Voter ID requirements might be here to stay

... and coming for more states too!

from JoeUser Forums

Apparently the U.S. Supreme Court was quite skeptical of arguments that voter ID requirements are too much of a burden to be placed upon those that elect officials in this country.  Amazingly enough, even Justice Kennedy seems inclined to support voter id requirements, or at least he questioned fairly hard why such requirements really interfere with anyone's right to vote.

Original news article here: Court questions voter-ID critics

I'm not sure the liberals that control things in Maryland would ever support a voter ID requirement (especially considering the dead in Baltimore were well known to be voting democratic over the last several elections, and because the lists of registered voters never get purged in Maryland either :-( ) but I sure hope that such requirements would gain national momentum.

Enough of the shennanigans in allowing people to vote in any precinct they care to make out an affidavit in.  Require picture ID and confirm that voters that have already voted once are not going somewhere else to do it again.

politics
5,771 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Require picture ID and confirm that voters that have already voted once are not going somewhere else to do it again.
End of quote



I agree but to make sure this works right. All of the polling places would need to be connected by computers. Because, after the extra votes are cast how do you decide which votes to throw out.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Voter ID and doing away with "Motor voter", and same day registrations would end most of the voter fraud out there. These programs make it almost impossible to stop multiple voting and voting by ineligible people.

I always laugh at people who say that requiring an ID makes it too hard for the poor or college students.

Have any of the people who say that ever applied for welfare, social security or registered for college?

If someone can accomplish those, there is no way on God's green earth they will have a hard time registering to vote.... unless they are trying to do it illegally.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not good for democrats.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

I always laugh at people who say that requiring an ID makes it too hard for the poor or college students.

College students?  You cant go anywhere on a college campus without a picture ID!  That is a new one, and the most ludicrous.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
You cant go anywhere on a college campus without a picture ID!
End of quote


True but it is not a government issued ID. That is what the argument from the Democrats and the ACLU is about. I agree it is a bad and stupid argument on their part.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

The toughest requirement for the picture ID talked about in the originally linked article is the requirement that the ID must be linked back to a birth certificate.  I can see that being a hardship for *a few* individuals, but that would be a very small portion of the population and as that population ages and passes on, it's less and less of an issue.

Think about it -- how many people are born in this country without having a birth certificate?  It is virtually impossible in this day and age that you wouldn't have proof that you were born in the U.S.A., assuming you were born within the last 80 (give or take) years.

Of course Dems assume they are the party of the retirees, and the poor, and that would include the poor share croppers and such that grew up in the south and just dropped children without having records of it (who would need a record of a birth when you could obviously just point over at the individual and show they must have been born???!?  )

There are methods in place to get birth certificates for those that need a copy and/or must obtain such documentation even long after the fact.  It might take a little work to get such a certificate, but that work is a one time process that opens up so many doors for services to be provided by the government (local, state and federal) that it's well worth it.  Add in the idea that it would now be required for voting and it's all the more important.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are methods in place to get birth certificates for those that need a copy and/or must obtain such documentation even long after the fact. It might take a little work to get such a certificate, but that work is a one time process that opens up so many doors for services to be provided by the government (local, state and federal) that it's well worth it. Add in the idea that it would now be required for voting and it's all the more important.
End of quote


Exactly! With all the other rights that are tied to presenting a birth certificate, not requiring one (or similar proof of eligibility to vote) is just a lame, politically motivated excuse.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
> Enough of the shennanigans in allowing people to vote in any precinct they care to make out an affidavit in.

The duplicate votes per person issue should already be largely solved. A few years ago the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) required all states maintain the master voting list. Previously it had often been handled at the county or city level. Under the old system, someone could easily vote in more than 1 county. At this point, most states have had their systems live for more than a year.

These central databases do nothing to ensure that the person voting is the actual person. However, they should no longer be able to go from one precinct to another and cast a vote. Before registering someone, the registrar must now first search the central database to see if they are already registered.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
These central databases do nothing to ensure that the person voting is the actual person. However, they should no longer be able to go from one precinct to another and cast a vote. Before registering someone, the registrar must now first search the central database to see if they are already registered.
End of quote


Wrong.

Here in Wisconsin it is legal to register to vote on voting day. Anyone can jump from precinct to precinct, registering and voting at will. The "protection" against that is, their votes aren't supposed to count until their eligibility is determined. However, they vote, they put their ballot in the machine, and that's about it.

Federal investigators found over 1500 counts of fraudulent votes in Milwaukee County alone. The Attorney General of the state didn't bring a single person to trial, and King Doyle said the cases were uninforceable.

In another situation, "The New Voters Project" got their members deputized as official election registrars, that means that they are the authorized to register people, no questions asked. The organization then paid those "registrar" $1.50 per voter registration they submitted.

The "registrars" went to work, mostly on college campuses, they were registering any and all students who wanted to.

Again, the AG and Governor refused to acknowledge any evidence.

In yet another case...

Local DNC members were going door to door in neighborhoods with traditionally low voter turnout. They asked the people if they were planning on voting. If they said "no", they told them how to register for an absentee ballot (you can vote absentee here, even if you are still in the state).

They also gave the people a self addressed stamped envelope. They asked the people to put the absentee ballot in the envelope and send it in the mail... blank.


Voter fraud happens in every state, but in Wisconsin, with King Doyle farting on the thrown, it is a spectator sport.

Don't fill me with BS about "problem solved".