The US Supreme Court has upheld the Indiana voter photo ID law – toughest in the nation

INDIANAPOLIS -- States can force voters to show government-issued photo IDs before casting a ballot, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday in upholding an Indiana law that critics say will create unnecessary barriers for older and poor people.
Supporters of the Republican-backed law, considered the strictest in the nation, say the court's decision is a victory for election integrity.
Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican, said his state "won the national battle for voter protection. Across the country, leaders are thanking Hoosiers for raising the bar in protecting voters' rights and responsibilities."
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.d...S0203/804290374

1. Do you favor Photo ID requirements for voters? Why or Why not
I support any effort to ensure that the person casting the ballot is the one they say they are. Without any actual studies to provide, I believe that this can reduce the likelyhood (not eliminate it) of people voting multiple times, and to prevent dead people from voting.

2. Will the law insure that voter fraud is minimized or prevent voters from casting ballots – give examples to defend your position.
See above.

3. Will this decision lead to the same requirements in other states? Should it?
I would hope so, but I don't see any chance in my liberally lead Iowa any time soon.

1. Do you favor Photo ID requirements for voters? Why or Why not/

I can see some benefits but many more disadvantages. Voting is a right of citizens, and should not really be in the gift of government of government agencies.

It's one thing to deny the right to vote to convicted felons that are currently serving their sentence (which I have no problems with - if you want to be able to vote, don't commit crimes).

It's another to deny voting rights to convicted felons whose sentences are complete, as some States do. I disagree with this - once the sentence is served the ex-felon is just that, an ex-felon and should have almost the same rights as any other citizen (excepting some monitoring of types of sex offender). Their debt to society is the time they are sentenced to, so once their sentence is passed in full (I'm not talking about parole) they should get back their right to vote.

<That's all an aside, though.>

But it's quite another to say that only people with a photo ID should be able to vote. At the moment, you'd be talking about a passport or driver's licence. Most Americans don't have a passport (or need one) so we're really talking about a driver's licence.

So through the back door, you get a rule that says that only people who can drive can vote. Huh? What sense doew that make?

None at all, so the next logical thing to do is set up a separate ID card scheme. You'd still have to have one if you want to vote, whether or not they were compulsory.

And you then get yet another government database holding details of the citzenry (regardless of whether it's got the boondoggle of biometric data or not).

And, regardless of the party in power, do we really want to give the government more data on who we are, let alone when and where we vote?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the people that bother vote are generally the people most interested in politics, and that people most interested in politics are the ones that are most likely to complain and campaign against any shady governmental behaviour.

Should the worst happen and a would-be tyrant gets elected, it would be very easy to identify the people most likely to care what you get up to so you can "pay a visit" to persuade them to acquiesce if you've got a nice list not only of the people resgistered to vote, but of the people who actually showed up at the polling stations. Ask Robert Mugabe.

Put biometrics and compulsory ID into the mix and you get a recipe for not only totalitarianism but all-comers waste and incompetance, quite possibly going hand-in-hand.

2. Will the law insure that voter fraud is minimized or prevent voters from casting ballots – give examples to defend your position.

Not really - current photo IDs are easy enough to fake, so any determined attempt to commit large scale voting fraud is just a question of how much money the criminals behind it have. Organised crime, be it the traditional Mafia or any more recent ethnic minorty me-too mob generally are not short of money or pet forgers. And political campaigns that are willing to stoop to electoral fraud generally are short of cash either.

And if you up the ante by using swish chip & pin or biometric identification methods to verify identity against a database, you're back with Big Brother watching your every move.

3. Will this decision lead to the same requirements in other states? Should it?

If it sticks, it probably will. The road to hell is, after all, paved with good intentions. I don't doubt that the idea behind photo ID requirements is a well-intentioned one, but I foresee unpleasant, if unintended consequences down the road.

We shouldn't be raising the bar to the type of people who can vote. We should instead be raising the bar to the type of people who can run for office.

Yes and Indiana will create an ID for someone who has no license or passport. This is not onerous and prevents fraud.




