ACLU Sues Over Racist Photo ID Law

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Madison - The American Civil Liberties Union sued the State of Wisconsin on Tuesday over a new law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, charging that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit says that the state is infringing on some citizens' right to vote and to be treated equally under the law and amounts to a kind of poll tax on voters who lack the documents needed to get an approved ID.

Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker, who is named in the lawsuit..."

"This lawsuit is the opening act in what will be a long struggle to undo the damage done to the right to vote by strict photo ID laws and other voter suppression measures," said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project."
ACLU sues Wisconsin over photo ID law - JSOnline


And, in a related story....

2. "On Wednesday, the Politico ran a story about the International Association of Machinists Union at Boeing agreeing to approve a contract extension, the result of which ultimately led to the National Labor Relations Board dropping its controversial decision to prevent the company from beginning to operate a mostly-constructed plant in South Carolina.

Though it deserves separate commentary, that decision is not the subject of this post. What is germane at the moment is the howler of a photo accompanying the Politico's report which appears after the jump.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has given 99% of its campaign money to Democrats (according to ElectionLawCenter.com, citing OpenSecrets.org). Democrats, including Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, who will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow supporting the rejection of voter-ID laws and, according to the Texas GOP, "NAACP plans to involve the United Nations on (sic) US elections," abhor the idea of making voters bring some form of photo identification to the polls.

Yet the IAM in the instance photographed required a photo ID of all who wished to vote in a contract ratification election. From the looks of the professionally made sign, the photo-ID requirement in the union's elections would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why?"
Union Election Requires Photo ID; Politico Fails to Note Irony | NewsBusters.org

Hmmm.....seems that a certain party wants to make sure that voter fraud is memorialized in law...but has the classic NIMBY attitude when it comes to their own.....

Does this mean that the Democrats cannot get legal voters to support their platform (Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.)?

Could be, huh?

 

[blastoff]

Ah, the ACLU at it again. That wonderful organization whose roots go back to the American Communist Party trying to help their dimocrat friends one more time.

 

[Claudette]

1. "Madison - The American Civil Liberties Union sued the State of Wisconsin on Tuesday over a new law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, charging that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit says that the state is infringing on some citizens' right to vote and to be treated equally under the law and amounts to a kind of poll tax on voters who lack the documents needed to get an approved ID.

Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker, who is named in the lawsuit..."

"This lawsuit is the opening act in what will be a long struggle to undo the damage done to the right to vote by strict photo ID laws and other voter suppression measures," said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project."
ACLU sues Wisconsin over photo ID law - JSOnline


And, in a related story....

2. "On Wednesday, the Politico ran a story about the International Association of Machinists Union at Boeing agreeing to approve a contract extension, the result of which ultimately led to the National Labor Relations Board dropping its controversial decision to prevent the company from beginning to operate a mostly-constructed plant in South Carolina.

Though it deserves separate commentary, that decision is not the subject of this post. What is germane at the moment is the howler of a photo accompanying the Politico's report which appears after the jump.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has given 99% of its campaign money to Democrats (according to ElectionLawCenter.com, citing OpenSecrets.org). Democrats, including Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, who will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow supporting the rejection of voter-ID laws and, according to the Texas GOP, "NAACP plans to involve the United Nations on (sic) US elections," abhor the idea of making voters bring some form of photo identification to the polls.

Yet the IAM in the instance photographed required a photo ID of all who wished to vote in a contract ratification election. From the looks of the professionally made sign, the photo-ID requirement in the union's elections would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why?"
Union Election Requires Photo ID; Politico Fails to Note Irony | NewsBusters.org

Hmmm.....seems that a certain party wants to make sure that voter fraud is memorialized in law...but has the classic NIMBY attitude when it comes to their own.....

Does this mean that the Democrats cannot get legal voters to support their platform (Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.)?

Could be, huh?

Shit. Wheres TDM when you need the idiot??

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, the ACLU at it again. That wonderful organization whose roots go back to the American Communist Party trying to help their dimocrat friends one more time.

So...ya' think the ACLU will sue the union?

After all they announced that there should be "a long struggle to undo the damage done to the right to vote by strict photo ID laws and other voter suppression measures...."


I just know we can count on the ACLU to right these wrongs!
Yep...I feel it in my bones!

 

[ladyliberal]

What an indecipherable story from Newsbusters.

