How many knew vote ID laws were Constitutional

[RetiredGySgt]

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

Just curious how many knew that the Supreme Court ruled that Voter ID was Constitutional?

 

[Ravi]

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

Just curious how many knew that the Supreme Court ruled that Voter ID was Constitutional?

Key:

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

Just curious how many knew that the Supreme Court ruled that Voter ID was Constitutional?

Key:

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Not key at all. But you keep believing that.

 

[Ravi]

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - politics - msnbc.com

Just curious how many knew that the Supreme Court ruled that Voter ID was Constitutional?

Key:

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Not key at all. But you keep believing that.

Oh, it absolutely is....it is unconstitutional to make people pay to vote.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Good, so why are so many still complaining?

 

[Conservative]

Key:

Not key at all. But you keep believing that.

Oh, it absolutely is....it is unconstitutional to make people pay to vote.

And EVERY Voter ID law that has passed since the 2008 SCOTUS decision includes the 'free of charge provision'.

Yet libtards still whine they are unconstitutional.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Key:

Not key at all. But you keep believing that.

Oh, it absolutely is....it is unconstitutional to make people pay to vote.

How are they being made to pay to vote?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Good, so why are so many still complaining?

Takes a lot of the fraud out of elections.

 

[del]

Not key at all. But you keep believing that.

Oh, it absolutely is....it is unconstitutional to make people pay to vote.

How are they being made to pay to vote?

if they have to pay for an ID it is tantamount to having to pay to vote.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, it absolutely is....it is unconstitutional to make people pay to vote.

How are they being made to pay to vote?

if they have to pay for an ID it is tantamount to having to pay to vote.

Not true. But you keep playing that game. By the way does that mean the EXISTING LAWS that require photo ID just to register are illegal?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just curious how many knew that the Supreme Court ruled that Voter ID was Constitutional?

The constitutionally of ID laws were never at issue, nor has anyone made such a claim otherwise, as voting is a fundamental right:

The right to vote is the fundamental right that has been the source of the most significant Supreme Court litigation. The Constitution addresses voting in Article II and four subsequent amendments (the 15th, forbidding discrimination in voting on the basis "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;" the 19th, forbidding discrimination in voting based on sex; the 24th, prohibiting "any poll tax" on a person before they can vote; and the 26th, granting the right to vote to all citizens over the age of 18). The Court has chosen to also strictly scrutinize restrictions on voting other than those specifically prohibited by the Constitution because, in its words, the right to vote "is preservative of other basic civil and political rights."

Kramer v Union Free School District (1969) is an example of a case in which strict scrutiny resulted in the invalidation of a state voting restriction. The Court found for a bachelor living with his parents, who challenged a N.Y. law that limited voting in school board elections to persons who either owned or leased property in the district or had children attending schools in the district. The Court found the law was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to serve its interest of limiting voting to interested persons.

Reynolds v Sims (1964) considered a challenge to the malapportionment of the Alabama legislature. The Court invalidated Alabama's apportionment scheme, which gave voters in rural areas disproportionately more power (more representatives per capita) than urban voters. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Warren declared, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres," and that the "Equal Protection Clause requires that seats in both houses of a bicameral legislature must be apportioned on a population basis."

Fundamental Rights and Equal Protection Clause Analysis: The Right to Vote and the Right to Education

Per Federal law, no one may be turned away from the polling place because he has no ID, he must be allowed to vote via provisional ballot.

Good, so why are so many still complaining?

It’s not complaining, it’s concern, concern that some may not be aware of the law and the fact that each citizen has a fundamental right to vote, even if he has no ID.

Takes a lot of the fraud out of elections.

Incorrect.

Not only is there not ‘a lot’ of fraud in elections, cases of fraud are statistically non-existent:

[L]aw enforcement statistics, reports from elections officials and widespread research have proved that voter fraud at the polling place is virtually non-existent. The motivation for ginning up this bogeyman is often to intimidate certain groups of voters and, ultimately, make it harder for minority or disadvantaged groups to exercise their right to vote. It is no accident that these operations have repeatedly focused on minority communities.

Opinion: Voter fraud hysteria - Tova Andrea Wang - POLITICO.com

Consequently any person who comes to a polling place to vote must be allowed to do so, even if he has no ID in a jurisdiction that requires one:

SEC. 302. PROVISIONAL VOTING AND VOTING INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) PROVISIONAL VOTING REQUIREMENTS.

—If an individual declares that such individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction
in which the individual desires to vote and that the individual
is eligible to vote in an election for Federal office, but the name
of the individual does not appear on the official list of eligible
voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the
individual is not eligible to vote [due to no photo ID, for example], such individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot…

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/41.PDF

 

[del]

How are they being made to pay to vote?

if they have to pay for an ID it is tantamount to having to pay to vote.

Not true. But you keep playing that game. By the way does that mean the EXISTING LAWS that require photo ID just to register are illegal?

it is true. but you keep winding yourself up in knots over it, otay?

 

[Amelia]

How are they being made to pay to vote?

if they have to pay for an ID it is tantamount to having to pay to vote.

Not true. But you keep playing that game. By the way does that mean the EXISTING LAWS that require photo ID just to register are illegal?

I think it is true.

But which states require voter ID but don't make a provision for someone to get a free ID if needed?

I know my state lets people get a free ID if needed.