Think again and then try to find cases where this has happened. One reason that the opposition to the law lost in the SC is that they could not even show ONE person who was prevented from voting because of the photo ID requirement.

While clearly there has been substantial voter fraud where IDs have not been required – including massive fraud by one of the plaintiffs in this case - Acorn!

“KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Four people have been indicted on charges of voter fraud in Kansas City, officials said Wednesday.
Investigators said questionable registration forms for new voters were collected by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a group that works to improve minority and low-income communities.
The four indicted -- Kwaim A. Stenson, Dale D. Franklin, Stephanie L. Davis and Brian Gardner -- were employed by ACORN as registration recruiters. They were each charged with.

Federal indictments allege the four turned in false voter registration applications. Prosecutors said the indictments are part of a national investigation.
ACORN and Project Vote recruit and assign workers to low-income and minority neighborhoods to register people to vote.
The Kansas City Election Board told KMBC they found suspicious forms, such as seven applications from one person and an application for a dead man.
"There is some motive behind it -- this is not accidental," said Ray James with the Kansas City Election Board.



http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html

"But this case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, also revealed a fundamental philosophical conflict between two perspectives rooted in the machine politics of Chicago. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the decision, grew up in Hyde Park, the city neighborhood where Sen. Barack Obama – the most vociferous Congressional critic of such laws – lives now. Both men have seen how the Daley machine has governed the city for so many years, with a mix of patronage, contract favoritism and, where necessary, voter fraud.
That fraud became nationally famous in 1960, when the late Mayor Richard J. Daley's extraordinary efforts swung Illinois into John F. Kennedy's column. In 1982, inspectors estimated as many as one in 10 ballots cast in Chicago during that year's race for governor to be fraudulent for various reasons, including votes by the dead.
Mr. Stevens witnessed all of this as a lawyer, special counsel to a commission rooting out corruption in state government, and as a judge. On the Supreme Court, this experience has made him very mindful of these abuses. In 1987, the high court vacated the conviction of a Chicago judge who'd used the mails to extort money. He wrote a stinging dissent, taking the rare step of reading it from the bench. The majority opinion, he noted, could rule out prosecutions of elected officials and their workers for using the mails to commit voter fraud
Acorn's efforts to register voters have been scandal-prone. St. Louis, Mo., officials found that in 2006 over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations didn't exist. "We met twice with Acorn before their drive, but our requests completely fell by the wayside," said Democrat Matt Potter, the city's deputy elections director. Later, federal authorities indicted eight of the group's local workers. One of the eight pleaded guilty last month.
In Seattle, local officials invalidated 1,762 Acorn registrations. Felony charges were filed against seven of its workers, some of whom have criminal records. Prosecutors say Acorn's oversight of its workers was virtually nonexistent. To avoid prosecution, Acorn agreed to pay $25,000 in restitution.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209431296...=googlenews_wsj

Not entirely true. I can't speak for all 50 states, but in Iowa, and as far as I know in Florida, you are required by law to have a photo ID at all times. At drivers lisence stations, you can get a photo ID that isn't a drivers lisence. So, your statement is false that only those that can drive are allowed to vote. Another point, I know from the last few years with the new rules regarding passports, millions of new passports were created in America. You would have to be living under a rock to not know about the passport mess from last year.



This is the point I was waiting to be brought up. What type of people would be unable to vote in this situation? My wife and I went to the drivers lisence station just yesterday to update her name on her lisence. Every walk of life was represented there from white collar executive white boys to disabled elderly, to every minority group. I don't see how a photo ID disenfranchises anyone at all.

1. Do you favor Photo ID requirements for voters? Why or Why not/

Yep, we've been doing it for years in this county.

2. Will the law insure that voter fraud is minimized or prevent voters from casting ballots – give examples to defend your position.

Since CO drivers' licenses and ID cards now have holographic protection, it's a pretty good deal for proving you are who you say you are, but we could also do bioscans. That would probably be taking it too far, right up there with everyone getting a serial number tatoo. Guess we could use barcodes and call them tribal tatoos.

