18 and older who does NOT have an ID.

yes or no.

I do.

There's a homeless guy on the corner of 4th St. and Avenue C in NYC. He told me he would prefer to be "Homeless in Seattle" though, so he's getting ID to fly there. :)

[JohnDoe]

my italian born grandparents, who became american citizens in their 50's and 60's , after 5 years living here, never had a picture id... that's an example of 2 people, that never drove, only used the bus and subway in NYC..... who were legal citizens, and registered voters up until they died, in their late 80's and 90's respectively, this past decade.

[jimnyc]

My daughter already has a picture ID, and she's only 16. What a crock.

No joke, my son is 6 years old and already has 2 forms of photo ID. One is city issued allowing him access to the public beach and pools in our town and the other is a picture ID for the public library. We needed to show his birth certificate in order to get his beach/pool access. We needed to do so because he goes to these places a lot with our nanny, who doesn't live in our city. At least one is needed for access and allows for one guest.

[jimnyc]

my italian born grandparents, who became american citizens in their 50's and 60's , after 5 years living here, never had a picture id... that's an example of 2 people, that never drove, only used the bus and subway in NYC..... who were legal citizens, and registered voters up until they died, in their late 80's and 90's respectively, this past decade.

Never driving, never flying, never leaving the country, never securing a loan, never owning property - this is VERY rare. These days you will need it for the previous stated things.

I see no issue whatsoever with someone being expected to have some sort of formal picture ID. Between identity theft, immigration problems, terrorism and fraud... Sounds like legit reasoning to me.

[Yurt]

I do.

There's a homeless guy on the corner of 4th St. and Avenue C in NYC. He told me he would prefer to be "Homeless in Seattle" though, so he's getting ID to fly there. :)

LOL.

On a more serious note, even a homeless person can get an ID.

[avatar4321]

Fees are minimal - for an ID, at least here, it's $5.00. A small price for such an important piece of information.

Traveling? Take a bus. That's another what.. $2.00? If traveling to get an ID is a burden, obviously, traveling to vote is a burden.

Those minority voters are typically on welfare - they have an ID - it's a requirement for CASHING THEIR WELFARE CHECKS.

Next?

There is no need to take a bus to get to a voting place. You see if you actually need transportation, IE you cant walk to your precinct then you are obviously registered in the wrong precinct. While driving and other forms of transportation might be more convenient and options for people. No one should be outside walking distance of a precinct.

[avatar4321]

Are the facts just to much for you to ovecome?

Facts... there is something that you have nothing in common with.

[avatar4321]

Anyone have any Extra Strength Tylenol they can give me?

I re-read this thread again to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I compared TM's arguments in this thread about voter fraud and read other threads about voter fraud and I'm left perplexed.

Now maybe I'm nuts, and maybe I do have comprehension issues, but it sure as hell looks like she argues against herself.

She is opposed to voter fraud.
She claims fraud could cost an election.
She is opposed to methods that prevent voter fraud.

Am I the only one who sees this?

I find this very odd. If someone feels the election was possibly "stolen" in 2000 due to voter fraud, wouldn't you think they would jump for joy at any attempt the system makes to stop any fraud?

She wouldn't be yanking my chain in the wrong direction just to support a democratic agenda, would she? :laugh2:

You are nuts, but no you arent the only to see this.

The fact is she doesnt want any voter fraud protection. If there are measures to protect against voting fraud, then when Democrats end up with land slide defeats, they cant blame it on voting fraud and might actually have to come to grips with the fact that it is their idealogy that is causing them to lose. and believe me they are heading for a major defeat soon.

[avatar4321]

LOL.

On a more serious note, even a homeless person can get an ID.

well obviously the homeless person is clearly more capable than the voters TM is trying to defend.

then again maybe TM is protesting so much because she doesnt have ID. Who knows.

[Mr. P]

There is no need to take a bus to get to a voting place. You see if you actually need transportation, IE you cant walk to your precinct then you are obviously registered in the wrong precinct. While driving and other forms of transportation might be more convenient and options for people. No one should be outside walking distance of a precinct.

I don't know about that..what do you consider 'walking distance'?

My polling place is 5 miles from my residence, and I am in the correct precinct.

[shattered]

There is no need to take a bus to get to a voting place. You see if you actually need transportation, IE you cant walk to your precinct then you are obviously registered in the wrong precinct. While driving and other forms of transportation might be more convenient and options for people. No one should be outside walking distance of a precinct.

I don't know.. I live in a rinkydink town that doesn't have public busses, and you CAN walk anywhere if you've a mind to.. I think the whole town is 12 miles square.. Was just an example from living in a larger city previously...

