What in the world is "playing the race card" when making more restrictive voter ID laws disenfranches 18% of all 18-24 year-olds of all races, and 18% of all seniors of all races?

How is that disenfranchisement "playing the race card"? That's absurd.

yeah well it made your post 100% incorrect.

yeah, voting varied from state to state back then. there were states that had allowed women's suffrage, and free blacks to vote. all that changed more than one over the first decades of the us's existence.
and absolutely, term limits should be instituted in congress! it exists for the executive, it should for the legislative as well. would certainly keep members from politicking from election to election, with no much actual work in between!!!

:tro:

there is a large segment of our population who think that nothing can be done unless it is done by government.

and our country is going down hill because of that.

nope, not all

here lori:

Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they come of voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their commander in chief. Congress has sweeping power to govern the District of Columbia, yet more than a half million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.


as for felons, loss of rights isn't necessarily permanent. again, depends on the state. that's why it says above that several deny it for life-it's not all of them.

I guess when I registered to vote at the DMV, I should have never showed them my ID, because it allowed me to be discriminated.

What justifies blocking the vote of legal American citizens? Nothing.

Voter ID Laws Risk Half-Million Voters' Access To Ballot Box: Report
Posted: 07/18/2012 5:01 pm Updated: 07/18/2012 5:43 pm

WASHINGTON -- A half-million Americans in 10 states with voter identification laws face serious challenges to obtaining the necessary photo documentation, according to a report released Wednesday by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

The report found that while legal precedent requires states to provide free voter IDs to eligible residents who don't have them, even free IDs are not always easy to obtain.

Structural barriers such as lack of transportation, restricted access to ID-issuing offices, the cost of necessary documentation, and bureaucratic red tape could prevent many Americans from voting in November.

About 11 percent of eligible voters lack current government-issued photo IDs, and "seniors, low-income individuals [and] minority voters are particularly overrepresented within that group," the report's co-author Keesha Gaskins told reporters in a conference call Wednesday afternoon.

"The response of proponents of these laws has been, well, just get an ID," said Lawrence Norton, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "Unfortunately, for many people, this is not going to be such a simple solution."

Among the report's findings: In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin -- nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office that is open more than two days a week.

More than 10 million eligible voters in those states live more than 10 miles from such offices, a number that includes 1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters.

"The idea that we're forcing certain people to go through these very difficult, extra hoops, I think, is antithetical to some of the founding principles of this country," Norton said.

Gaskins noted that these laws could have some significant political ramifications come November. In Pennsylvania, for instance, where the number of voters lacking state-issued photo ID is greater than President Barack Obama's margin of victory there in 2008, "we're really talking about a population of individuals that can influence the outcome," she said.

Indeed, the new laws, passed in a mix of GOP strongholds and swing states, are widely seen to favor the Republican Party. In Pennsylvania, it seems possible the photo ID requirement could tip the balance to Mitt Romney in November.

Last month, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, admitted as much when he included the passing of a voter ID law in a list of other GOP achievements. He said the new law "is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

A study released on Wednesday by the Philadelphia Inquirer found that the law could have major effects in the strongly Democratic city of Philadelphia.

In the city alone, more than one in four active voters over the age of 80 -- roughly 12,000 individuals -- do not have the necessary photo ID.

Among Philadelphia voters who have participated in at least one election over the last four years, the state found roughly 136,000 individuals whose names and birth dates did not match any ID issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, possibly barring them from voting.

The new voter ID laws are facing legal opposition. In Wisconsin, a judge blocked implementation of the state's voter ID law on Tuesday, citing concerns that eligible voters may have difficulty obtaining the necessary identification. It's the second time the state's law has been blocked, and it means the law likely won't be in effect for the November elections.

Appearing at the NAACP convention in Houston last week, Attorney General Eric Holder said of the laws, "We call those poll taxes." He vowed that "the Justice Department's efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive."

