Yahoo/AP: Tough ID laws could block thousands of 2012 votes

[Larry]

The black church GOTV efforts dwarf any GOP leaning church efforts.

ID's law make it harder to vote. I think that's a good thing. I'd support lots of even stricter restrictions. No "early voting", not "absentee ballots (without a reason)", I'd even support a test to show someone knows some basic facts about the issues before we allow them to vote.

We used to have those.

In fact, I've read of at least one Supreme Court Justice who, back when he was a student at Harvard Law, served as a volunteer poll watcher, whose job was to question voters on their knowledge of the Constitution, before they were allowed to vote.

He did it as a member of the Young Republicans. And the Republican Party bussed him from Harvard, to a black precinct in the South, with specific instructions to deny as many voters as he could, and the ones he couldn't deny, at least he would slow down the line and hopefully people would leave. The GOP was willing to spend the money to bus a Harvard law student to a black precinct in the south, so that he could suppress the votes pf people who were likely to vote Democrat.

[Kilmer17]

I don't think the "outrage" is so much about it being purely political as it is about it being a not-so-subtle effort to make it more difficult to vote for people in groups who tend to lean towards the Democratic party. Both sides are doing things that are purely political regarding the vote. The difference is, and I have to stress that this has been pointed out in this thread and others more times than I can count, that one side is trying to register as many voters who would likely vote for them as possible, whereas the other side is doing the same thing and in addition are trying to push through measures that actively interfere with the ability of some members of the "other side's" base to vote.

There isn't a moral equivalency between "trying to register more people to vote for you" and "trying to stop people who will likely vote for the other guy from voting".

Both sides end result goal is the same.

---------- Post added July-26th-2012 at 12:07 PM ----------

Of course you would prefer the voting laws to be changed to favor those with more money and resources. What a shocker.

Not money and resources. Effort and knowledge. Not just busloads of folks heading to the polls because they're getting packs of free smokes.

[Hersh]

ID's law make it harder to vote. I think that's a good thing. I'd support lots of even stricter restrictions. No "early voting", not "absentee ballots (without a reason)", I'd even support a test to show someone knows some basic facts about the issues before we allow them to vote.

Clearly you live in the wrong country if you believe this as this goes against the principles of my country.

[Kilmer17]

Clearly you live in the wrong country if you believe this as this goes against the principles of my country.

The ole "if you dont like my country you should leave"?

The fact is, we already have numerous restrictions in place when it comes to voting. Should we get rid of all of those as well? Or are we just simply debating how MANY restrictions we should have?

[Predicto]

Kilmer's got them dancing on this one. Bait and switch, false equivalency, moving the goalposts, subtle mischaracterization, feigned offense... every arrow in the quiver is in play here.

Bow down. You are in the presence of greatness.

[Duckus]

I shouldnt be suprised that you guys ignore the real goal of organizations and activities like this one. It's not an attempt to register as many voters as possible. It's a clear and obvious attempt to register as many Democratic leaning voters as possible.

Welcome to the world of 501©3, 501©4, PAC and Super PACs. Your right. The goal of this group is to get underrepresented voters registered. Those voters tend to vote Democratic. As 501©3 they can target voter registration drives like this as long as they don't publicly state a position in an election (unless VA has some crazy law I don't know about).

This is how thousands 501©3 on all sides operate every single day. This isn't new. This isn't different. And one a scale of shady - it is a 2 out of 10.

And no, I don't think sending folks registration forms (even dead people, pets, etc). Mailing lists have errors - that is nothing surprising. It also does not lead to fraud. All it is is a form to register with simple information pre-filled out. By that logic, sending me (and the other random folks who lived at my address before me) pre-approved credit card forms is credit card fraud.

[mistertim]

Both sides end result goal is the same.

So now we've come full Kilmer circle back to the dubious logic you espoused early on in this thread that seemed to say "If two things have the same end result then the means by which those results were achieved are morally equivalent." Fantastic.

Kilmer's got them dancing on this one. Bait and switch, false equivalency, moving the goalposts, subtle mischaracterization, feigned offense... every arrow in the quiver is in play here.

Bow down. You are in the presence of greatness.

No kidding. The guy is a master.

[allannis]

That's exactly what my husband and I are doing. Anyone who needs a ride to the DMV, call us. If you need a person with a computer to help get your documentation, call us. Anything we can do to help, we will.

(Inwood holds a special place in my heart, btw.)

sorry havn't been on for a while, what you are doing is the sign of a true patriot, and for that many thanks. are you from Inwood?

