Supreme Court Guts The Key Part of Landmark

[scribblet]

You can also show two pieces of mail (bills) with your address on them. No ID required.

Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address. that's ID

Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you (both of you will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector. You also have to be a Canadian citizen but they don't ask for proof.

ID is required in some form... and in Ontario

http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/media/en/E0599_Identification_Requirements_for_Voting_in_Ontario_Provincial_Elections_12-2010.html

[The_Squid]

The voter ID that we are talking about in the USA are more restrictive now. No longer can someone show ID like we do in Canada and like Americans have been able to do until recently.

[The_Squid]

Exactly. Even bills are a form of identification. Just not photo identification.

You didn't know about these ID provisions in Canada. You thought you had to show picture ID.

[scribblet]

The voter ID that we are talking about in the USA are more restrictive now. No longer can someone show ID like we do in Canada and like Americans have been able to do until recently.

In ALL states, or just some ?

[The_Squid]

In ALL states, or just some ?

Several Republican controlled states.

[jbg]

Proving who you are seems to be the bare minimum that one can do to at least keep up the appearance of preventing fraud. It makes me shake my head that Americans are not required to do this already. The opposition to it is equally puzzling. ID is discriminatory? Yeah. it discriminates against fraud.

You don't think I should be able to vote as "JBG" or one of my Rabble identities, "Love Billy Goat"?

[The_Squid]

You don't think I should be able to vote as "JBG" or one of my Rabble identities, "Love Billy Goat"?

No one can do that anyway, so you are simply making stuff up.

[Shady]

No one can do that anyway, so you are simply making stuff up.

Nope, you can vote without any identification at all in many cases. You're simply refusing to acknowledge the video, as well as the accumulation of overwhelming evidence.

[Shady]

The voter ID that we are talking about in the USA are more restrictive now.

Which ones? Personally, I think it should be restrictive. If I have to show ID to buy cigarettes, then I most certainly should when going to vote. Which one is more important?

[Shady]

Several Republican controlled states.

Which laws are you referring to?

[bush_cheney2004]

Which ones? Personally, I think it should be restrictive. If I have to show ID to buy cigarettes, then I most certainly should when going to vote. Which one is more important?

Yep....I have to show photo ID just to buy some NyQuil cold medicine.

[jbg]

Which ones? Personally, I think it should be restrictive.

I wouldn't mind some type of testing to become a voter, akin to what is needed to become a citizen. As long as they don't ask black's questions such as "how many hairs are on a person's head"? That was typical of the racism of the pre-Civil Rights era.

[The_Squid]

I wouldn't mind some type of testing to become a voter, akin to what is needed to become a citizen. As long as they don't ask black's questions such as "how many hairs are on a person's head"? That was typical of the racism of the pre-Civil Rights era.

The Republicans will have to think of much more sneaky ways to deny blacks their voting rights this time....

[bush_cheney2004]

The Republicans will have to think of much more sneaky ways to deny blacks their voting rights this time....

Maybe they could use a head tax like in Canada.

[guyser]

You're simply refusing to acknowledge the video, as well as the accumulation of overwhelming evidence.

Maybe you have some evidence of such?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp ...says you are wrong

Despite many instances of electoral fraud internationally, in the U.S. a major study by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007^[2] showed of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and of those few cases, most involved persons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility-Wiki.....says you are wrong

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2013/2013-05-23.aspx....they say you are mostly wrong, 22 suspected cases in a state w a pop of 12million....oh noes! the sky is falling ! 22 suspected cases

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/truth-about-fraud.....they outright laugh at the assertions you make.

But hey....it makes for a good story, BS...but a good story, a myth. You are probably better sticking to buying cigarettes w your ID.

[Argus]

Reading this makes it pretty clear the real bigots aren't living in Texas.

Because you're ignorant about the move to keep minorities from voting? Sorry, but your ignorance does not reflect on me.

[Argus]

The Republicans will have to think of much more sneaky ways to deny blacks their voting rights this time....

One popular path is preventing ex-felons from voting for up to five years, since so many blacks have criminal convictions. Another is to require picture ID, since a lot of poorer people don't have any. Then there's the efforts to keep college students from voting because they're young and thus assumed to be democrat.

