GOP Moving the Goal Posts Just in Time For the 2012 Election

[Seawytch]

The Sunday voting is unusual in the first place, but reducing the number of weeks that early voting is available is unusual...especially since so many Democratic voters took advantage of it in 2008.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you are now claiming that extended voting periods are NEEDED for the public benefit, first you have to prove that is true.

1) I never claimed that they were necessary. I said that that decision had already been made to establish early voting, and I asked what public benefit was served by reducing it, and by specifically eliminating Sunday. My question is, "Is there a public benefit served, or is this nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the voting process to favor a GOP outcome?"

2) If you'd been paying attention, I did offer several reasons how the public is served through early voting. They certainly fall short of showing early voting as a necessity. But they do demonstrate a benefit that is gained.

3) Proving a necessity in early voting is not itself necessary. The fact is that early voting already exists. Maybe it's not necessary for it to exist, but I'm asking what public benefit is served by reducing it in this manner. Why is it so hard for you all to answer a simple question?

Further you need to cite for us some studies, statistics and facts that support a claim that one day as required by the Federal Government is not enough.

I don't have to cite anything because I never made the claim you're trying to say I did. I merely asked what is the public benefit in reducing the already extant early voting period, and specifically eliminating Sunday?

Then you need to provide us with studies, statistics and facts that provide evidence that a certain number of days are required, that certain specific days must be included and that a State is knowingly making laws to deny its citizens the right to vote.

Again, I don't need to provide anything. I am asking what public benefit is being served by reducing the already extant early voting period and by specifically eliminating Sunday?

Why is it so hard to get an answer to a simple question?

You are claiming the argument is about public benefit and that a State that LEGALLY chooses to shorten the number of days allowed to vote somehow has to justify that while never justifying the original decision to expand the days to vote.

YOU do not get to dictate to Individual States what LEGAL laws they will pass. No State has an obligation to justify to YOU or the left ( or for that matter the right) why they make the LEGAL laws they make.

You are aware that a State must PAY to run elections? That we are in a down turn? That most States are in trouble with their budgets? For all you or I know the decision ws made because of COST.

You have provided no evidence, no facts, no statistics that the State made the decision for political purposes. YOU have claimed the Republicans made the decision solely to impede democrats from voting. Yet you can not cite a single source, a single study, no statistics, nothing except your partisan claim, that the change was done to thwart democrats from voting.

You can not even provide any credible evidence that changing the number of days to vote impacts the left more then the right.

 

[DiamondDave]

The FACTS are that voter ID laws DO disenfranchise some voters. In recent weeks we've heard from at least two or three elderly individuals that have had a difficult time getting photo IDs.

So, to those in favor or these restrictive voter ID laws, how many voters are you willing to disenfranchise with these laws to combat the voter fraud that isn't occurring? What's your acceptable ratio?

Voter fraud that isnt occurring.

We know that is a line of BS.

you are so concerned about disenfranchisement never stopping to consider that a single fraudulent vote is disenfranchisement.

As stated, in recent weeks there have been two documented incidents of elderly voters having difficulties getting the required photo IDs. Name two recent incidents of convicted voter fraud where IDs would have kept the fraud from occurring.

Links???

And they would also have 'problems' getting a passport... opening a bank account... DRIVING... cashing a check... etc....

And if the difficulties you are speaking of is about transportation or whatever... nobody has a right to transportation... but ESPECIALLY with the elderly, you have groups, churches, (let alone family) etc, that offer to take the elderly to voting places, malls, parks, etc...

 

[kwc57]

Why is it so hard to get an answer to a simple question?

indeed

 

[Inthemiddle]

You have made a claim against a political party but have failed to provide one shred of evidence to back up your clam.

Actually I already explained the reasons for my criticism and why I think this appears designed to manipulate the outcome, and how it seems indicative of a national trend by the GOP for the same goal. Again, I ask what is the public benefit that is served? Absent no public benefit, what other explanation can be offered?

Where are the statistics that support your claim that democrats are more adversely effected by x number of days to vote? Where are your credible studies that 7 days is somehow detrimental to the ability of democrats to vote any more then Republicans or any other political party? YOU made the claim back it up with actual FACTS.

You want statistics and studies? Why are you making such irrational demands? Again, I ask a simple question, what is the public benefit that is served? Why are you two so determined to avoid answering that question?

 

[kwc57]

You have made a claim against a political party but have failed to provide one shred of evidence to back up your clam.