Read the entire Brennan Center report:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...elections-2012

Every state currently has requirements to register to vote. Why do you want to remove some of those current requirements and make registering to vote harder?

and here's some more clarity, as i thought the constitution had been amended to give voting rights to specific groups, but that there wasn't an overall 'right' for all citizens included in that document. and lookie here:

"Given that the Constitution does not include an affirmative right for citizens to vote, the decision is left in the hands of individual states. In a country of 50 states, only six of them-- Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania—do not prohibit the mentally incompetent from voting. 2 That means that 44 still do and,according to some research, this amounts up to 1.2 million people. Centuries ago, the Declaration of Independence was written to claim all men as being created equal. However, it was not until the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, in 1870, that black men in America were granted the right to vote. Moreover, it was another 50 years before women were enfranchised."


that was from an article regarding disenfranchisement of the mentally ill.

then there's this, from wikipedia:

The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the US Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting or, as seen in Bush v. Gore, disputes as to what rules should apply in counting or recounting ballots [2]

A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_..._United_States

its only the reasons stated in the amendments to the constitution that bar specific discriminations. religion, age, race. nothin g in there about id. states are the ones who set rules other than what is included in the amendments. so, yes, actually, a state could actually test people. it's not something explicitly banned.

and i have to say, for the most part, i love these types of discussions. gets the mind working and the juices flowing. i love history, and any excuse to delve into it on things is a fantastic!
this seems another instance where the constitution is felt to give more than it actually does. a learning experience, that shows that things are still left in many cases to the individual states, as it should be. what works in massachusetts, may not work in north dakota, or arizona, or here in my adopted state, which is different from my home state. not better, or worse, just different.

they require it? they must be racist.

Wrong. Only if you ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.[2]

Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[3] Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order to register to vote, a principal means by which Southern states had prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.[2] The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.[2][4]

15% unemployment in that group (documented unemployment) those folks have some form of ID.

80.4% of 18 year olds have a DL
87.3% of 19
91.8% of 20-24

88% of 18-24 year-old Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map in 2006 according a National Geographic survey.
33% couldn't find Louisiana on a map of the US.

Maybe it is OK if they are "disenfranchised".

No. It is not "OK" for you to disenfranchise fellow American citizens you don't think are worthy. They have the same rights as you. Get over it.

Face the truth: Current aggressive voter disenfranchisement attempts by Republican state legislatures are not to prevent any voter fraud, they are to eliminate legal American voters that ALEC-GOP don't think will vote Republican. That's why these laws were written by ALEC and distributed to the GOP Govs.

And some worry about ACORN - LOL

They have the same right to register to vote, provided they have the required identification of their state, yes.
I would like to see the punishment for voter fraud be extraordinarily severe then, if even ONE person votes illegally then my vote is nullified and that person has taken away my legal right to have my vote counted. Surely this is an initiative you could get behind, no?

I am also hoping they cannot find their local polling place. Though I am certain they will get a ride from somebody.

an id requirement is not banned under any amendment to the constitution. the only way they can fight this is to say it's a form of racial, sexual or religious discrimination. so, any attempts to paint this all as racist will absolutely be made.
i am NOT a racist.
attempts by democrats to play the race card in this case is abhorrent. but that's all they can do to fight the rule, because of what the constitutional amendments contain. so, i am not surprised that democratic voters would spout that insult to anyone who supports i.d. rules, it's what their party wants them to say.

Why are you blaming Democrats? It is our judicial system that is throwing these new laws out as proven discriminatory. That decision has nothing to do with political parties.

It's neither "abhorrent" nor "racist" to point out when these laws measurably discriminate against minorities more than whites. And overturn them in the courts for that very reason. And that they discriminate against the young and elderly more than the middle-aged. And overturn them for that reason.

Civil Rights Act. Voting Rights Act. They are the law. They matter. Poll taxes are illegal. Making it more difficult for certain demographics to vote is illegal. You cannot illegally disenfranchise American citizens from voting, just because you don't like the political party they will vote for.

Friday, July 27, 2012
Texas voter ID law won’t stop fraud, history shows
By Jim Lamare

http://www.voxxi.com/texas-voter-id-...nt-stop-fraud/

A three-judge panel of the Federal District Court of Washington, D.C. heard arguments this month concerning the legality of Texas’ Senate Bill 14, the voter identification law enacted by the Republican-controlled state legislature last year.

In March, the U.S. Department of Justice refused to clear the bill under its powers authorized by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Texas appealed that decision to the Washington, D.C., court.

SB 14 requires Texans to produce suitable personal identification to vote. “Suitable” is legislatively defined as one of the following photo ids: a valid Texas driver’s license, an election identification certificate, a U.S. military id, a U.S. citizenship certificate, a U.S. passport, or a license to carry a concealed handgun.

