Turzai: Voter ID Law Means Romney Can Win PA - Page 6

AzMike · #51 (**permalink**) 07-17-2012, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave1

Thank you for finally admitting that your are in favor of fraudulent election results.....

I think the headline says just that. If they can't cheat on votes Romney wins. Nice argument there.

Dave1 · #52 (**permalink**) 07-17-2012, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

I think the headline says just that. If they can't cheat on votes Romney wins. Nice argument there.

I don't care about the winner as much as I prefer the most legit national election this country can offer.....

Anything less is not up to American standards......

AzMike · #53 (**permalink**) 07-17-2012, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave1

I don't care about the winner as much as I prefer the most legit national election this country can offer.....

Anything less is not up to American standards......

Agreed.

Coyote · #54 (**permalink**) 07-18-2012, 08:56 AM

One of the really annoying things in threads like this is people that try to insert motivations to my words that aren't there rather than try to see other points of view.

They way I see it, it comes down to is this - people fall into several categories when it comes to Voter ID...

There are those who feel that it is acceptable if some legitimate voters are disenfranchised from voting in order to protect election integrity and trust in the electoral system. They feel that voter fraud at the polling place - whether it is or is not significant in numbers - should still be addressed because it is fraud.
There are those that feel a certain amount of fraud (some ineligable voters slip through the system) is acceptable in order to make sure that everyone who is eligable to vote has the opportunity to do so. They feel that fraud at the polling place - whether it is or is not significant in numbers - is not significant enough to propose legislation that might prevent legitimate voters from exercising their right.
There are those who feel that this type of fraud can be addressed in a better manner that won't disenfranchise legitimate voters and reduce potential fraud.
There are those who feel that Voter ID will benefit their party's chances in the next election since the majority of potentially disenfranchised legitimate voters fall into one party's group and there are thousands of illegal voters voting for that party as well.
There are those that feel that Voter ID will hurt their party's chances in the next election since the majority of potentially disenfranchised legitimate voters fall into one party's group.
There are those that see illegal aliens behind every corner, barricade themselves in the garage and write long treatises on the Illuminati and the downfall of America.

My view lies with #2 or maybe #3.

Coyote · #55 (**permalink**) 07-18-2012, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave1

Thank you for finally admitting that your are in favor of fraudulent election results.....

Thank you for admitting you are in favor of disenfranchising legitimate voters

Coyote · #56 (**permalink**) 07-18-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

I think the headline says just that. If they can't cheat on votes Romney wins. Nice argument there.

Oh sweet. Here's an alternate headline: if we can disenfranchise enough legitimate voters, maybe Romney will win

Hazardous Material Warning: High concentrations of sarcasm have been known to induce anaphylactic reactions in readers.

Coyote · #57 (**permalink**) 07-18-2012, 09:46 AM

Study: Many Could Face Obstacles In Voter ID Laws : NPR

Quote:

A new report by the Brennan Center for Justice finds that more than 10 million potential voters in states that require photo ID at the polls live more than 10 miles from offices that issue such ID. Nearly 500,000 of these voters don't have access to a car or other vehicle.

Many of these people presumably already have a photo ID, but for those who don't, the new laws pose a special challenge, according to the Brennan center. The center, which advocates for wider citizen participation in government, opposes many of these new voter ID laws.

The report, which details the obstacles to getting government-issued photo ID, is the latest volley in the battle over the impact of new state voting laws.

Report: Not Free And Not Easy

"I've voted my entire life, from the time I was old enough to vote," says Bea Bookler, 94, of Devon, Pa.

She cast her first ballot for Franklin Roosevelt. But now, unless she can get to the motor vehicle office 10 miles from her home, she won't be able to vote in November.

"How would I get there and how would I manage to stand in a line?" says Bookler, who uses a walker. She says she can barely make it to the polling place next door to her retirement community. She also doesn't understand why she has to go to all this trouble in the first place. She already has a voter registration card.

"I have an ID which says I am registered to vote in Chester County. There is no reason why I should need anything else. It's an outrage," she says.

But Pennsylvania recently enacted legislation requiring voters to show government-issued photo ID at the polls. Nine states have similar laws. Several others are pending.

Sponsors say that the laws are needed to prevent voter fraud and that free ID cards are available for those who don't have them. But Keesha Gaskins, senior counsel at the Brennan center, says for many people the IDs are far from free.

"What we discovered was that there was limited access to these ID-issuing offices," Gaskins says, citing long travel distances and limited office hours.

The center found that no offices that issue IDs are open on weekends in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin. In some areas, the offices are open only one day a month.

And that's not to mention the cost of documents — such as birth certificates and marriage licenses — that people often need to get a photo ID. The prices can range from $8 to $25, which Gaskins says is a lot for some poor people, and more than the $1.50 poll tax the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in 1966.

"It certainly looks and feels like a poll tax," says Gaskins.

An Inconvenience Or More?

That's a comment that has sponsors of the laws crying foul. But the issue is being raised in several lawsuits.

Bookler is part of a challenge filed by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Advancement Project and others against Pennsylvania's new law. A three-judge panel last week also heard a case in U.S. District Court involving a Texas ID law, which the U.S. Justice Department has blocked as discriminatory. Witnesses told the court that some Texas voters would have to travel more than 100 miles each way to get to the nearest motor vehicle office.

But one author of the law, Republican state Rep. Brandon Creighton, says that doesn't mean anyone will be denied the right to vote. "The fact is is that, in rural areas, people choose to live in rural areas and they're accustomed to commutes," says Creighton.

Whether it's for health care, shopping or going to a government office, he says long trips in Texas are a way of life. "It may be an inconvenience for many of us. But disenfranchised, I don't believe so, no," says Creighton.

And in fact, no one really knows how many voters lack photo ID. Some people think the numbers are a lot lower than the Brennan center and others claim.

States are also taking steps to make it easier to get ID.

The Pennsylvania secretary of state's office says, for example, that voters like Bookler, who have expired driver's licenses, don't have to show a birth certificate to receive a new ID. And if push comes to shove, Bookler says she'll find some way to get to the DMV office, rather than not vote. Although she still wonders why she has to do anything at all.

rivrrat · #58 (**permalink**) 07-18-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coyote

Thank you for admitting you are in favor of disenfranchising legitimate voters

Proving you are a citizen of the US does not equate to disenfranchisement.

Coyote · #59 (**permalink**) 07-18-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Proving you are a citizen of the US does not equate to disenfranchisement.

And opposing a law that could disenfranchise voters does not mean one supports fraud.

rivrrat · #60 (**permalink**) 07-18-2012, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coyote

And opposing a law that could disenfranchise voters does not mean one supports fraud.

I never said it did.

But regardless, a law requiring that people prove they are citizens since only citizens have the right to vote is not disenfranchising. If it is, then it is for all other rights that we're required to prove our citizenship for and I sure as **** don't hear anyone screaming and yelling that having to show a govt issued ID and have a background check and wait days to get a gun is 'disenfranchisement' and it's a ****load more inconvenient than simply going to the DMV.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to AzMike For This Useful Post:
Dave1