Actually I already explained the reasons for my criticism and why I think this appears designed to manipulate the outcome, and how it seems indicative of a national trend by the GOP for the same goal. Again, I ask what is the public benefit that is served? Absent no public benefit, what other explanation can be offered?

Where are the statistics that support your claim that democrats are more adversely effected by x number of days to vote? Where are your credible studies that 7 days is somehow detrimental to the ability of democrats to vote any more then Republicans or any other political party? YOU made the claim back it up with actual FACTS.

You want statistics and studies? Why are you making such irrational demands? Again, I ask a simple question, what is the public benefit that is served? Why are you two so determined to avoid answering that question?

So following your "logic" that reducing the number of days for voting would benefit the Republicans, then it stands to reason that expanding the number of days for voting would benefit the Democrats.......but you don't seem to have an issue with that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously, requiring a photo ID to register to vote will exclude all people who do not have a photo ID. Who generally does not have a photo ID? All sorts of people. It is probably more realistic to ask, who generally DOES have a photo ID? I am going to go out on a limb here and propose that probably more people who would vote Republican have photo ID's, than people who would vote Democratic.

Hence, requiring a photo ID is going to prevent more potential Democratic votes from being cast, than it will potential Republican votes from being cast.

So what is the argument for requiring photo ID to vote? The main argument put up by the Republicans is the prevention of voting fraud. "Voting fraud" is a much-disputed issue in recent elections, evidenced by a great deal of argument and considerably less factual, proven data.

Here is an excerpt from an article which a pal of mine sent to me earlier this morning. It relates to the voting fraud argument in connection with requiring photo ID's to vote:

PHANTOM MENACE OF FRAUD:

Conservatives’ justification for the new restrictions on voting rights is that they are necessary to head off voter fraud. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus underscored this argument, claiming that non-profit voter organizations like ACORN submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. This zeal to restrict voting rights in the name of preventing fraud was also evident in Maine last month, where the state Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster drew up a list of 206 University of Maine students with out-of-state home addresses and accused them of voter fraud. The Republican Secretary of State subsequently took this list and sent threatening letters to the students, complete with a form to cancel their voter registration in Maine.

In fact, as the Brennan Center for Justice notes in two new reports, electoral voter fraud is largely a myth. In a heralded paper titled “The Truth About Voter Fraud“, the Brennan Center notes that “It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

Indeed, most cases of voter fraud “can be traced to causes far more logical than fraud by voters,” including clerical or typographical errors, mismatched entries, and simple mistakes on either end. In Wisconsin, for instance, approximately 3 million votes were cast in 2004, of which just seven were ultimately deemed invalid – all from felons who were unaware of their ineligibility. Comedian Stephen Colbert recently mocked the need for photo ID laws, noting that fraud occurs in “a jaw dropping 44 one-millionths of one percent” of votes.

It would seem that, in piously mouthing "prevention of voting fraud" as justification for requiring photo ID's to vote, those in favor of requiring the photo ID's just may have a hidden agenda, ya think?

Obviously, requiring a photo ID to register to vote will exclude all people who do not have a photo ID.

You know who else it will exclude?
Illegals who have no right to vote.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have made a claim against a political party but have failed to provide one shred of evidence to back up your clam.

Actually I already explained the reasons for my criticism and why I think this appears designed to manipulate the outcome, and how it seems indicative of a national trend by the GOP for the same goal. Again, I ask what is the public benefit that is served? Absent no public benefit, what other explanation can be offered?

Where are the statistics that support your claim that democrats are more adversely effected by x number of days to vote? Where are your credible studies that 7 days is somehow detrimental to the ability of democrats to vote any more then Republicans or any other political party? YOU made the claim back it up with actual FACTS.

You want statistics and studies? Why are you making such irrational demands? Again, I ask a simple question, what is the public benefit that is served? Why are you two so determined to avoid answering that question?

You keep claiming some public benefit is served by some mythical number of days to vote. That 7 days is simply not long enough,that noY voting on Sunday is somehow effecting the ability of Democrats to vote.

YOU made the claims. YOU provide the evidence that the number of days chosen by the legally elected legislature of any State some how is not beneficial to its citizens.

No evidence no facts no statistics. Political hackery at its finest.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You are claiming the argument is about public benefit and that a State that LEGALLY chooses to shorten the number of days allowed to vote somehow has to justify that while never justifying the original decision to expand the days to vote.