 

[Modbert]

If you're going to require a ID (that costs money) to vote, then yes you do need to pay to vote. Hence, it can be considered a poll tax of sorts. I'm unsure as to why something that would be done in the Jim Crow days albeit less directly is somehow not considered what it is.

 

[Modbert]

I think it is true.

But which states require voter ID but don't make a provision for someone to get a free ID if needed?

Wisconsin Official Instructs Staff Not To Mention Free IDs For Voting

WASHINGTON -- An internal memo sent around the Wisconsin Department of Transportation went public this week, sparking controversy over its instructions that employees should not tell state residents they can receive free photo identification for voting unless they ask.

The memo in question, sent out by former Republican state Senate aide Steve Krieser, the executive assistant of the Department of Transportation, is causing backlash across the state because of legislation signed in May by Republican Gov. Scott Walker requiring voters to show valid photo ID when going to the polls.

Obtaining a state-issued photo ID for the purpose of voting is actually free of charge. But the catch is that voters have to be in the know: If they don't specifically ask for the free ID, they'll get charged $28. Krieser told The Huffington Post he has no plans to adjust the policy.

Even Rep. Evan Wynn (R-Whitewater), who voted for the voter ID law, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he found the internal memo troubling.

 

[Amelia]

I think it is true.

But which states require voter ID but don't make a provision for someone to get a free ID if needed?

Wisconsin Official Instructs Staff Not To Mention Free IDs For Voting

WASHINGTON -- An internal memo sent around the Wisconsin Department of Transportation went public this week, sparking controversy over its instructions that employees should not tell state residents they can receive free photo identification for voting unless they ask.

The memo in question, sent out by former Republican state Senate aide Steve Krieser, the executive assistant of the Department of Transportation, is causing backlash across the state because of legislation signed in May by Republican Gov. Scott Walker requiring voters to show valid photo ID when going to the polls.

Obtaining a state-issued photo ID for the purpose of voting is actually free of charge. But the catch is that voters have to be in the know: If they don't specifically ask for the free ID, they'll get charged $28. Krieser told The Huffington Post he has no plans to adjust the policy.

Even Rep. Evan Wynn (R-Whitewater), who voted for the voter ID law, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he found the internal memo troubling.

I think that memo sucked. But the free ID is still available.

Obtaining an ID card - Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Free Wisconsin ID cards for voting

A free ID card is available under Wisconsin law to anyone who:

will be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election and;
requests an ID card for the purpose of voting.​

A free ID card is NOT available under the following circumstances:

If you currently have a valid, unexpired driver license (DL), you are not eligible under Wisconsin law to obtain an ID.
If you will not be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election.
If you already have a Wisconsin ID card that is not eligible for renewal (you may renew your ID card up to one year prior to its expiration date).
If you are not eligible to vote in Wisconsin.​

And frankly, if people aren't competent enough to figure out how to get an ID, then I don't feel too bad about them not voting.

Don't go accusing me of being Jim Crow the way some people already have when I expressed that sentiment. It's just common sense. If you're not competent enough to get an ID, then how informed is your vote likely to be?

 

[Modbert]

And frankly, if people aren't competent enough to figure out how to get an ID, then I don't feel too bad about them not voting.

Don't go accusing me of being Jim Crow the way some people already have when I expressed that sentiment. It's just common sense. If you're not competent enough to get an ID, then how informed is your vote likely to be?

It doesn't really matter what people are competent or not competent of really. If a state is going to charge for someone to vote in the form of a ID then an ID needs to be free in all circumstances.

Personally I don't have trouble with requiring a ID of some sort to vote as long as they are free and readily available. I can see the argument that some make about preventing fraud but I don't really see the case where fraud is so prevalent.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Oh, it absolutely is....it is unconstitutional to make people pay to vote.

How are they being made to pay to vote?

if they have to pay for an ID it is tantamount to having to pay to vote.

Tantamount, as you know, means "equal to". How does paying for an identification "equal to" paying to vote?

Convicted Felons pay for their drivers licenses yet they can't vote.
Underage H.S. kids pay for an I.D. yet can't vote.

A kid gets his D/L and pays for it at 16 yet can't vote. 2 years later he can use that same D/L to provide I.D. to vote. Is that "tantamount" to paying to vote?

Hint: You're confusing paying for administrative costs of identification with a "poll tax".

 

[del]

How are they being made to pay to vote?

if they have to pay for an ID it is tantamount to having to pay to vote.

Tantamount, as you know, means "equal to". How does paying for an identification "equal to" paying to vote?

Convicted Felons pay for their drivers licenses yet they can't vote.
Underage H.S. kids pay for an I.D. yet can't vote.

A kid gets his D/L and pays for it at 16 yet can't vote. 2 years later he can use that same D/L to provide I.D. to vote. Is that "tantamount" to paying to vote?

Hint: You're confusing paying for administrative costs of identification with a "poll tax".

if you cannot vote without the ID, and you have to pay for the ID, then you have to pay to vote.

 

[Si modo]

if they have to pay for an ID it is tantamount to having to pay to vote.

Not true. But you keep playing that game. By the way does that mean the EXISTING LAWS that require photo ID just to register are illegal?

I think it is true.

But which states require voter ID but don't make a provision for someone to get a free ID if needed?

I know my state lets people get a free ID if needed.

I believe most (if not all) states have provisions for free state IDs. For example, Indiana, Georgia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Illinois don't charge. I suppose I could look them all up.