[avatar4321]

I don't know about that..what do you consider 'walking distance'?

My polling place is 5 miles from my residence, and I am in the correct precinct.

i was refering to the city areas where the people she is complaining about are residing. i should have been clearer.

[Mr. P]

i was refering to the city areas where the people she is complaining about are residing. i should have been clearer.

and I was wrong. I did a map thing...my polling place is only 2.4 miles away not 5, damn it seems farther. I could walk that.

[Trinity]

My daughter already has a picture ID, and she's only 16. What a crock.
My son is 11 and he has a school ID with his photo on it.

[Abbey Marie]

My son is 11 and he has a school ID with his photo on it.

The fact that our kids have photo id's, while a few homeless addicts and non-assimilating illegals do not, is proof our racist society.

[avatar4321]

The fact that our kids have photo id's, while a few homeless addicts and non-assimilating illegals do not, is proof our racist society.

your little kids are already racists... how sad :laugh2:

If teaching people to be responsible is racist, then i hope everyone is.

[Abbey Marie]

your little kids are already racists... how sad :laugh2:

If teaching people to be responsible is racist, then i hope everyone is.

She's Republican. 'Nuff said.

[truthmatters]

my italian born grandparents, who became american citizens in their 50's and 60's , after 5 years living here, never had a picture id... that's an example of 2 people, that never drove, only used the bus and subway in NYC..... who were legal citizens, and registered voters up until they died, in their late 80's and 90's respectively, this past decade.


They dotn care about people like your grandparents ,they dont care about the facts I provided they just want to convince themselves they are the only Americans who matter.

How I long for the days when people honored the idea of the sanctitiy of the vote.

Its a sad tiem in America when we vote on machines which every entity who has investigated them says they are totally insecure and people dont care yet they get concerned about a issue which every entity who has investigated says is vertually non exsistant.

[jimnyc]

They dotn care about people like your grandparents ,they dont care about the facts I provided they just want to convince themselves they are the only Americans who matter.

How I long for the days when people honored the idea of the sanctitiy of the vote.

Its a sad tiem in America when we vote on machines which every entity who has investigated them says they are totally insecure and people dont care yet they get concerned about a issue which every entity who has investigated says is vertually non exsistant.

You just don't give up, do you? You are literally laughable at this point.

And please, for the love of all mankind, either get a spell checker or go back to school. I have an easier time reading my 6yr old son's homework.

[truthmatters]

You just don't give up, do you? You are literally laughable at this point.

And please, for the love of all mankind, either get a spell checker or go back to school. I have an easier time reading my 6yr old son's homework.

You will survive my misspellings.

You will not seem to get over the facts of the real situation in our voting system and the facts surrounding them it seems.

Insults instead of facing the facts will gain you nothing.

[jimnyc]

You will survive my misspellings.

You will not seem to get over the facts of the real situation in our voting system and the facts surrounding them it seems.

Insults instead of facing the facts will gain you nothing.

Why do you type a sentence and then skip a line and start another sentence? Do you not know how to properly formulate what is widely known as a "paragraph"?

I'm being dead serious, your posts are extremely hard to read.

[avatar4321]

You will survive my misspellings.

You will not seem to get over the facts of the real situation in our voting system and the facts surrounding them it seems.

Insults instead of facing the facts will gain you nothing.

You mean the voting machines you liberals demanded?

There is a reason liberals have been demanding voting machines that are unreliable and that we dont present IDs.

And here is a hint: it's not to prevent voting fraud.

[Abbey Marie]

Overwhelmingly Dem Philly was, probably still is, the election fraud capital America. Runners-up are all Dem cities as well.

------
Philadelphia Identified As No. 1 Election Fraud 'Hot Spot' In America, Says Legislative Fund

Distribution Source : U.S. Newswire
Date : Tuesday, August 02, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In a report released today, the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund ("ACVR Legislative Fund") identifies Philadelphia as the number one election fraud "hot spot" in America. The report, "Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election," is the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the facts surrounding allegations of vote fraud, intimidation and suppression made during the 2004 presidential election. The report lists the top five election fraud "hot spots" in the country based on its findings and the cities' documented history of fraud and intimidation. ACVR Legislative Fund calls for immediate attention to these areas.

"Election after election, political parties, election officials and the news media act surprised when fraud, intimidation and suppression activities occur. Now everyone is on notice that there's a problem in Philadelphia and those who don't participate in a solution will be held accountable," said Brian Lunde, ACVR Legislative Fund board member.

...