If would-be voters lack any of these documents, they can go to a Department of Public Safety office to obtain, for free, a personal Identification card. The DPS will issue this card once the applicant provides other documents, the principal one being a birth certificate.

Almost one-third of Texas’ 254 counties do not have such an office, necessitating for some a 120-mile road trip to the nearest DPS.

Until this year, presentation of a valid voter registration card would suffice. If a person did not have this card, a wide sampling of photo and non-photo forms of verifying one’s id could ensure a ballot.

Why the change?

SB 14 is ostensibly designed to prevent voter fraud. However, finding widespread patterns of irregular voting has been elusive. More than 39 million ballots have been cast by Texans since 2004.

By the count of Texas Attorney General Republican Greg Abbott – a staunch defender of SB 14 – only 62 cases of fraudulent voting have been recorded since 2002. Forty of those cases involved doctored mail-in ballots – an illegal act not covered by SB 14.

Rice University political scientist Bob Stein told Houston’s KHOU “that the attorney general has made the case for the plaintiffs. Voter fraud in this state by [his] account is small, if not infinitesimal.” Dana DeBeauvoir, Travis County’s chief elections official, says SB 14 is “a law in search of a crime.”

If the law goes into effect, it will have impact. How much depends on which expert is to be believed.

Stephen Ansolabehere, professor of government at Harvard, argues that there are 1.5 to 1.9 million Texans who voted in recent elections but lack a valid driver’s license, personal identification card or a permit to carry a handgun.

Hispanics are two-thirds more likely than whites to face this situation. To vote in the future, those affected must secure at their own expense the necessary documentation to obtain an SB 14-approved photo id.

University of Texas political scientist Daron Shaw, co-director of polling for Fox News and director of election studies for George Bush in 2000, surveyed a sample of registered Texas voters without a driver’s license.

Among this universe of 800,000, Shaw estimates that only 46,245 will be negatively affected by SB 14. Almost all surveyed — African American, Hispanic and white alike — have an SB 14-sanctioned ID, according to Shaw.

Critics of Shaw’s methods, especially as applied to the Hispanic sub-samples, express concern about how the sample was drawn (based on Spanish surname), the method of conducting the poll (over the telephone), the reliability of the questions asked, the accuracy of responses and a very low response rate.

To interview 600 Hispanics in one study, 72,131 contacts had to be attempted. That is a strike rate of .008%, far below acceptable response rate standards in social science.

The federal court is expected to render a decision in August. A ruling against Texas is likely to bring an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, at which time the state might very well challenge Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which empowers the federal government to vet and approve any changes to state electoral practices.

The VRA was extended to Texas because of its extensive historical record of inhibiting the voting rights of people of color.

A ruling in favor of SB 14 might result in its implementation in the November elections. Although that should have little impact on Governor Romney’s strong chances of winning the presidential race in Texas, SB 14 might affect some congressional and state legislative races.

On the other hand, counties in charge of executing SB 14 will likely seek a delay in enforcement owing to the short preparation time and a lack of administration resources.

(Dr. Jim Lamare is the author of Texas Politics: Economics, Power and Policy, the 7th edition of which was published by Wadsworth in 2001.)

Why are Voter ID laws unconstitutional? Listen to the judges
 

Second Judge Finds Wisconsin's Voter ID Law Unconstitutional

Thursday, 19 July 2012 12:54 By Brendan Fischer

A Wisconsin judge has found that the state's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -inspired voter ID restriction imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, writing that the law "tells more than 300,000 Wisconsin voters who do not now have an acceptable form of photo identification that they cannot vote unless they first obtain a photo ID card."

"That is a lot of people, and most of them are already registered voters," wrote Dane County Judge David Flanagan, making permanent the injunction he issued against the law in March.

In his decision, Judge Flanagan found that the potential burden on voters from Wisconsin's voter ID law -- Act 23 -- was great, but the risk of voter fraud very limited. "Since 2004, voter fraud investigations have been undertaken by the Milwaukee Police Department, by the Mayor of Milwaukee and by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, working with various county prosecutors working through the Attorney General's Election Fraud Task Force," he wrote. "None of these efforts have produced a prosecution of a voter fraud violation that would have been prevented by the voter ID requirements of Act 23."

On balance, the benefits of the law -- stopping the nonexistent voter fraud -- did not outweigh the costs of disenfranchising more than 300,000 Wisconsin voters.