But yah know what else? This type of system not only avoids fraud but it can also ensure the right to vote. Floridians did have a bit of trouble with this when people were wrongly turned away from voting due to bogus records in a government database. This would especially be true if we had one database that held the records of those people eligible to vote, keyed by driver's license or ID number. Were talking not more than a couple hundred million records. That's nothing.

Then we could have a Web site sort of like we now have for credit. Give people the ability to challenge bogus things that might stop us from voting.

3. Will this decision lead to the same requirements in other states? Should it?

It's working for us. We're also tops in voting machines. I do think that all states should get as serious about protecting the citizens' right to vote.

1. Do you favor Photo ID requirements for voters? Why or Why not?

Yes, this makes sense. The right to vote is not a universal right in the United States, it is a right reserved for citizens of the United States. How does one, as a voting official, tell the difference between Joe Smith, born and raised in Brooklyn NY and Joe Smith, recent immigrant from the UK? How do we know that Joe Smith is not Anthony Jones?

When you register to vote, you provide data that proves you are a citizen. But that is not sufficient to prove that the person who shows up to vote is the person who registered.

The argument that somehow this is burdensome does not pass the smell test. It is burdensome to register to vote. It is burdensome to show up on voting day. It is burdensome to wait in line (potentially). Is it any more burdensome to whip out an ID, one that is provided for free by the state if you do not otherwise have one? Or else you can cast a provisional ballot and then provide alternate proof of ID at a later time (within 10 days I believe).

Weigh these "burdens" against the state's burden to make sure that people who vote in elections are actually eligible to vote. At stake is the fundamental legitimacy of the election. If anybody from anywhere can vote, then the elections are not legitimate.

2. Will the law insure that voter fraud is minimized or prevent voters from casting ballots – give examples to defend your position.

What's interesting is that neither side provided direct evidence addressing this point. However, in order to bring suit, one must show actual damage was done. Not theoretical damage, actual damage. In this case, disenfranchisement. None was shown, thus the claim had to be dismissed.

3. Will this decision lead to the same requirements in other states? Should it?

I believe it will and it should. With a growing illegal immigrant community, the legitimacy of elections should be preserved. This is the burden of the state and this measure is one step in insuring that legitimacy.

It would disenfranchise the homeless. I don't know what it's like for all states, but in Colorado to get an ID, you need to show proof of address. Since the homeless are not likely have a permanent address, they are less likely to have "official" IDs.

Can you vote without an address – ID or not in any state? I kinda doubt it Kim.

It is sort of hard to prove residency (quite important in elections that are run on the State level) when you are homeless.

But, the reality is that homeless people can use a homeless shelter as a permanent address. In most states, homelessness isn't really a barrier to voting.

http://www.veteransparty.us/homeless.htm

There is an exemption for the indigent - which, I assume, would include the homeless.
Exemptions

So, the homeless will not need "official" ID's.

Well, isn't that kind of a big deal? If you're a US citizen, regardless of whether or not you have an address or an ID, you have the right to vote. Nothing in any Voting Rights Act refers to having a home as being necessary to vote.

But the point is moot, for the moment, as Amlord has shown. And several court cases have ruled that you do not need to have a traditional residence to vote.

Amlord, in most states right now homelessness isn't a barrier to voting (and I would disagree with that sentiment, 44 out of 50 states don't have homeless voting rights acts, but for the sake of argument, let's say I believe that homeless people are voting in droves), but if an ID policy were implemented, I would argue that homelessness would be a barrier. In addition to not having an address, some homeless people do not have access to their birth certificates or social security numbers. These things are often needed when obtaining ID.

Current federal law does not require state-issued IDs:



Edited to add: I guess I was posting when Entspeak was. It appears that at least in law (if not in practice), homeless people may be able to vote, even if the Photo ID policy was implemented.

First, don't dig too deep, you still need to climb out of the hole. Second, what is the likelihood of homeless actually voting? Third, the law requires everyone to have an ID, even the homeless. In my years working at the county jail, we housed many homeless; especially in the winter. Each and every one of them had some form of valid ID. What is truely your objection to wanting to preserve the integrity of our election system?