...Other "hot spots" identified in the report were Milwaukee, Seattle, St. Louis/East St. Louis and Cleveland.

Summary Of Philadelphia Findings:

-- Republican volunteers violently intimidated by union members, who assaulted the volunteers' vehicle and chased them in traffic.

-- At least 15 new registrants found to be deceased.

-- Many addresses listed for new registrants were in fact vacant lots and boarded-up buildings.

-- Polling places located in local bars, unsafe abandoned buildings, district office of Democrat state Sen. Vincent Fumo and private home decorated with Kerry sign in window.

-- 43 polling locations inaccessible to the handicapped and 17 in businesses or homes where voters could be intimidated.

-- ACT and MoveOn illegally distributed and collected absentee ballots from prison inmates in at least one Philadelphia prison, according to news reports.

-- City voter rolls nearly matched census estimates of the voting-age population.

-- ACORN reportedly put inaccurate information on voter registration forms.

Violence against GOP volunteers in Philadelphia addressed on page 29; City vote fraud/election irregularities section begins on page 62.

...


The report finds that thousands of Americans were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain "nonpartisan" organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states. The report further finds that while Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election.

...
Please visit http://www.ac4vr.com to view the report in its entirety.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm being dead serious, your posts are extremely hard to read.


that's just because of the cringing......

[Nukeman]

Overwhelmingly Dem Philly was, probably still is, the election fraud capital America. Runners-up are all Dem cities as well.

------
Philadelphia Identified As No. 1 Election Fraud 'Hot Spot' In America, Says Legislative Fund

Distribution Source : U.S. Newswire
Date : Tuesday, August 02, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In a report released today, the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund ("ACVR Legislative Fund") identifies Philadelphia as the number one election fraud "hot spot" in America. The report, "Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election," is the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the facts surrounding allegations of vote fraud, intimidation and suppression made during the 2004 presidential election. The report lists the top five election fraud "hot spots" in the country based on its findings and the cities' documented history of fraud and intimidation. ACVR Legislative Fund calls for immediate attention to these areas.

"Election after election, political parties, election officials and the news media act surprised when fraud, intimidation and suppression activities occur. Now everyone is on notice that there's a problem in Philadelphia and those who don't participate in a solution will be held accountable," said Brian Lunde, ACVR Legislative Fund board member.

...

...Other "hot spots" identified in the report were Milwaukee, Seattle, St. Louis/East St. Louis and Cleveland.

Summary Of Philadelphia Findings:

-- Republican volunteers violently intimidated by union members, who assaulted the volunteers' vehicle and chased them in traffic.

-- At least 15 new registrants found to be deceased.

-- Many addresses listed for new registrants were in fact vacant lots and boarded-up buildings.

-- Polling places located in local bars, unsafe abandoned buildings, district office of Democrat state Sen. Vincent Fumo and private home decorated with Kerry sign in window.

-- 43 polling locations inaccessible to the handicapped and 17 in businesses or homes where voters could be intimidated.

-- ACT and MoveOn illegally distributed and collected absentee ballots from prison inmates in at least one Philadelphia prison, according to news reports.

-- City voter rolls nearly matched census estimates of the voting-age population.

-- ACORN reportedly put inaccurate information on voter registration forms.

Violence against GOP volunteers in Philadelphia addressed on page 29; City vote fraud/election irregularities section begins on page 62.

...


The report finds that thousands of Americans were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain "nonpartisan" organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states. The report further finds that while Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election.

...
Please visit http://www.ac4vr.com to view the report in its entirety.

http://www.usnewswire.com/You can't bring truth and facts to an argument with "truthdoesntmatter" I mean after all your going to.....GASP.....say the Democrats are as quilty or possibly more so than the Republicans. How can you say such a thing. The democrats are the saviors of the world don't you know????? The republicans are just evil incarnate!!!!

What city do you live in Truth??? It must be one hell of a place!!

[avatar4321]

You can't bring truth and facts to an argument with "truthdoesntmatter" I mean after all your going to.....GASP.....say the Democrats are as quilty or possibly more so than the Republicans. How can you say such a thing. The democrats are the saviors of the world don't you know????? The republicans are just evil incarnate!!!!

What city do you live in Truth??? It must be one hell of a place!!

You dont understand. Facts can only be facts if they are sustained by polls done with less than .000001% of the population. Otherwise you are just plain unsupported.

[Nukeman]

You dont understand. Facts can only be facts if they are sustained by polls done with less than .000001% of the population. Otherwise you are just plain unsupported.OOOOHHHHHH I get it now!!!!! Stupid me!!!!! I should have known better I will try harder!!!