I already explained the public benefits derived from early voting. But it's really irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that early voting exists. And the new laws don't abolish early voting, which would suggest that the legislature still agrees that early voting serves a benefit. So what is the benefit served in shortening the early voting period and singling out Sunday? If there's no public benefit served, what is the reason they have done this? I never said it was illegal for them to do it. I am simply asking what is the public benefit in doing it? As of yet, nobody can demonstrate such public benefit, which leaves me to conclude that none of you wing-nuts are interested in the GOP providing public benefits. You're more interested in using voting laws to try to manipulate the outcome of elections.

YOU do not get to dictate to Individual States what LEGAL laws they will pass.

That's a straw man. I am not dictating anything to anyone. I am merely expressing my opinion that the GOP is engaging in a national trend to use changes in voting laws to try manipulating the results of the upcoming Presidential election. And I ask, what benefit is served? If there is no public benefit served, then what other explanation is there?

No State has an obligation to justify to YOU or the left ( or for that matter the right) why they make the LEGAL laws they make.

Really? No state has to justify to their constituents why they make the laws they make? See, I always thought that government was supposed to be controlled by the people. I suppose that, in the most extreme sense, it's true that they can pass a law without explaining the reason why they did it. But the people certainly have a right to demand that government work for the public benefit as opposed to party benefit. And they have the right to elect new members of government if they are not satisfied that such is happening.

You are aware that a State must PAY to run elections? That we are in a down turn? That most States are in trouble with their budgets? For all you or I know the decision ws made because of COST.

If I must produce statistics just to ask a question, then YOU must produce statistics to suggest hypotheticals that aren't even suggested based on the information at hand.

You have provided no evidence, no facts, no statistics that the State made the decision for political purposes.

I've explained my reasons. Statistics are not necessary. You're making irrational demands. It seems like you don't want to address my argument for it's soundness, you're just trying to raise the bar to an irrational level.

YOU have claimed the Republicans made the decision solely to impede democrats from voting.

No, I have said that these new laws appear to be designed to manipulate the outcome by thwarting a candidate's demonstrated political prowess. I have to admit, Obama is a good politician, even if a lackluster public servant. His Souls to Polls tactic was very clever and was probably a key to his victory in 2008. The new laws in FL do not seem to serve a public benefit, they only serve to preempt a repeat of Obama's successful tactic.

Yet you can not cite a single source, a single study, no statistics, nothing except your partisan claim, that the change was done to thwart democrats from voting.

Independents don't make partisan claims. You're the one being partisan here. You can't even face my question head on. What is the public benefit served here?

You can not even provide any credible evidence that changing the number of days to vote impacts the left more then the right.

Well, I never made that claim, so....

 

[Inthemiddle]

So following your "logic" that reducing the number of days for voting would benefit the Republicans,

I never said that. I asked what is the public benefit in reducing the early voting period?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In Ohio, Democrats were able to write "Park bench" as their legitimate address

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why limit it to one day? why not have election year?

 

[Inthemiddle]

You keep claiming some public benefit is served by some mythical number of days to vote.

I never made such a claim.

That 7 days is simply not long enough,that noY voting on Sunday is somehow effecting the ability of Democrats to vote.

No, I never made such a claim. I said that there appears to be no public benefit served by reducing the CURRENT early voting period. That the only possible motivation I can see from this that it is part of the nationwide trends the GOP has undertaken which all appear to have the same goal of using changes in voting laws to manipulate the outcome. Until you can wrap your little mind around my actual arguments without having to insert your own commentary into my mouth just so you can debunk things I never said in the first place, don't bother replying anymore, mkay?

 

[Defiant1]

The FACTS are that voter ID laws DO disenfranchise some voters. In recent weeks we've heard from at least two or three elderly individuals that have had a difficult time getting photo IDs.

So, to those in favor or these restrictive voter ID laws, how many voters are you willing to disenfranchise with these laws to combat the voter fraud that isn't occurring? What's your acceptable ratio?

Voter fraud that isnt occurring.

We know that is a line of BS.

you are so concerned about disenfranchisement never stopping to consider that a single fraudulent vote is disenfranchisement.

As stated, in recent weeks there have been two documented incidents of elderly voters having difficulties getting the required photo IDs. Name two recent incidents of convicted voter fraud where IDs would have kept the fraud from occurring.