---------- Post added July-30th-2012 at 08:32 PM ----------

You've never seen a single person dispute it.

All you've seen is people pointing out that your attempt to claim that therefore, the two situations are morally equal, or are even relevant, is completely untrue.

Not one person has said that the Democrats don;t want to win.

What they have said, is that there is a clear difference between trying to convince John Doe to vote for me, and trying to prevent John Doe from voting.

I don't see it as trying to prevent John Doe from voting, I see it as trying to prevent John Dead from voting.

[Larry]

Yahoo: Romney, Obama campaigns battle over Ohio early voting

Mitt Romney and his staff are accusing President Barack Obama of threatening the ability of military personnel to vote early in Ohio following the administration's decision to sue the state over new early voting laws.

The Democratic lawsuit aims to restore early voting rights for all Ohio voters, but Republicans are crying foul.

"We disagree with the basic premise that it is 'arbitrary' and unconstitutional to give three extra days of in-person early voting to military voters and their families, and believe it is a dangerous and offensive argument for President Obama and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] to make," Katie Biber, general counsel for the Romney campaign wrote in a memo issued Sunday. "It is despicable for the Obama campaign to challenge Ohio's lawful decision."

More at link.

Wow, I'm shocked. Republicans pass laws designed to give special rights to people who tend to vote Republican, the Temocrats object, and the Republicans loudly yell that the Democrats want to disenfranchise the military.

(At least they're fighting about it before the election, instead of after, though.)

[Kilmer17]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/04/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-over-early-voting-law-for-military/

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have filed a lawsuit to block a new state law allowing men and women in uniform to vote up until the Monday right before an election, while the cutoff on early voting for the rest of the public is three days earlier.

Imganie that!

One side of the spectrum filing a suit to prevent the other from making it easier for "their voters" to cast votes.

Im shocked!!!!!!!!

not at all.............................

[Hersh]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/04/obama-campaign-sues-ohio-over-early-voting-law-for-military/

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have filed a lawsuit to block a new state law allowing men and women in uniform to vote up until the Monday right before an election, while the cutoff on early voting for the rest of the public is three days earlier.

Imganie that!

One side of the spectrum filing a suit to prevent the other from making it easier for "their voters" to cast votes.

Im shocked!!!!!!!!

not at all.............................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-challenging-voting-privileges-of-ohio-military-members/2012/08/07/b9cf76ac-e080-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

The Pinocchio Test

Romney’s statement suggests that the president is undermining the voting rights of Ohio service members. But the lawsuit in question would not change the deadline one way or another for military voters. It simply requests an order for the state to extend its civilian deadline.

The lawsuit doesn’t describe the military privilege as unconstitutional or arbitrary, which is what Romney and Biber suggested. Instead it uses that argument against the separate deadline for civilian voters, in what the Obama campaigns appears to believe is an attempt to supress African-American turnout.

Overall, the facts show obvious contradictions to the statements from Romney and Biber, no matter how carefully they were worded. The Romney campaign earns three Pinocchios.

Three Pinocchios

You make stuff up to justify your own beliefs.

Imagine that!!

I'm shocked.....not at all.

[Kilmer17]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-challenging-voting-privileges-of-ohio-military-members/2012/08/07/b9cf76ac-e080-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

You make stuff up to justify your own beliefs.

Imagine that!!

I'm shocked.....not at all.

And the left is twisting itself into pretzels to try and defend their obvious hypicrisy.

Obama is suing to prevent this law from taking affect. No matter what reasons they claim, the bottom line is they are actively trying to hamper a certain segment of the popoulations ability to vote in an easier fashion.

[TheGoodBits]

And the left is twisting itself into pretzels to try and defend their obvious hypicrisy.

Obama is suing to prevent this law from taking affect. No matter what reasons they claim, the bottom line is they are actively trying to hamper a certain segment of the popoulations ability to vote in an easier fashion.

Actually it sounds like they are doing the exact opposite, but hey keeping making things up and maybe some people will believe they are true. It works. It really really works.

[Kilmer17]

Actually it sounds like they are doing the exact opposite, but hey keeping making things up and maybe some people will believe they are true. It works. It really really works.

You make a stunning case for when it does work.

Simple question for you leftwing types.

Has the Obama campaign filed a suit to prevent a law from taking affect in Ohio that would allow military to vote early?

[Larry]

And the left is twisting itself into pretzels to try and defend their obvious hypicrisy.

No. They aren't.

You are.

"The Left" are accurately objecting to legislation that was specifically designed to create different, special, voting rules that apply only to a demographic that votes Republican. (And what they are asking the court to do, it to allow all voters to follow the same law.)