Newsbusters, purportedly reporting on news agencies, can't even get the name of the site they link to correct (it is of course "Politico", not "the Politico")

Newsbusters cites "the Texas GOP". Since no such organization exists, one might assume that this refers to the group "Republican Party of Texas". In fact, however, Newsbusters seems to be citing the much more obscure group "Texas GOP Vote". The sentence in question is hopelessly ungrammatical, but it might be read as attributing the similarly ungrammatical direct quote to Holder. In fact, the ungrammatical line was written by some anonymous member of Texas GOP Vote (Eric Holder to Visit Austin Tuesday to Discuss Voting Laws, Patriots to Hold Counter Protest | Texas GOP Vote). Needless to say, a political opponent making anonymous claims is an exceptionally poor source on Holder's actual position.

Newsbusters cites the Election Law Center as claiming that the union gives 99% of its money to Democrats. No such information exists on the page linked to. It also says that such information ultimately derives from Open Secrets. In fact, according to Open Secrets (Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union: Summary | OpenSecrets), that statistic is completely wrong. I'm not saying the Union doesn't favor Democrats, but the particular figures cited simply have no basis in reality.


Now then, putting aside the extremely dubious messenger, I find nothing surprising about this union requiring photo id:

This was presumably the Union's choice: the Democratic party did not ask them to require photo ID, and the party is not particularly responsible for what they do. This is no more hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats than it would be hypocritical of Republicans to accept money from an organization that *didn't* require photo id in similar circumstances.

Unlike in US elections, there is no Constitutional issue here. Voting in a private organization is not a Constitutional right.

Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID presents a substantial barrier to voting.

Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID won't substantially deter fraud.

 

[Conservative]

What an indecipherable story from Newsbusters.

Newsbusters, purportedly reporting on news agencies, can't even get the name of the site they link to correct (it is of course "Politico", not "the Politico")

Newsbusters cites "the Texas GOP". Since no such organization exists, one might assume that this refers to the group "Republican Party of Texas". In fact, however, Newsbusters seems to be citing the much more obscure group "Texas GOP Vote". The sentence in question is hopelessly ungrammatical, but it might be read as attributing the similarly ungrammatical direct quote to Holder. In fact, the ungrammatical line was written by some anonymous member of Texas GOP Vote (Eric Holder to Visit Austin Tuesday to Discuss Voting Laws, Patriots to Hold Counter Protest | Texas GOP Vote). Needless to say, a political opponent making anonymous claims is an exceptionally poor source on Holder's actual position.

Newsbusters cites the Election Law Center as claiming that the union gives 99% of its money to Democrats. No such information exists on the page linked to. It also says that such information ultimately derives from Open Secrets. In fact, according to Open Secrets (Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union: Summary | OpenSecrets), that statistic is completely wrong. I'm not saying the Union doesn't favor Democrats, but the particular figures cited simply have no basis in reality.


Now then, putting aside the extremely dubious messenger, I find nothing surprising about this union requiring photo id:

This was presumably the Union's choice: the Democratic party did not ask them to require photo ID, and the party is not particularly responsible for what they do. This is no more hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats than it would be hypocritical of Republicans to accept money from an organization that *didn't* require photo id in similar circumstances.

Unlike in US elections, there is no Constitutional issue here. Voting in a private organization is not a Constitutional right.

Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID presents a substantial barrier to voting.

Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID won't substantially deter fraud.

Home :: TexasGOP - Republican Party of Texas

 

[PoliticalChic]

What an indecipherable story from Newsbusters.

Newsbusters, purportedly reporting on news agencies, can't even get the name of the site they link to correct (it is of course "Politico", not "the Politico")

Newsbusters cites "the Texas GOP". Since no such organization exists, one might assume that this refers to the group "Republican Party of Texas". In fact, however, Newsbusters seems to be citing the much more obscure group "Texas GOP Vote". The sentence in question is hopelessly ungrammatical, but it might be read as attributing the similarly ungrammatical direct quote to Holder. In fact, the ungrammatical line was written by some anonymous member of Texas GOP Vote (Eric Holder to Visit Austin Tuesday to Discuss Voting Laws, Patriots to Hold Counter Protest | Texas GOP Vote). Needless to say, a political opponent making anonymous claims is an exceptionally poor source on Holder's actual position.

Newsbusters cites the Election Law Center as claiming that the union gives 99% of its money to Democrats. No such information exists on the page linked to. It also says that such information ultimately derives from Open Secrets. In fact, according to Open Secrets (Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union: Summary | OpenSecrets), that statistic is completely wrong. I'm not saying the Union doesn't favor Democrats, but the particular figures cited simply have no basis in reality.


Now then, putting aside the extremely dubious messenger, I find nothing surprising about this union requiring photo id:

This was presumably the Union's choice: the Democratic party did not ask them to require photo ID, and the party is not particularly responsible for what they do. This is no more hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats than it would be hypocritical of Republicans to accept money from an organization that *didn't* require photo id in similar circumstances.