1. Do you favor Photo ID requirements for voters? Why or Why not
I suppose, though one would think there were an epidemic of fraudulent voters when you hear some people talk about this issue. I certainly don't have an issue with someone having to provide a government issued ID (homeless exception granted) in order to vote.

2. Will the law insure that voter fraud is minimized or prevent voters from casting ballots – give examples to defend your position.
Neither, to be honest. People truly wanting to beat the system will find ways to beat it. I just have hard time believing this is as much an issue as some perceive it to be. The Acorn case previously cited is a good example:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/04/28/scotus/

3. Will this decision lead to the same requirements in other states? Should it?
Possibly, though ID requirements aren't uncommon today. As long as there are provisions for people who cannot acquire a government issued ID easily (homlessness being the predominant example), I don't have a problem with it.

Although this point is somewhat moot, as federal law does not require a state-issued a ID to vote, since when was the "likelihood" of someone voting a reason to deny them the right to vote? Answer: It isn't.

Additionally, I work with the homeless and I can attest to the fact that many of them do not have ID. We provide a membership ID to people who join our shelter, and they eat it up. By not having an ID, the homeless largely become invisible (more invisible than they are normally), and it is difficult for them to get services or find a steady job or a million other things we all take for granted.

I am a bit appalled at the casual manner in which many people disregard the homeless and their rights. Courts have ruled in several cases that being homeless is not a crime and they have the same rights as the rest of us do. This thread is making it glaringly obvious that some consider those rights as "less than equal".

Federal laws and state laws differ greatly, and there is nothing unconstitutional about requiring people to identify themselves at the polling booth. As far as the actual possesion of an ID is conserned, what restricts them from getting one or your shelter from helping them get one? It has been established in previous posts that states offer free IDs for those that need them. I don't see anywhere that anyone has dismissed anyone's rights or a group of people. Why do we knowingly allow the election system to be vulnerable year after year? If this is a system that can prevent fraud which keeps the integrity what it should be, why is anyone so adamently against it? Because they think one group of people's rights are being trampled on? No one's rights are being damaged. Many states, if not all, require people to have valid IDs anyway. What rights are being violated? I am not disregarding the homeless. I am treating them exactly the same as I treat everyone else. With the same expectations. How is the disregarding their rights?

Again a non issue for voting as the state will issue an ID for the person. He/she could use your place as residence or a shelter.

Note that the SC decided with Indiana partially because the opposition could not show ONE person, homeless or not who was denied the right to vote.

On the other hand the Acorn folks sat around in secret and “made up” hundreds of phony “people” and registered them to vote. The ID protects us all from fraud and the homeless issue can be overcome if need be.

I wasn't sure I knew the story Ted was referencing, but a quick google search easily brought up this story for those of you that want references.

Just to be clear we aren't mixing issues, the Acorn story was specifically around voter registration fraud, and not voting fraud. The ID's would prevent people from fraudulently voting, I don't need an ID to register (technically).

Right but if you register fraudulently you then need to get a phony picture ID if you plan to vote and clearly the Acorn fools could not have pulled this off easily. The photo ID makes fraud very much harder – which is exactly what we need.

Let me get this straight. The Left in this country have been screaming about voter fraud since 2000 and they STILL don't won't to do anything about it? Could it be easier to complain about something rather than DO something about it...could be. Peeps need to read the Constitution sometime. STATES control the election process in the state. SCOTUS once again read and understood the Constitution and passed a pretty resounding ruling in favor of states rights. You see people there is this little thing called personal resposibility and the responsibility of citizens. If you need to get an ID to vote you must do so (of course the strawman argument is that it too hard to do so, which is never proven but I digress) and register to vote. After 911 I simply cannot even understand how someone can say getting an ID is racist or anything els with an-ist.

Exemption for the homeless. They do not need an ID, unless you can think of a case where someone is homeless but not indigent.