Photo IDs allowed at Florida Polling Places
Florida driver's license
Florida ID card issued by Dept of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
United States Passport
debit or credit card
Military ID
Student ID
Retirement center ID
Neighborhood association ID
Public assistance ID

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Also, Souls to the Polls is also unconstitutional because it violates the wall of separation between church and state so those votes need to be purged

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The FACTS are that voter ID laws DO disenfranchise some voters. In recent weeks we've heard from at least two or three elderly individuals that have had a difficult time getting photo IDs.

So, to those in favor or these restrictive voter ID laws, how many voters are you willing to disenfranchise with these laws to combat the voter fraud that isn't occurring? What's your acceptable ratio?

Voter fraud that isnt occurring.

We know that is a line of BS.

you are so concerned about disenfranchisement never stopping to consider that a single fraudulent vote is disenfranchisement.

As stated, in recent weeks there have been two documented incidents of elderly voters having difficulties getting the required photo IDs. Name two recent incidents of convicted voter fraud where IDs would have kept the fraud from occurring.

Let me put it in a way you can understand: Too Fucking Bad!

 

[Liability]

Why limit it to one day? why not have election year?

Congress-critters get elected every two years. So why limit the voting to just one of those two years?

Perpetual and continual voting.

Elimination of voter I.D. requirements.

Yeeeessssssssssssssss.

Now, finally, I think we're ON to something.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why limit it to one day? why not have election year?

According to the argument provided somehow 2 weeks was somehow more beneficial to the public then the new 7 days. Of course no proof has been provided.

Further the argument is that somehow shortening it back to 7 days adversely effects the democrats and not the Republicans since the person doing the arguing has insisted the GOP made this change simply to help themselves.

Of course NOW he is claiming he has never made any such claim when asked to provide some evidence that shortening the voting cycle only adversely effects democrats.

 

[Navy1960]

Georgie...I know how concerned are as far as the voting rights of Americans....that's ALL Americans, right?

This from J. Christian Adams' book, "Injustice"...


1. Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties. The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal…. there is an open and pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes — only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter turnout.

a. Sadly, the Department did not object to the submission and therefore refused to protect the white minority in Noxubee County in the least costly, most powerful way possible — a simple letter objecting to the proposal. Why? Because it is high heresy to include discriminated-against whites within the protections of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This attitude is common knowledge within the voting section. Justice Department Continues to Act in Non-Race-Neutral Fashion

2. Not only has the Department never lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.

Pretty 'slimy,' them Democrats, eh, Georgie?

I don't understand what all of this is trying to say. It is poorly written and does not convey any meaningful information from which anyone could even begin to make a judgment as to whether it is valid or not. What the hell are they talking about here?

Could you perhaps provide a link to this quote, so I could go there and see the entire thing?

Georgie... a guy as concerned about voting rights as you are...and you don't know of the Ike Brown case???

Here....let me fill ya' in:

1. "In his sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, whistleblower Christopher Coates — who then headed the Voting Rights division — testified to a “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” J. Christian Adams agreed that the department indicated it would not prosecute cases against a minority defendant on behalf of a white plaintiff. Coates remembered Julie Fernandes, Obama’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, telling DoJ employees “the Obama administration was only interested in bringing…cases that would provide political equality for racial and language minority voters.” Julie Fernandes | New Black Panther Party | Impeach Obama Campaign - Part 2

2. United States v. Ike Brown Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. “You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” was his motto. Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots, the notaries regularly cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

a. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

b. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section…Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected….Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

c. Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.
PJ Media » PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obama’s DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News)

PC, I am sure you are know this case do you not?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

WILLIAM CRAWFORD, et al., PETITIONERS

07–21 v.

MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD et al.

INDIANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, et al., PETITIONERS

CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD.


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

Again, will say a few things here, if this were such an issue, then I submit the easy fix would be to require a photo on a Voter Registration Card. There are some valid points in the suggestion that the sudden reasoning for state issued ID is to stop voter fruad and in doing so it benefits one party over another. The best way to see this is actually quite simple, the legislatures that are passing these laws are all Republican legislatures for the most part, if it were such an issue that required fixing then more legislatures would being this issue into law regardless of party. That said, on a personal level I see nothing wrong with asking for an ID to vote and to my knowledge most states if not all of them allow for exceptions for free ID's for those who cannot afford them. Again, it does seem if this were such a huge issue ( voter fraud) that most states would simply place the persons mug on the voter registration card and then the issue would be solved.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Also, Souls to the Polls is also unconstitutional because it violates the wall of separation between church and state so those votes need to be purged

That's idiotic.