Voter ID Heads to the Supreme Court

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agz3XkBRduFU&refer=home
from JoeUser Forums

The voter ID "controversy" is finally headed to the Supreme Court, which will hopefully put this issue to rest.  Basically, the Indiana law says that in order to vote you need a photo identification.  If you don't have an ID you may vote with a provisional ballot and then within 10 days either show an ID, or sign a statement saying they cannot afford to have one.

So who has a problem with requiring voters to have an ID......well democrats of course.  The democratic party, along with the ACLU is arguing that requiring ID to vote "disenfranchises" people to vote, and a DNC Chair actually called this a "modern day poll tax".  How ridiculous is this?

The whole point of requiring ID to vote is to stop election fraud, which democrats are usually the first ones to accuse republicans of.  As usual, the DNC is playing to the poor and minorities arguing that they cannot afford ID's, and this will somehow "suppress" voter turnout.  Getting an ID in any state is very inexpensive, and the argument that people cannot afford an ID is just nonsense.

You will see more and more of this as the '08 draws closer.  Democrats are counting on illegal immigrants to vote, and laws like this will prevent it. 

3,015 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If you don't have an ID you may vote with a provisional ballot and then within 10 days either show an ID, or sign a statement saying they cannot afford to have one."

If you sign a statement saying you cannot afford to have an ID, you should have one issued to you. And, if later you can afford one, you should pay for it.

But c'mon. I registered to vote and got a voter registration card. Why can't we give away IDs?

The only people it disenfranchises to vote are those that shouldn't be voting.

As for requiring an ID, it's NOT required. You can just sign a statement. What's the difference between not requiring an ID and this?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I hope the Supremes put the smack down on unidentified voting.  I've been hoping that the issue would be finally settled for quite a while now.  I really, really, really wish that the U.S. Congress would pass a nation wide voter ID law that would apply to any election for a national office.  It only makes sense (unless you are Democrat and really like having unidentified voters voting in multiple places, multiple times, etc.)
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
As usual, the DNC is playing to the poor and minorities arguing that they cannot afford ID's, and this will somehow "suppress" voter turnout. Getting an ID in any state is very inexpensive, and the argument that people cannot afford an ID is just nonsense.

Exactly. How can anyone not afford a state-issued ID? I mean, come on.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Exactly. How can anyone not afford a state-issued ID? I mean, come on.

But, but, but.... I'm too poor.  I can't afford to spend $6 (or whatever the fee is) to get a State issued ID card.  Ok, then fix that problem by requiring the states to issue ID cards for *free* for anyone at or over the age of 18 that does not have a driver's license.  i.e., waive the fee for State issued ID cards entirely and make drivers cover the costs of the relatively small percentage of the populace that needs an ID card but who won't be driving.  It's not that big a pool of people, and if we're talking about having the costs to cover these be passed along to others that have drivers licenses, then I'm well on board with paying an extra $5 (give or take) for my drivers license just to make sure the people in my area that want and need an ID card can have one.  Small price to pay to make sure people who vote are entitled to do so and only vote in one place.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It only makes sense (unless you are Democrat and really like having unidentified voters voting in multiple places, multiple times, etc.)

Don't forget the dead. Voter rolls in Chicago included the... shall we say, recently deceased. And guess which way the dead all voted?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is there anyone that has a real argument against requiring ID's for voting?


Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Don't forget the dead.

Democrats have never met a dead person they did not like!  Brain or otherwise.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Is there anyone that has a real argument against requiring ID's for voting?


Everyone’s vote should count. I live in Florida, do you know how much a state ID costs? $15.00 how can a poor person afford that? Do you know how much crack I would have to give up just so I can vote? When I lived in Illinois there were a lot of dead people on the voting roles last time I checked dead people don’t work so how can they pay for an ID. You are discriminating against people that are poor and the dead. Everyone’s vote should count and you seek to deny formerly hard working dead people their constitutional right to vote. Think how hard it is just to get up to vote every four years now you want them to go to some office and stand in line. What about dead women? Poor or not they won’t want to have their picture taken when they are not looking their best. It is obvious you seek to embarrass these people to keep them from the polls.
You sir are a heartless cruel man just like the rest of you evil right wing hate mongers. Everyone knows a fair election is one where the democrats win.

Hey, you asked for a real argument not a serious one.

Back to reality. Requiring people to have a valid ID is only the start. We need to vet the election workers as well. In Dade county Florida we had a guy driving around from poll to poll as an election worker dropping off ballots. It was just a coincidence that he had in the trunk of his car a voting machine and several boxes of blank ballots. When the police caught him most of the boxes were empty. He was a registered democrat and a local election official. He still has not been arrested some seven years later.