I half suspect that Dems would like to see more illegal aliens vote (for them). They were aggressive in the bid for “motor-voter” registration and have resisted efforts to ensure that illegal aliens don’t get drivers licenses – quite the opposite. They are against Real ID as well.

Adds up to people getting address, licenses and registering to vote – with no check on immigration status. And not even this law stops that unless in the process of getting the “photo ID” immigration status is checked – although Indiana may do that now.

Recently Hillary told O’Reilly she will do nothing about “sanctuary cities” – I am sure Obama agrees.

States offer free IDs so that everyone can follow the law that everyone needs an ID.

Um, wow. You really have your parties mixed up. Read much?

GOP state legislatures have been the ones complaining about voting fraud and have wanted to do something about the ellusive problem since liberal organizations have been registering more voters than conservative organizations in the run up to the 2004 elections:


Now back to your regularly scheduled blame liberals for Satan and dead puppies bashing in this country.

There is a silver lining to this real life Boston Legal drama. State and federal judiciaries have diverted manpower and money away from dangerous pot smokers to a fabricated astroturf issue. Unfortunately for poor minorities I don't think we've seen all the wormy fruits of this fake conservative activism.

Stricter voting ID rules hurt '04 turnout
Eagleton voter ID study
Report refutes fraud at poll sites

Gee do you think the correlation here has been established. I will believe that it may have prevented some illegal aliens from voting – a shame for Dems I am sure. But if “signing your name” stops you from voting – you gotta suspect something is up?

Apparently this particular question was not interesting to the Rutgers folks hmmmmm……………..

“The commission's chairwoman, Donetta Davidson, called the study "premature." More work needs to be done, she said. "You can't make determinations based on one year," she said. "We have new states that have ID requirements now that”

This is more like it.

All from your link.

1. Do you favor Photo ID requirements for voters? Why or Why not

Yes. It is a reasonable requirement w/o being overly burdensome. One oneargument made to the SC made sense to me: There are those who don't have a photo ID, and don't have the means to pay for the birth certificate etc needed to get said ID. The state has allowed those people to claim an exemption--problem is, those exemption eharings are scheduled on specific days. If the eprson has a job that isn't flexible with PTO, peerson might have problem getting the time and transportation to get to the court.

I think this is easily solved though, possibly with an after-hours/weeked hearing process and volunteer-run transportation options. i'd like to see both parties step up and make sure that every person who wants to vote has the means to do so.

2. Will the law insure that voter fraud is minimized or prevent voters from casting ballots – give examples to defend your position.

Seems reasonable. I've always wondered why I can just stroll up to my polling booth and tell them my name and address and just vote. Seems a pretty big loophole.

3. Will this decision lead to the same requirements in other states? Should it?[/quote]

It should. It probably won't. I can't think of a single reason why anyone would be against having voter IDs, but there seems to be an awful lot of people talking about how its unConstitutional.

That's really interesting. I scanned the report. Hispanic turns up once:

Predominantly non-Hispanic, Black jurisdictions reported a greater percentage of polling places or precincts with an inadequate number of poll workers. Predominantly non-Hispanic, Native American jurisdictions reported the second highest percentage of staffing problems.

Signature turns up several times, but the report doesn't make a correlation between signing your name and voter turnout. The report looks at the number of provisional ballots casts per state and the percentage of ballots counted. Did USA Today look at the same report I linked?

No, "The Left" as you blindly argue, has been screaming about voter suppression since 2000.

I agree, I don't think requiring a gov't ID to vote is suppression, but I also don't think requiring one will prevent fraud, because the examples cited thus far haven't proven voter fraud is even a remote issue compared with voter suppression.


Ted, you are walking in circles, standing up strawmen that even you admit have nothing to do with this law and then somehow bring sanctuary cities into the discussion. Care to get back on topic?