"Act 23 addresses a problem which is very limited, if indeed it exists," Flanagan wrote. "Given the sacred, fundamental interest at issue, it is clear that Act 23, while perhaps addressing a legitimate concern, is not sufficiently narrow to avoid needless and significant impairment of the right to vote."

Additionally, although the law provides for a voter identification card at no charge, Judge Flanagan found that obtaining the ID "can easily be a frustrating, complex and time-consuming process" that "can require the expenditure of an amount of money that is significant for an eligible voter who is indigent."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10434...constitutional

Judges are always right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1708114.html

Why won't they just listen to the judges?

yeah, no fraud occurs...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48360858...ws-jackson_ms/


well, if they do decide to have yet another run-off, perhaps the third time will be the charm.

I don't see in the article where the fraud is on the part of the voters. It says, if I read it right, that more people signed the rolls than apparently actually voted. Which seems to point the blame at the election officials for hiding votes that were legally cast.

Pennsylvania's new law is so cockamamie even the governor couldn't explain it. Voters with valid photo IDs are going to be deprived of their civil right because of non-matching addresses.

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

Glad we can find agreement.

I won't even ask you to complete the sentence: "A woman's right to choose" (what, exactly?)

Don't worry - I don't want another abortion thread either.

it doesn't say what the first fraud was, what caused them to have a second recount.
my point wasn't so much about this making a case for id, but the fact that we have election fraud-and there's no excuse for that.
the states typically require that you change the address on your id when you move. far as i know, it's your physical address that's required. it makes sense to make sure your address matches....that would keep someone from being able to vote in their former precinct as well as a new one. we changed voting areas 15 years ago when we bought this house.

in the article i read the other day, and posted here, there are issues both with registration, and with issues at the booth.
there is no excuse, in this day and age, to be having voting irregularities in this country.
there's certainly no reason for us to be having missouri/kansas type voting either.

i would suggest anyone with questions on what is, or isn't, voting discrimination to read the voting rights amendment page i linked from wikipedia.

age, sex, race, religion are not things you can use to ban voting. other than that, it's up to the states to set election rules. that's what states are trying to do with id, state by state decisions on felons (not all are disenfranchies for ever and ever, amen), on children of citizens living abroad, etc, etc. it does NOT state that discrimination of any kind is banned. if it isn't listed, it isn't banned. that's how states can make you have id, proof of current address, etc. the states have every right to set the rules, it is constitutionally correct. so dems are trying their hardest to make id purely about race, that's the only way to halt it.

I think part of the issue is the active participation. The individual didn't get ID for his or herself.

Would it be discrimination of a person of any racial background does not pack his or her parachute correctly, or does not put a parachute on at all, and then jumps out of a plane?

This is what personal responsibility is all about. And that, as we all know, is a principle of conservativism.

The courts have said that the requirement for the photo ID in the first place, is indeed discriminatory. That's why these laws are being throw out and overturned. Sorry: judicial system says you are wrong.

BTW, Joey, what do you think about this statement? "It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get health insurance for himself then experiences the consequences of that decision".

A "principle" only in someone's imagination. Not in reality.

The "conservative" red states are the states with the largest number of people "living off the government teat" via Medicaid, SCHIPS, food stamps.

The oil and gas industry are the largest recipients of government handouts. Sarah Palin, as governor, required private oil companies to send a check to every citizen of Alaska yearly. That's living off the hard work of others to the extreme!

"Conservatives" don't believe in personal responsibility as they try to dictate how other Americans must live: push a minority view of "Christian" religious law on the rest of us, support laws to require forced childbirth, pass laws against women's freedom, against gays, against Muslims, etc.

Current self-described "conservatives" are far more right than any conservatives in American history.

Theocracies and plutocracies are intolerant and dangerous cults. They are dictatorial and authoritarian. They rely on fear to stay in power. They rely on absolute adherence to authoritarian commandments in their followers - not thinking. Thinking for oneself isn't allowed.

Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh are terrific examples of this, especially how Grover and his anti-tax pledges strike fear into the heart of any signer who dares to cross him - they are immediately threatened with cut off of money, and a primary challenge.

Don't mistake that with "conservatism". William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave at the false flag of "conservatism" of the past 10-15 years.