And the right are lying about it.

Obama is suing to prevent this law from taking affect. No matter what reasons they claim, the bottom line is they are actively trying to hamper a certain segment of the popoulations ability to vote in an easier fashion.

Another flat-out lie.

The Democrats are suing for equal voting for all citizens.

---------- Post added August-7th-2012 at 12:19 PM ----------

Has the Obama campaign filed a suit to prevent a law from taking affect in Ohio that would allow military to vote early?

No.

Clear enough answer?

[Kilmer17]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial.

[Larry]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial.

Excellent. That's exactly what they should do.

[Larry]

Daily Show: Wizards of I.D.

and

Wizards of I.D. - Jessica Williams & Voter I.D. Laws

Not their best work, but I guess it was OK.

[Bang]

Voter fraud really DOES look to be a SERIOUS problem. And it is pretty obvious who is committing it.

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

PA. House republican leader- "Here's what we're doing"

Kilmer- "this is not what they're doing"

Voter fraud really DOES look to be a SERIOUS problem. And it is pretty obvious who is committing it.

~Bang

Bang, I've been nothing but completely frank about why the GOP is doing what they are doing.

[TNSkinsFan]

Voter fraud is perpetuated mostly by the 4 companies that own all the electronic voting machines in this country, and tabulate all the votes. I'm no Dem or Repub, and refuse to vote for either, though yes, I do vote. Always a write in. Always. All 4 of the companies, Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and SAIC have CEO's and major shareholders who all have ties to the Repub party. ALL of them. Think about that for a second. Chuck Hagel, a Repub Senator, he was the CEO of ES&S before he ran for office, had all the votes counted on his machines when he did run, and SURPRISE... won the seat.

Anyone who thinks voter fraud can be solved by presenting a state ID at the polls is naive, and ignoring the plethora of real problems we face.

[Jumbo]

Stewart did a good piece on "voter fraud" last night.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[Bang]

Bang, I've been nothing but completely frank about why the GOP is doing what they are doing.

Fair enough, i should have not made it a personal call out. it speaks on it's own

Edited.

~Bang

[Larry]

I've got a situation that kind of touches on this thread. And it's not worth starting a new one, IMO.

Got a phone call the other day. Phone number I've never seen before. I pick up, and I'm on hold (robo dialer.) (I'm expecting a telemarketer, because that's the only thing that calls us on the land line, anyway. So I'm already irritated.)

After a while, the person who phoned me decides that I've waited long enough, and he's willing to speak to me now.

Person: Can I speak to <My brother's name>:?

Me: He doesn't live here.

Person: <click>

And then, as I often do when I'm feeling pissed at telemarketers, I go to Google, and I look up the phone number of the telemarketer who called me. (Or rather, my brother.)

The Republican Party of Florida.

Now, I'm absolutely, 100% certain that the Republican Party of Florida isn't calling my brother because they think my brother will make a donation to them, or attend one of their rallys, or vote for one of their candidates.

My brother, in many ways, is what the GOP Partisans think Democrats are like. My brother probably believes that George Bush blew up the Pentagon. My brother joins the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Amnesty International, and probably Save The Whales.

My brother doesn't live here, because my brother met a Canadian woman online, and moved to Canada, and married her. He's been there for like 10 years.

He's still a US Citizen. (Although he's applied for, and received, permanent resident status in Canada, he has not applied for citizenship. He says, because to apply for citizenship, he'd have to give up his US citizenship. And he doesn't want to do that.)

I know that my brother has been voting absentee, since he moved to Canada. (Every time I go to vote, they look my name up in the book. And right next to my name, is his name, with "Voted Absentee" printed next to his name.)

In short, I can only see one reason why the Republican Party of Florida is phoning here, and asking to speak to my brother. It's because they know he's a Democrat, who votes absentee, and they're fishing for a reason to deny his vote. (Either before or after he votes.)

----------

I think it might be an interesting discussion. Should my brother be allowed to vote, absentee?

He hasn't lived here for like 10 years.

OTOH, if he'd been, say, in the military, or working on an oil rig, or managing Disney Shanghai, . . . If he'd been out of the country for 10 years because his job sent him out there, then it seems to me that the fact that he hasn't lived here shouldn't disqualify him from voting, anywhere in America.

Should it?

I'm not really certain that I want my brother to vote. I have a really low opinion of him, for lots of reasons I won't go into.

But I'm not sure that I want him disenfranchised simply because he's out of the country for a while, either.

Thought it might be good for discussion.