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

[NavyDave]

But you're not paying to vote. You're paying for an ID card which can be used in many other situations. I guess I'm just stumped on how anyone this day and age doesn't have an ID. It almost sounds to me that some who are upset are just playing politics or worried that illegals won't be able to vote.

It also prevents the Dead and family pets from voting without an ID. Talk about being mean spirited.

The vote early and often demographic is having a cow over something as simple showing your ID when it is required for you to do so when you fly, buy liquor and cigarettes, catch Greyhound, buy and drive a car, purchase insurance, get a bank account, etc.

I don't know if its required to show an ID with the stories of scam artists that apply and get food stamps then turn around and sell the cards for cash then get replacement cards in the DMV.

[The Sisko]

Ive said over and over what the real reason behind the GOP attempts to pass these laws and to limit the "prevoting etc etc".

What gets lost is I NEVER see a lefty here admit that the democrats try to pass relaxed voting laws, or early voting extensions etc FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON.

Both sides are only interested in doing whatever it takes to make sure they get more voters to the polls than the other side.

Thanks for your honesty. I'm not a Dem or a liberal so I have no problem agreeing that their motivations are as you say. However there's nothing morally wrong with trying to expand voter access. I can't say the same for the GOP's efforts at voter suppression.

[Larry]

You just walk in, say "I'm John Doe", and they hand you a free ID that says you're John Doe, right?

Not quite that simple, you need your SS card, and one of the following:

Certificate of U.S. Citizenship

Certificate of Naturalization

Valid U.S. Passport

Birth Certificate with a raised seal

AND 2 proofs of residency, such as a telephone bill or electric bill. Takes about 10 days and is free, at least in PA.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml

Granted, last I checked, you can't get an SS card, without photo ID.

At least in the case of Oklahoma (only state I've dealt with on this matter. I have no idea if they're typical.), you have to have photo ID to get a birth certificate, too.

Somehow, I suspect that you have to have ID to get a passport.

----------

How does a homeless person manage to obtain those things?

----------

But hey, once you get all of those things, this other thing is free.

Oh, and you say it takes about 10 days. Does that mean you have to make two trips to their office? Or does that mean that you have to have a mailing address, too?

[NavyDave]

Thanks for your honesty. I'm not a Dem or a liberal so I have no problem agreeing that their motivations are as you say. However there's nothing morally wrong with trying to expand voter access. I can't say the same for the GOP's efforts at voter suppression.

I guess I'm the only one who is outraged over the idea being pushed by liberals, that minorities here in the US are either too stupid or lack drive to get a friggin ID to vote.

There were instances of New Yorkers who moved to Florida that voted for Al gore in both states in 2000.

[Guest Spearfeather]

However there's nothing morally wrong with trying to expand voter access. I can't say the same for the GOP's efforts at voter suppression.

So they just want as few people to vote as possible? Or do you think their efforts are aimed more at suppressing the unregistered vote or voter fraud on election day?

[Kilmer17]

Thanks for your honesty. I'm not a Dem or a liberal so I have no problem agreeing that their motivations are as you say. However there's nothing morally wrong with trying to expand voter access. I can't say the same for the GOP's efforts at voter suppression.

The ends dont justify the means. Just because the end result is more people voting doesnt mean it's morally right. The Democrats efforts have focused on demographics they know will vote more D than R.

[Larry]

Just because the end result is more people voting doesnt mean it's morally right.

Just where in the world do you get the monumental arrogance to claim that it's immoral for people to vote?

I can understand if the Democrats were pushing for laws that would allow people who can't legally vote, to vote. Or to allow people to vote multiple times, or things like that.

But to actually have the balls to claim that there's something immoral in concentrating a voter drive on people you want to vote?

[skinsmarydu]

Record news stories on the following requirements for RENEWAL of your current GA drivers' license:must be done in person, no longer online.7 hour waits, and they're turning people away at 1:30 pm.

Proof of citizenship, raised seal or original birth certificate(I find it strange that my DD-214 doesn't qualify as ID, says so on the original document).Weird, my government took me in and used me, yet won't let me claim this as identification.

2 proofs of address...see this is my problem, such as a utility bill, or rental agreement. The only thing that arrives at my home with my name on it is my w-2. I prepay my phone and he pays all the bills...I make cash, so I pick up everything else. That's just crazy. Your current ID, or a birth cert(not both), and if you're voting in the proper polling place, they should have record of you anyway. Especially if you've been doing it for 50 years without impediment...with or without ID. Most of the pollsters know their constituents by name, just like the lady I see every year to renew my liquor permit in my county. Years ago when she had to ask for a birth cert, she told me she was sorry. She knew me by name. Was a really weird moment.

[Larry]

Yeah, that's one of the things that got to me, too.

A US passport isn't good enough identification, but a passport and a cable bill, is?