BTW, the "conservatives" in United Kingdom are more "left" than the Democrats in the United States. That's why they celebrated their National Health Care in the Olympics opening ceremony

it's really got nothing to do with discrimination at all. however, unless dems can make it a case of discrimination, then the voting laws would be upheld, and id's could be required. since no other act requiring i.d. has been found to be discriminatory, i don't understand why it would be in this case.
and it's not gone in front of a jury as far as i know in any state. according to the voting rights act, the doj has to sign off-i think it's an overreach on their part to say it is discriminatory. i'd like to see it go thru the courts, so i can get the legal reason as to why, in voting alone, requirement of id is a form of discrimination...but not for getting a job, getting utilities turned on, and myriad other acts in our daily lives.

You might read the court opinions that have already come down overturning these laws as discriminatory, rather than ignoring that exists.

LOL - complete and obvious ignorance of the subject matter, such as the court case results already posted in this thread, doesn't help your cause.

As they say, ignorance is bliss. Nobody is saying the requirement of an ID is discriminatory. The courts are saying narrowing the requirement to only certain types of ID, less than the various types of ID that are acceptable now, is discriminatory.

Fortunately I can think for myself.

Should ALL ID requirements be thrown out then? No identification to drive, fly in a plane, get a credit card, should we get rid of passports? The thing about judicial findings is that they set precedent, so we'll see where this goes. It is unlikely, that over the long term, that the polling place will be the only place where ID is not required.

What does it matter what I think? You'll cite a judicial finding when it goes your way, or try to hang me with my own opinion - whatever suits your goal, just like the liberals and Democrats in power, and the press. Just like when gay marriage is banned after a referendum, the court throws out the law. But when that vote goes in the direction the liberals like, "Hey, the people have spoken! Hooray for democracy!" Their playbook is so obvious that it is laughable.

But you refuse to extend that legal right to your fellow citizens. Especially pregnant women.

Hello? It appears you - and Danzig - don't understand the subject.

There already exists, in 100% of our states, laws set by the states where various forms of ID is required to register and vote.

That already exists. Okay? Nobody is trying to throw that requirement for Voter ID out. Okay?

These laws regarding Voter ID we are discussing are specifically making it more restrictive, making only certain types of ID acceptable. These new laws are throwing out what some states now currently find acceptable for voter ID.

That - increased, narrowed requirements to vote with only certain and specific types of Voter ID - is what is being found as discriminatory.

i thought i'd do some digging, to see if any voter id laws had reached scotus. i know individual states have been working, or not working, on such laws, so i wanted to see if any had a ruling at the fed court level. i figured i better do some checking, for myself, as nothing was ringing a bell on the subject, but that may just mean i didn't see it.
so, this is one of the very first things i found:

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/..._voter_id_law/

scotus voted 6-3 in favor of indiana's voting law, which required id. an excerpt from the above linked article:


'Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito would have upheld the law on the broader ground that it imposed the same requirements equally on all voters. Both opinions give great weight to the state interest in ensuring that only eligible voters cast ballots. Justice Souter, joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, dissented.

This is a major defeat for the Democrats' efforts to prevent states from requiring valid identification to vote. The lawsuit was brought by the Indiana Democratic Party.'

.......i think that the part about imposing the same requirement on all voters is absolutely the key! regardless of who needs an id, the steps are the same for all-not just for some. therefore, id requirements are absolutely not a form of discrimination.

my question now is, why does the DOJ continue to attack individual states voter id laws, when the supreme court ruled that way back on '08?

Why don't you read some recent newspapers, and see the lower federal courts throw outs of current ALEC-GOP voter ID laws? Like the ones previously posted in this thread?

Nobody is trying to throw out any requirement for voter ID.

The ALEC-GOP laws in discussion are deliberately trying to narrow what type of Voter ID is permitted, and that narrowing has already been found, by federal courts, as discriminatory.

Hint: you've completely misunderstood the subject, that is not what the DOJ is currently "attacking".

Why is the GOP/ALEC instituting restrictive voter ID laws?
 

Why is the GOP/ALEC instituting newly restrictive voter ID laws? As other Republicans have already admitted publicly, it's because they will do anything to cheat and win an election. Disgusting.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_...d_black_votes/

Florida's disgraced former GOP chairman Jim Greer says in legal deposition that the party had meetings about "keeping blacks from voting" and "suppressing black votes"