03-16-2008, 02:50 PM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: 
Posts: 8,388
Thanks: 202
Thanked 1,977 Times in 1,478 Posts
|
|
Re: Phila. Probing Advocacy Group's Voter Registrations
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer
Rather then slap all Democrats with the label, be honest and just label the individual group(s) that are against voter registration?
Cause I know here in Illinois, every Democrat that votes is proud to show you their voter registration...And they even make sure to go door-to-door and, make phone calls to inform other possible voters (dem and rep alike) where to get their registration cards and help get their registration cards by driving them to the registration points in our district.
SOME people are against voter registration, democrat and republican alike...But to say that all of either, when it's usually only a small number on either side, is unfair and misleading to say the least.
|
It's far from misleading...It's an incrediblt fair generalization, just as if I were to say Democrats want health reform and Republicans don't...That doesn't mean EVERY Democrat and EVERY Republican, but you know exactly what I meant without having to get too technical...
In Indiana...
Quote:
Indiana's law is also being challenged, by the Indiana Democratic Party and the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has indicated it will not decide before Election Day whether to uphold a lower-court ruling that it is constitutional.
Indiana's secretary of state, Todd Rokita, a Republican who made photo IDs part of his platform when he ran for the office, said photo IDs give "a measure of integrity" to an election system that had been continually expanding access to voting since the mid-1960s.
|
In Georgia...
Quote:
|
Proponents said the measure was needed to combat voter fraud, but opponents charged that Republicans were trying to keep black voters, who tend to vote Democratic, away from the polls.
|
I could do this for every state with legislation on this, but you get the point...I CAN'T FIND a Democrat-backjed voter ID law...EVERY ONE I saw was Republican backed and Democratic opposed...
In a nutshell...
Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID
Quote:
The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.
The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?
The answer so far has depended greatly on whether you are a Democratic or Republican politician -- or even, some believe, judge.
"It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one)," Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in deciding that Indiana's strictest-in-the-nation law is not burdensome enough to violate constitutional protections.
His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote.
For justices still hearing from the public about their role in the 2000 election -- "It's water over the deck; get over it," Justice Antonin Scalia impatiently told a questioner at a college forum this year -- the partisan implications of the issue are hard to miss.
The case has pitted Democrats against Republicans, conservative legal foundations against liberal ones, civil rights organizations against the Bush administration.
"Voter ID laws have become the most politicized" of governments' efforts to try to limit fraud and voting irregularities, said Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who filed a brief supporting the law's challengers. "It's in the nation's best interest for the court to resolve it."
Hasen is one of those who point out that the partisan division on voter ID laws often extends to the judiciary. Not only did the 7th Circuit's 2 to 1 vote to uphold Indiana's law break down along the lines of which party nominated the judges; so, with one exception, did the full court's decision not to reconsider the ruling. Michigan's Supreme Court justices -- who are elected in partisan races -- upheld that state's voter ID law, with the five Republicans voting to support it and the two Democrats opposing it.
Hasen does not believe that the decisions reflect a desire to aid one political party over another, but rather a philosophical divide on the question of whether protecting the integrity of the voting process from fraud is of equal or greater value than making sure as many eligible voters as possible take part in the process.
|
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
|
Linear Mode