Maybe nothing to do with it in states when any fool can get a drivers license with no questions asked about immigration status. And that brings us to Sanctuary Cities and Hillary. The issue is that in places where this is allowed and the license is the accepted photo ID then the law really needs to be tougher to prevent illegal aliens from voting – do you agree

Unless you can show me rampant (ok, any) cases of illegal aliens jeopardizing their ability to work in this country by participating in elections, then probably not. An ID when they vote is sufficient at this time.

Uh, I know. I addressed that immediately after you posted it. I wrote something like "Oh, it seems I was writing my post at the same time Entspeak was posting. Since the issue is being addressed, then there's no need to discuss it." I can read.

It's one in the same with someone wanting to SOLVE the problem rather than incessenlt bitch that they are being oppressed. As a side note the victim card on the left is getting mighty old. Apparently I can read AND more importantly reason through the leftist crapola. If you go through all the problems of properly registering someone (ya right) why would you be AGAIST confirming that at the polls with a valid ID card? Could it be something to hide? Could it be that, GOD fobid, we have some sort of way to make SURE that out elections are as fraud free as possible?

You know just to go off on a rant here. After the 2000 elections all we heard was that liberals were too stupid to use a punch ballot. They corrected it by using pictures (dumbed WAY down) on a touch screen (DIEBOLD anyone, I digress to more liberal whining and conspiracy theories). The bitching never stops and the thought processes of the left will drive and sane person nuts. Punch ballots left a PAPER trail. Optical scans leave a PAPER trail. Being stupid and too lazy to follow the rules is a recipe for disaster and NOTHING you implement will ever work.

Really? I have to pay for my ID here in Illinois. Which states offer everyone free ID's. The law in question here has an exemption for the indigent - i.e. the homeless. The homeless do not need an ID in order to follow this law.

I have to pay for my ID as well, but I am also not homeless or indigent. If your state doesn't offer free IDs to those that need them, I would be very surprised. Any other nit-picking?

Well, as far as I can find, Illinois only offers free ID's to the elderly and disabled - not to the homeless. If you can find something to indicate that it's any different, I'm open to reading it. I wouldn't say that calling you on yourabsolute statement is nitpicking. You made the claim and it simply isn't true.

That may not sound like a lot to you, but for elderly people on a fixed income, it could mean lunch, sweet sweet lunch. For the homeless, forget it. Unaffordable.

More importantly, its just more crap the voter has to put up with. Personally? I think the thing to do is, if we're going to do IDs, we should allow early voting. And the candidates need to respond by pushing absentee ballots. This isn't a huge piece of red tape, but its a significant one. It's a crappy ruling, IMO, but the system will have to respond accordingly.

I didn't go through all 50 states, but just as quick a google search brought up this link explaining how to get free IDs in Indiana. Looks like those states with this requirement is solving the too much money for an ID issue.

Look the only genuine reason to be against this is because you want it to be easy to vote and the reason you want that is because you want to engage in voter fraud. It's really that simple. Disenfranchise the homeless? Come on!


This should really be the law of the land. As a person in IT I'm with all of you who fear central databases and Electronic Voting but this is not that. Prove who you are before you can vote. It's not a huge imposition.

1. Do you favor Photo ID requirements for voters? Why or Why not/
Yes I do. I think it will help to keep voters legal.

2. Will the law insure that voter fraud is minimized or prevent voters from casting ballots – give examples to defend your position.
Yes. I think it will help to keep unauthorized voters out of the polls.
You want an example, here you go: For unauthorized voters, this law will make them think twice before they vote, with the ID and photo, they will think twice.

3. Will this decision lead to the same requirements in other states? Should it?
I hope it will, and it should.

That's my 2 cents.
Purrs,
Pookie

Who'da thunk nuns would prove BA's point?


Ladeez: It's time to embrace feminism and keep your last names.


No case, that is, until a pack of anarchist grannies showed up. Harrumph.

1. Do you favor Photo ID requirements for voters? Why or Why not/
I wonder why it was created. This is a Republican sponsored law and the Republicans are more inclined to steal an election than Democrats. Both parties have proven to be untrustworthy, but the Republicans to a greater degree. Why would they create this law? I watched a documentary called Hacking Democracy. This documentary showed a computer security analyst, using a generic model memory card reader, alter the vote counts and manipulate a simulated election. This proves that elections can be manipulated prior to a ballot being cast. This does not prove that an election has been rigged, but only that they can be rigged. If Republicans were really worried about fraud, they would do away with electronic voting.