Oh, and at least in Florida, there's some form (I've never used it, just saw it on the list), whereby you can get a letter from a landlord or a roommate or some such, hat basically says "the utilities are in my name, but this person lives here, too".

[NavyDave]

Just where in the world do you get the monumental arrogance to claim that it's immoral for people to vote?

Busing the ignorant and not to bright to voting booths to vote for Team Donkey does come off as slimy but not immoral.Yeah lets forget about the white guys from the UK that voted for Obama but were not citizens CNN video link long deleted.

I can understand if the Democrats were pushing for laws that would allow people who can't legally vote, to vote. Or to allow people to vote multiple times, or things like that.

Or in Obama's case not enforcing immigration laws, then attack those who want to check the status of those who are illegally here in the country. Come on dude.Chicago and Jersey joke about voting early and often (Michael Wilbon). And there are reports about the dead still on voting rolls . But to actually have the balls to claim that there's something immoral in concentrating a voter drive on people you want to vote?

Is it morally right for felons, the mentally challenged and people who can not have their immigration status verified be allowed to vote? I say NO.

[skinsmarydu]

Larry, you gotta be effing kidding...that's what is wrong, and we gotta keep screamin, ...ok ur watchin Rachel, I hope...

[The Sisko]

So they just want as few people to vote as possible? Or do you think their efforts are aimed more at suppressing the unregistered vote or voter fraud on election day?

No, not as few people as possible. Rather their intent is to winnow out as many voters from groups that don't traditionally vote for the Grand Oligarch's Party. As Kilmer pointed out, in a state like FL it might only take a thousand or so to do the trick. And FWIW I disagree just as strongly when Dems try to suppress absentee ballots from military voters stationed overseas. It's sickening and it's wrong no matter which side does it.

[Kilmer17]

No, not as few people as possible. Rather their intent is to winnow out as many voters from groups that don't traditionally vote for the Grand Oligarch's Party. As Kilmer pointed out, in a state like FL it might only take a thousand or so to do the trick. And FWIW I disagree just as strongly when Dems try to suppress absentee ballots from military voters stationed overseas. It's sickening and it's wrong no matter which side does it.

Both sides try to ensure that they have more voters than the other. Whether it's by offering free rides and smokes, or motor voter laws, or early voting, or id laws. The end goal is the same for both parties. More votes than the other guy.

[Hersh]

No, not as few people as possible. Rather their intent is to winnow out as many voters from groups that don't traditionally vote for the Grand Oligarch's Party. As Kilmer pointed out, in a state like FL it might only take a thousand or so to do the trick. And FWIW I disagree just as strongly when Dems try to suppress absentee ballots from military voters stationed overseas. It's sickening and it's wrong no matter which side does it.

When have Dems done that?

[Kilmer17]

When have Dems done that?

Done what? Passed laws to make it more likely that a Democrat gets more votes? I listed a few- Motor Voter, Early voting, Rock the vote campaigns. etc.

Or are you speaking about the military ballots thing? If so, they attempted to do that in the 2000 election in Fla. They tried to have thousands of military absentee ballots dismissed because of various alleged issues. One of Gores staff issued a lengthy memo to Fla Dems detailing how to challenge every military ballot.

[LadySkinsFan]

I would think that the United States would make it as easy as possible for registered voters to cast ballots using methods including but not limited to: voting holiday, move voting to several official days including a weekend day, extend early voting, early absentee ballots that are returned in time for vote counting instead of being counted as an afterthought in case the margin of victory is small, and so on.

It's disgraceful that our so-called "democracy" or "republic" has such low voter turnout. Everyone who is eligible to vote should register and should vote. Instead, we have lower voter turnout than some of the newer "democracies" including the ones we went to war to create.

I want voter expansion to all those eligible, not voter supression. And our state laws should facilitate this, not supress voters.

[Kilmer17]

I'd rather see a better informed and knowledgeable electorate than a bigger one.

[mistertim]

Done what? Passed laws to make it more likely that a Democrat gets more votes? I listed a few- Motor Voter, Early voting, Rock the vote campaigns. etc.

Are you still seriously trying to make an equivalence between one group trying to sign up more of their own likely base to vote and another group actively trying to suppress the voting of the first group's base? I don't see any way you can truly say that with a straight face and if you can, I never want to play poker with you.

[Hersh]

Done what? Passed laws to make it more likely that a Democrat gets more votes? I listed a few- Motor Voter, Early voting, Rock the vote campaigns. etc.

Or are you speaking about the military ballots thing? If so, they attempted to do that in the 2000 election in Fla. They tried to have thousands of military absentee ballots dismissed because of various alleged issues. One of Gores staff issued a lengthy memo to Fla Dems detailing how to challenge every military ballot.

The Military ballot issue. I think I remember that and any attempt to dismiss ballots like that is appalling.

Are you suggesting that encouraging people to vote, i.e. Rock the Vote, Early Voting, etc, is a bad thing?