Unlike in US elections, there is no Constitutional issue here. Voting in a private organization is not a Constitutional right.

Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID presents a substantial barrier to voting.

Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID won't substantially deter fraud.

1. "I find nothing surprising about this union requiring photo id."

Agreed.

If you could list reasons why the organization might see it as adding to the integrity of the outcome of its procedural vote, I could then simply copy same and use it to explain to you why the same reasons apply to local, state, federal elections.

2. "Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID won't substantially deter fraud." Do you mean 'will'?
Did you mean that there IS evidence that in US elections, there is evidence that requiring a photo ID won't substantially deter fraud..."? ...as your sentence is unclear.

And, if so, and if you're not too busy, could you provide the evidence?
...and if you do so, I'd be more than happy to provide evidence that requiring a photo ID does not suppress voter turnout.


Now, be clear....is it not intuitive that the reason to object to photo ID is merely a way to ensure a degree of fraud that would otherwise not occur?


Especially since it is coming from the same party that is working to have felons vote, as well as illegal immigrants?

 

[kyzr]

I can recall when the dems screamed about poll watchers video-taping polling places to see if anyone was voting more than once. The fucking dems went ballistic, whining about "voter intimidation" and "racist policies", leading to laws against using video recorders withing a mile of polling places.

Then the fucking Black Panthers can stand outside polling placed holding clubs, and that's fine.

If you can't get a photo ID you aren't qualified to vote.

 

[ladyliberal]

What an indecipherable story from Newsbusters.

Newsbusters, purportedly reporting on news agencies, can't even get the name of the site they link to correct (it is of course "Politico", not "the Politico")

Newsbusters cites "the Texas GOP". Since no such organization exists, one might assume that this refers to the group "Republican Party of Texas". In fact, however, Newsbusters seems to be citing the much more obscure group "Texas GOP Vote". The sentence in question is hopelessly ungrammatical, but it might be read as attributing the similarly ungrammatical direct quote to Holder. In fact, the ungrammatical line was written by some anonymous member of Texas GOP Vote (Eric Holder to Visit Austin Tuesday to Discuss Voting Laws, Patriots to Hold Counter Protest | Texas GOP Vote). Needless to say, a political opponent making anonymous claims is an exceptionally poor source on Holder's actual position.

Newsbusters cites the Election Law Center as claiming that the union gives 99% of its money to Democrats. No such information exists on the page linked to. It also says that such information ultimately derives from Open Secrets. In fact, according to Open Secrets (Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union: Summary | OpenSecrets), that statistic is completely wrong. I'm not saying the Union doesn't favor Democrats, but the particular figures cited simply have no basis in reality.


Now then, putting aside the extremely dubious messenger, I find nothing surprising about this union requiring photo id:

This was presumably the Union's choice: the Democratic party did not ask them to require photo ID, and the party is not particularly responsible for what they do. This is no more hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats than it would be hypocritical of Republicans to accept money from an organization that *didn't* require photo id in similar circumstances.

Unlike in US elections, there is no Constitutional issue here. Voting in a private organization is not a Constitutional right.

Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID presents a substantial barrier to voting.

Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID won't substantially deter fraud.

1. "I find nothing surprising about this union requiring photo id."

Agreed.

If you could list reasons why the organization might see it as adding to the integrity of the outcome of its procedural vote, I could then simply copy same and use it to explain to you why the same reasons apply to local, state, federal elections.

2. "Unlike in US elections, there is no evidence that requiring a photo ID won't substantially deter fraud." Do you mean 'will'?
Did you mean that there IS evidence that in US elections, there is evidence that requiring a photo ID won't substantially deter fraud..."? ...as your sentence is unclear.

And, if so, and if you're not too busy, could you provide the evidence?
...and if you do so, I'd be more than happy to provide evidence that requiring a photo ID does not suppress voter turnout.


Now, be clear....is it not intuitive that the reason to object to photo ID is merely a way to ensure a degree of fraud that would otherwise not occur?


Especially since it is coming from the same party that is working to have felons vote, as well as illegal immigrants?

1. Reasons why the organization *might* see it as adding to the integrity of the outcome of its procedural vote:

The organization might have specific evidence of voter impersonation in past votes. I don't know if they actually do, I have no information on the past votes of this union.