Every US citizen, along with every adult man and woman living in the United States should be able to cast a ballot as long as they pay taxes. If you file an Income tax return, you should be able to have an opinion on where those tax dollars are spent. I would support a law that allowed all tax payers, illegal aliens or not, to cast a ballot. If you have a tax return and a photo ID, you can cast a ballot.

2. Will the law insure that voter fraud is minimized or prevent voters from casting ballots – give examples to defend your position.
It will make voter fraud more difficult. The only example I can think of is a person voting using a deceased person's SSN. With a photo ID law, you would be required to get a photo ID of yourself as this deceased person and then your statistics would have to match up. A 40-year old can't cast a ballot for his 70-year old grandpa. However, as I stated earlier, there are other forms of voter fraud that are not addressed in this law.

3. Will this decision lead to the same requirements in other states? Should it?
The party in power will pass laws to make staying in power easier. If Republicans could pass a law that said only white senior citizens who never graduated high school could vote, they would do it. I wouldn't recommend passing this in other states since our elections aren't legitimate anyway. When we have more than one choice masquerading as two choices, then I'll worry about voter suppression or voter fraud, or voter anything, but for now, we should just worry about American Idol.

Interesting. You think the Republicans are more inclined to steal elections when the Democrats are the ones clearly always trying to do it? Lest we forget the truth of the 2000 elections. This is a great read and supremely on point.

http://www.florida2000election.com/

Someone trying to make the argument that getting a state ID is bad better come up with something better than spending 7-12 dollars on an ID they should already have. If you are state/federal assistance how could you NOT have a picture ID of some kind?

The truth of the 2000 election? His brother was governor. His daddy and Reagan appointed almost all of the Supreme Court Justices. The Secretary of State was the co-Chair of his Florida campaign. Everything was in his favor except the vote count. You want a great read? Try reading Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President.

By the way, I'm not against the law.

On another note, question marks are used for questions, not declarative statements. You may be watching too much FOX news.

FOX Question of the Day:
Hillary Clinton is a Dirty Whore?

Sorry you have a thing for Fox News. Fox News cannot survive in a vacuum. Anyone with half a brain and an IQ higher than a house plant could clearly see that Fox would not be as big as it was if other viewponts were be covered by news sources.

I am sorry you cannot see the forest through the trees but Bush never lost the 2000 election, not once. My link offers MUCH more truth and much less conspiracy. SCOTUS stepped in when election laws were being violated, and this was clearly shown much to the chagrin of Gore and cabal trying to steal and election they lost.

I am happy to see you for a mandatory picture ID, now if the rest of the people in this great nation would mandate it it would be one less factor to deal with.





So anyone not paying taxes should not get a vote? I think you may be surprised how MANY people do not pay taxes.

I'm homeless myself, and I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

/sorry, I couldn't resist

I agree with that.


What interest do illegal aliens have in our country?

But let's do that in a sanctuary city, and see how that turns out for the citizens of that city. The legal ones, I mean.


She's not really dirty.

/not dirty enough
//obviously....

I realize that you have strong opinions. Strong English, not so much....were be covered?

It's forest from the trees. You can't even get your cliches right.

We actually don't know Bush won, but he's the President now and doing a fabulous job, considering he is a retard.

This isn't a great nation. It's a joke. Also, mandatory IDs isn't really an issue to be concerned about.


I wish that group of people included me. I'll trade my vote in if I could get my tax dollars back.

Opinions backed up by facts. Notice you resort to making fun of grammar when you cannot make a factual point.



We don't know? Or is it YOU don't know and living in some alternate reality? See Alex Jones www.prisonplanet.com for more fantasy material.



Amen to that.

You have to be joking. As a minimum the bottom 20% in the income scale pay no taxes.


http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm