Supreme Court Guts The Key Part of Landmark

[Shady]

I dissagree. While it may improve the integrity of the system, integrity is not the main concern of many of its biggest backers.

I disagree. The main concern is making sure people who are legally allowed to vote are voting, and voting only once per election.

[Bryan]

The main concern is making sure people who are legally allowed to vote are voting, and voting only once per election.

Quoted for truth.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Bryan

[Wilber]

I disagree. The main concern is making sure people who are legally allowed to vote are voting, and voting only once per election.

That is a concern but it would be more believable of it's biggest proponents were not trying to engineer the system to their advantage in other ways

[cybercoma]

How does it dissuade them? Get an ID, boom, done.

Argus already dispensed with this "anyone can get ID" argument. Nobody's saying it's not possible to get ID.

[cybercoma]

That is a concern but it would be more believable of it's biggest proponents were not trying to engineer the system to their advantage in other ways

Or if they could prove that there's actually an issue with fraudulent votes. That would be a good start.

[Guest American Woman]

No, but perhaps discussing their real agenda will put pressure on these legislators to remedy the other issues instead of hiding under the cloak of patriotism.

Discussing what some feel is their real agenda is only keeping this thing going; ie: it's an obstacle to putting through a "reasonable requirement." Once we get past this, perhaps then we'd have the opportunity to move on to those "other issues" - instead of focusing on this one. As it stands, it comes across as: 'Yeah, I agree with such and such a law, I think it's a good thing, but I don't like the intentions of some who support it, so I object to it.'

[Bryan]

Argus already dispensed with this "anyone can get ID" argument. Nobody's saying it's not possible to get ID.

So we agree then, there's no credible reason not to require ID for voting.

Or if they could prove that there's actually an issue with fraudulent votes. That would be a good start.

My house has never been broken into, doesn't mean locks and alarms aren't good idea.

It's more than enough that it's been conclusively proven that anyone who wanted to commit voter fraud could easily do so, and not be detected. Even if it hasn't been a problem yet, it's still a huge hole in the system that should be closed.

[Shady]

That is a concern but it would be more believable of it's biggest proponents were not trying to engineer the system to their advantage in other ways

I'm not sure of the proponents or the ways you speak of. I am sure that valid ID is a very good way to keep elections secure and legitimate though. It wouldn't be necessary, but too many people have tried to game the system and ruined it for the rest of the people.

[Guest American Woman]

I have to wonder how many people who think it's too great a burden to obtain a valid ID would actually take the time and make the effort to go out and vote. As has already been pointed out, voter turnout isn't that great, not nearly as many people who should vote actually do take the time and make the effort to vote, but those who can't be bothered to get a valid ID would be among those who do vote in great numbers? I find that highly unlikely.

[Wilber]

I'm not sure of the proponents or the ways you speak of. I am sure that valid ID is a very good way to keep elections secure and legitimate though. It wouldn't be necessary, but too many people have tried to game the system and ruined it for the rest of the people.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence of that but still, asking for ID in itself isn't unreasonable. We'll just have to wait and see how it is implemented, whether serious attempts are made to help people get ID or whether it is just used as an impediment.

[Shady]

There doesn't seem to be much evidence of that but still, asking for ID in itself isn't unreasonable. We'll just have to wait and see how it is implemented, whether serious attempts are made to help people get ID or whether it is just used as an impediment.

I agree, it depends how it's implemented. Usually such laws make accommodations in certain cases.

[kimmy]

Discussing what some feel is their real agenda is only keeping this thing going; ie: it's an obstacle to putting through a "reasonable requirement." Once we get past this, perhaps then we'd have the opportunity to move on to those "other issues" - instead of focusing on this one. As it stands, it comes across as: 'Yeah, I agree with such and such a law, I think it's a good thing, but I don't like the intentions of some who support it, so I object to it.'

Why is it that you were so concerned about Edward Snowden's motives, but you don't seem to care about Rick Perry's motives?

There's a strong appearance of malice in these campaigns. If their motives are pure and they really do care about the integrity of the democratic process, then they can prove their accusers wrong by taking action to make sure that the people affected get IDs, and by taking credible action on the skullduggery that happens in their states to keep minorities and college students from voting. Until they do, the accusations of malice are deserved.

-k

[GostHacked]

Actually, the integrity of the system IS the primary reason people are moving to these laws. Because the system has been so undermined by Democrats for several decades.

Yeah stupid Democrats for allowing the Republican party to steal the 2004 election for Bush. Shameful really.

[Shady]

Why is it that you were so concerned about Edward Snowden's motives, but you don't seem to care about Rick Perry's motives?There's a strong appearance of malice in these campaigns. If their motives are pure and they really do care about the integrity of the democratic process, then they can prove their accusers wrong by taking action to make sure that the people affected get IDs, and by taking credible action on the skullduggery that happens in their states to keep minorities and college students from voting. Until they do, the accusations of malice are deserved.-k

What are Rick Perry's motives? Other than voter integrity? What about the motives of the opposition. There's a strong appearance to me that they're against such proposals because people that legally aren't suppose to be voting, won't be able to vote. And won't be able to vote more than once.

[Shady]

Yeah stupid Democrats for allowing the Republican party to steal the 2004 election for Bush. Shameful really.

How did they steal the 2004 election? Did I miss something?

[Guest American Woman]

Why is it that you were so concerned about Edward Snowden's motives, but you don't seem to care about Rick Perry's motives?

I agree with requiring voter IDs and I don't agree with breaching U.S. security. I thought that would be obvious. Again. I agree with requiring valid IDs when voting, and I don't feel the need to have everyone behind it for the same reasons in order for it to happen.

There's a strong appearance of malice in these campaigns. If their motives are pure and they really do care about the integrity of the democratic process, then they can prove their accusers wrong by taking action to make sure that the people affected get IDs, and by taking credible action on the skullduggery that happens in their states to keep minorities and college students from voting. Until they do, the accusations of malice are deserved.

Deserved or not, I want to see the requirement for valid ID's go through. As has been pointed out regarding "motives," one could turn the coin over and dwell on the idea that the Democrats aren't concerned about voter IDs because it would hurt Democrats.

Bottom line. Requiring valid voter IDs is either a good thing or it's not; whether or not all of the supporters support it for the same reasons has no bearing on that.

[Shady]

I agree with requiring voter IDs and I don't agree with breaching U.S. security. I thought that would be obvious. Again. I agree with requiring valid IDs when voting, and I don't feel the need to have everyone behind it for the same reasons in order for it to happen. Deserved or not, I want to see the requirement for valid ID's go through. As has been pointed out regarding "motives," one could turn the coin over and dwell on the idea that the Democrats aren't concerned about voter IDs because it would hurt Democrats. Bottom line. Requiring valid voter IDs is either a good thing or it's not; whether or not all of the supporters support it for the same reasons has no bearing on that.

Well said.

[kimmy]

I agree with requiring voter IDs and I don't agree with breaching U.S. security. I thought that would be obvious. Again. I agree with requiring valid IDs when voting, and I don't feel the need to have everyone behind it for the same reasons in order for it to happen.

A lot of people feel that whatever Snowden's motives, informing the public that their 4th Amendment rights were being violated was a worthy act.

Deserved or not, I want to see the requirement for valid ID's go through. As has been pointed out regarding "motives," one could turn the coin over and dwell on the idea that the Democrats aren't concerned about voter IDs because it would hurt Democrats.

I would think that all Americans, Democrat or not, should be concerned that some legislators and officials are deliberately disenfranchising members of the public. And that's not just in reference to voter ID, it's in reference to things including but not limited to voters being arbitrarily stricken from voting lists, people in Latino neighborhoods in Miami having to line up 8 hours to cast their votes, polling locations being shut down early and arbitrarily, laws that made it harder for people to register to vote, laws that punished organizations that attempt to register voters, closing down DMV offices in Democrat-voting areas to make it harder for Democrat voters to obtain the voter ID that's supposed to be easy for everybody to get, and attempting to have polling stations removed from college campuses.

Bottom line. Requiring valid voter IDs is either a good thing or it's not; whether or not all of the supporters support it for the same reasons has no bearing on that.

Seems like they've picked one issue that works to their advantage and ignored a whole bunch that would be to their disadvantage. Hence the accusation of malice.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I would think that all Americans, Democrat or not, should be concerned that some legislators and officials are deliberately disenfranchising members of the public. ...

Do your concerns extend to the rich ? How about the well educated ? Or maybe Americans abroad or those serving in the armed services. Or voters who won't vote for Democrats ?

[kimmy]

Do your concerns extend to the rich ? How about the well educated ? Or maybe Americans abroad or those serving in the armed services. Or voters who won't vote for Democrats ?

Of course I would be concerned, although I confess I'm unaware of any organized efforts to keep rich people or members the military from voting. As far as the well-educated, I think I already gave my opinion of voter suppression efforts aimed at college students.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course I would be concerned, although I confess I'm unaware of any organized efforts to keep rich people or members the military from voting. As far as the well-educated, I think I already gave my opinion of voter suppression efforts aimed at college students.

OK...I just didn't see any references to "rich people" in the anguished arguments against voter id listed above. I am sure it was just an oversight. Surely so much concern about Americans being "disenfranchised" applies to all eligible voters, including hedge fund managers, professional athletes, brain surgeons, and multi-million dollar lottery winners.

[kimmy]

OK...I just didn't see any references to "rich people" in the anguished arguments against voter id listed above. I am sure it was just an oversight. Surely so much concern about Americans being "disenfranchised" applies to all eligible voters, including hedge fund managers, professional athletes, brain surgeons, and multi-million dollar lottery winners.

aw, and here I was hoping you'd regale me with tales of the disenfranchised rich-guys, hedge-fund managers, professional athletes, and brain surgeons.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

aw, and here I was hoping you'd regale me with tales of the disenfranchised rich-guys, hedge-fund managers, professional athletes, and brain surgeons.

What if the poor rich dears can't easily get a photo id, being so busy making so much money ? And they are too busy to renew their driver's licenses ? Where is the concern for these Americans ? Where is the love?

[kimmy]

What if the poor rich dears can't easily get a photo id, being so busy making so much money ? And they are too busy to renew their driver's licenses ? Where is the concern for these Americans ? Where is the love?

I think that you might be confused about what I was saying. I listed things that happen in real life, not things that might happen in Bill O'Reilly's nightmares.

If you're concerned that my concern over voting rights only extends to people who'd vote Democrat, why don't you fire up the Waback Machine and see what I wrote about the DoJ's failure to prosecute the Black Panther thugs who were standing outside the polling station in Philadelphia?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

If you're concerned that my concern over voting rights only extends to people who'd vote Democrat, why don't you fire up the Waback Machine and see what I wrote about the DoJ's failure to prosecute the Black Panther thugs who were standing outside the polling station in Philadelphia?

Another false assumption....do you think all "Black Panthers" vote/support Democrats ?