2. This sentence was, in retrospect, quite difficult to parse, but I stand by its meaning. What I meant was that in US elections there is good evidence that voter ID laws won't substantially deter fraud (that evidence is that fraud of the type made more difficult by such laws occurs so rarely that even if it were wiped out entirely this would not have a measurable effect on elections). In contrast, it is possible that the level of fraud is high enough in the votes of this particular union that it could be substantially deterred by requiring photo ID (again, I don't know if this is true, I'm only saying that as far as I know it could be).

In regards to your request for evidence, I don't wish to get into an extended debate of voter ID laws, which is a very broad topic tangential to this thread topic. I also object to the notion that my premise (fraud of the type addressed by voter ID laws is insubstantial) is the one that needs evidence-- in the absence of evidence either way no laws designed to curtail fraud need to be enacted. That being said, since you asked, here is a report with some good sources: http://brennan.3cdn.net/c176576c0065a7eb84_gxm6ib0hl.pdf


Regarding Conservative's response to my comment, I'm aware that the Republican Party of Texas is an organization and has a website. That does not seem to be the site to which the Newsbusters item referred.

 

[Avatar4321]

Suing over a "racist" law that has no racism involved. What's the world coming to?

 

[Luissa]

I have one question....Does the Union provide photo idea for its members free of charge?

I have belonged to one union, but were provided an ID card through our employer.

 

[sitarro]

1. "Madison - The American Civil Liberties Union sued the State of Wisconsin on Tuesday over a new law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, charging that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit says that the state is infringing on some citizens' right to vote and to be treated equally under the law and amounts to a kind of poll tax on voters who lack the documents needed to get an approved ID.

Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker, who is named in the lawsuit..."

"This lawsuit is the opening act in what will be a long struggle to undo the damage done to the right to vote by strict photo ID laws and other voter suppression measures," said Jon Sherman, an attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project."
ACLU sues Wisconsin over photo ID law - JSOnline


And, in a related story....

2. "On Wednesday, the Politico ran a story about the International Association of Machinists Union at Boeing agreeing to approve a contract extension, the result of which ultimately led to the National Labor Relations Board dropping its controversial decision to prevent the company from beginning to operate a mostly-constructed plant in South Carolina.

Though it deserves separate commentary, that decision is not the subject of this post. What is germane at the moment is the howler of a photo accompanying the Politico's report which appears after the jump.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has given 99% of its campaign money to Democrats (according to ElectionLawCenter.com, citing OpenSecrets.org). Democrats, including Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, who will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow supporting the rejection of voter-ID laws and, according to the Texas GOP, "NAACP plans to involve the United Nations on (sic) US elections," abhor the idea of making voters bring some form of photo identification to the polls.

Yet the IAM in the instance photographed required a photo ID of all who wished to vote in a contract ratification election. From the looks of the professionally made sign, the photo-ID requirement in the union's elections would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why?"
Union Election Requires Photo ID; Politico Fails to Note Irony | NewsBusters.org

Hmmm.....seems that a certain party wants to make sure that voter fraud is memorialized in law...but has the classic NIMBY attitude when it comes to their own.....

Does this mean that the Democrats cannot get legal voters to support their platform (Income equality, economic central planning, global governance under worldwide socialism.)?

Could be, huh?

I'm stuck having to pay dues to these hypocritical jerks.....I am having a good time calling out these asswipes for their ridiculous stances( I'll probably get set up by these leftist shits)....... I guess it could be worse, I was paying dues to the imbecile teamster assholes before they were voted down in favor of IAM......... I work with a bunch of idiot simpletons.

 

[sitarro]

I have one question....Does the Union provide photo idea for its members free of charge?

I have belonged to one union, but were provided an ID card through our employer.

I doubt that any union provides photo ideas, you need an imagination to form ideas and unions are completely devoid of imagination or creativity.....just like the party they follow like lemmings.

 

[Chris]

People are beginning to strike back against Republican voter suppression.

It's about fucking time!

 

[MeBelle]

Where will Chris post # 17,000? ^^^ is # 16,999

 

[MeBelle]

I'm gonna be watching for that number to change!
It better be yet another brilliant Chris post!

 

[Chris]

Where will Chris post # 17,000? ^^^ is # 16,999

Fighting the forces of Darkness.

One post at a time.

 

[MeBelle]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...sh-blood-in-16-a-post4542041.html#post4542041

I am disappointed

 

[MeBelle]

Where will Chris post # 17,000? ^^^ is # 16,999

Fighting the forces of Darkness.

One post at a time.

Dork!

 

[Chris]

Where will Chris post # 17,000? ^^^ is # 16,999

Fighting the forces of Darkness.

One post at a time.

Dork!

Careful, your tiara is slipping.