---------- Post added July-10th-2012 at 03:45 PM ----------

I'd rather see a better informed and knowledgeable electorate than a bigger one.

So you aren't going to vote anymore?

Thanks for the set up.

[Kilmer17]

Are you still seriously trying to make an equivalence between one group trying to sign up more of their own likely base to vote and another group actively trying to suppress the voting of the first group's base? I don't see any way you can truly say that with a straight face and if you can, I never want to play poker with you.

The equivalence is the end result, not the methods used to get there.

I dont think the GOP is trying to prevent legal voters from voting. But I also think it is too easy to register and cast your ballot. Voting should mean something more than just "well, this political party has a bus with cigs and food and will take me to the voting place for free"

---------- Post added July-10th-2012 at 11:48 AM ----------

The Military ballot issue. I think I remember that and any attempt to dismiss ballots like that is appalling.

Are you suggesting that encouraging people to vote, i.e. Rock the Vote, Early Voting, etc, is a bad thing?

---------- Post added July-10th-2012 at 03:45 PM ----------

So you aren't going to vote anymore?

Thanks for the set up.

LOL. I KNEW someone would do that!

And yes, I do think that efforts to get less enthusiastic, less informed voters is a bad thing.

[Hersh]

LOL. I KNEW someone would do that!

And yes, I do think that efforts to get less enthusiastic, less informed voters is a bad thing.

I agree that less or ill informed voters aren't a positive as evidenced by anyone voting for Republicans.

Joking about the Republican part but there are more Republican radio entertainers that want to keep people uninformed than on the Democrat side.

[Bang]

Both sides try to ensure that they have more voters than the other. Whether it's by offering free rides and smokes, or motor voter laws, or early voting, or id laws. The end goal is the same for both parties. More votes than the other guy.

Have you seen measures raised by the Democrats in your state that would restrict voters, or restrict groups from registering legal voters?

You can't compare people trying to legally register voters that may vote for their side with passing laws that will discourage people being legally registered to vote, or will make it more difficult for these voters to register to vote for the other side.

It's ridiculous to even consider they're the same.

If you want to show me R's running around the state signing up young people as voters or getting busses of elderly to the polls, then you can compare. (and I'd defend their right to do it,, that is democracy in action. Republicans organizations have every right to go out and hand out literature and register voters, to hold rallies, to have events designed to attract potential voters to sign up... They have every right to go do it in areas with people in them likely to vote conservative or anywhere they please. They should, and they do. I have no problem with VFW doing it, the Legion doing it, with Lions clubs doing it, Rotary clubs doing it, churches doing it. None. It's the 'grass roots' don'tcha know. They do it here at the county fair, both parties have sign up booths with different attractions,, shotgun giveaway, win a lawn mower, etc.

But one is restricting people to try and accomplish the goals you say are the same, and the other isn't.

Justifying shutting down grass roots organizations that sign up people likely to vote for the opposition is justifying oppression, plain and simple.

Besides, just because a person is registered by a League of Women Voter's volunteer doesn't mean that they have to then vote one way or the other.

Just as a person voting R can catch a ride on a bus from Dem headquarters to take people down to vote.

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

The result is the same, that's why it's a valid comparison.

"Democracy in action" can also be used to describe and justify the passing of the laws and measures like the "voter purge" in Florida.

No legal person is being denied the right to vote. And your definition of difficult is a variable. SOME action is required on the part of the voter. Youre arguing that the action proposed by the GOP is wrong, but that the actions proposed by the DEMs are right. I say they are the same.

[mistertim]

The result is the same, that's why it's a valid comparison.

I hope you do realize how slippery the slope is here as far as the pandora's box of logic you're opening up with that.

[Larry]

The result is the same, that's why it's a valid comparison.

Both getting the Redsking a better QB, and dynamiting the Cowboys locker room 15 minutes before kickoff, are attempts for the Redskins to win the game.

Therefore, they are morally equivalent.

According to Kilmer's Rule That All Actions Taken For a Particular Purpose Are Morally Equivalent.

Getting a job and robbing a bank are both attempts to get more money. Therefore they are morally equivalent.

No legal person is being denied the right to vote.

Trying to figure out which BS you're trying to shovel, here.

1) The BS of "there's no proof of legal people being denied the right to vote (because the GOP intentionally doesn't keep records of people they purge)?

2) Or the "well, if they used to be legal to vote, and we change the laws so that it's illegal for them to vote, now, then we aren't denying legal votes, because now they aren't legal any more" BS?

3) Or the "We aren't denying them the right to vote, we're just intentionally adding hurdles to it, in the hopes that they'll give up and not bother" one?

Youre arguing that the action proposed by the GOP is wrong, but that the actions proposed by the DEMs are right. I say they are the same.

No, he (and I) are pointing out that one is an attempt to prevent voting, and one is an attempt to allow it.