This is happening all over the country. Newly empowered Republican legislatures have been imposing onerous voter ID laws in at least 32 states, even though in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. Texas went as far as exempting concealed carry permit holders and people born before 1931 from its voter ID law, a transparent admission that such laws can needlessly disenfranchise voters and that the intent of the law was to disenfranchise likely Democratic constituencies.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/republicans_war_on_voting.html

Even an intensive five-year investigation by the Department of Justice under George W. Bush famously netted only 86 voter-fraud convictions. Most of these were for offenses like vote-buying schemes or ineligible voters registering to vote -- not for voter fraud that could have been prevented by a voter-ID law. Voter-ID laws do, however, serve to disenfranchise many voters -- primarily people of color, young people, senior citizens, and people with disabilities

http://prospect.org/article/misidentified-priorities-0

[Shady]

After going through the ruling more carefully, this decision hardly guts anything. All it does is treats all 50 states the same way when it comes to election rules and law. But make no mistake, Democrats will continue to push to water down voting regulations as to make it easier and easier for people that shouldn't be voting, to not only vote, but vote multiple times.

The Democrat way...

HAMILTON COUNTY, Ohio (CBS Cleveland) — An Ohio poll worker reportedly admitted to voting for President Barack Obama twice in the November 2012 election, but is being investigated for possibly voting up to six times for him.

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2013/02/19/ohio-poll-worker-investigated-for-possibly-voting-for-obama-up-to-6-times/

[kimmy]

People who are concerned about voting rights should forget about voter ID (which is a reasonable requirement, as far as I'm concerned) and focus on things like gerrymandering, voter registry purges, inadequate number of polling stations, early poll closures, and voter registration shenanigans.

-k

[Bryan]

Because you're ignorant about the move to keep minorities from voting? Sorry, but your ignorance does not reflect on me.

Once again, you insist on exposing yourself as the very definition of the term you're trying to paint others with.

[Shady]

Once again, you insist on exposing yourself as the very definition of the term you're trying to paint others with.

You're right, when it comes to American politics, he's as stereotypical as one can be, facts be damned.

[guyser]

You're right, when it comes to American politics, he's as stereotypical as one can be, facts be damned.

Pretty rich coming from you considering your line about fraud fraud fraud was proven to be a bald faced lie .

Facts be damned should be your motto.

But , as before, I am sure you will run away and not respond like oh so many times before. Pathetic really, but expected

[Wilber]

I don't think providing ID is unreasonable but it shouldn't be made an obsticle that tries to prevent legitimate voters from excercising their franchise. The real test will be, what kind of ID will be required and how difficult it will be made to aquire for people who don't have any picture ID such as a drivers license or passport.

It will be intresting to see which state legislatures are committed to the democratic process and which if any, use this as a means to corrupt it.

[Guest American Woman]

The real test will be, what kind of ID will be required and how difficult it will be made to aquire for people who don't have any picture ID such as a drivers license or passport.

In Michigan it's easy to get a photo ID just like a driver's license even if one doesn't drive. When my daughters were young, before the days of required passports for the Caribbean, I easily got them photo ID's (photo IDs were required). I can't imagine why it would be any more difficult for anyone else to obtain such an ID and I would imagine it would be no more difficult in any other state.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think providing ID is unreasonable but it shouldn't be made an obsticle that tries to prevent legitimate voters from excercising their franchise. The real test will be, what kind of ID will be required and how difficult it will be made to aquire for people who don't have any picture ID such as a drivers license or passport.

Many years ago, I presented at my designated polling place late in the day to get a ballot. Somebody had already used my name in the voting registry. They let me vote anyway, but only after presenting a driver's license ID, which technically could not be required. I guess the polling judge just rationalized it away as a marking mistake in the registry.

It will be intresting to see which state legislatures are committed to the democratic process and which if any, use this as a means to corrupt it.

I think it's more of a problem with two party rule. Almost half of eligible voters don't even bother. But at any rate, singling out nine states only for "pre-clearance" by the Feds because of past history is not equal protection.