Is it a "Poll Tax"

[Navy1960]

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
It is argued that a State may exact fees from citizens for many different kinds of licenses; that, if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver's license, [n5] it can demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216), are traditionally disfavored. See Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 184-185 (Jackson, J., concurring); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections


After consideration of these voter ID laws I have come to the conclusion that with the exception of those states that allow for the exception of voters to vote such as Indiana does by affidavit and provisional ballot , the process by which a voter has to pay for documentation for the sole purpose for obtaining a state approved ID to vote is on its a face a "poll tax". If for example these state who wish a form of ID for a voter to identify themselves in a election to combat voter fraud which seems a little bit of a stretch in my humble opinion given the fact that data suggests the instances of fraud do not justify these laws, then that state would put in place a voter ID where the voter at registration would use the registration card as the voter ID, otherwise why bother to register to vote if additional state ID is required. In addtion if the instances of fraud justified the need for these laws to such a degree then the question is, why now?, why not in the last election, or the one before that or the one before that? I seem to recall a very close election in 2000 where the words "fraud" were being tossed around often especially in Fl. and yet we seemed to survive that with little problem. While many might disagree with me on this one and as they are entitled to, it is my humble opinion these laws serve no useful purpose if they keep on American from voting who is entitled to do so because that American cannot afford the proper documentation.

Well, you're wrong.

Harman v. Forssenius - 380 U.S. 528

(a) The poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting in federal elections, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed. P. 380 U. S. 542.

(b) The statutory scheme may not be saved on the ground that the certificate of residence requirement is a necessary method of proving residence, for constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State.
Harman v. Forssenius - 380 U.S. 528 (1965) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
Id. at 96. And see Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145. Previously we had said that neither homesite nor occupation "affords a permissible basis for distinguishing between qualified voters within the State." Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380. We think the same must be true of requirements of wealth or affluence or payment of a fee.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

The SCOTUS tends to disagree with you.

 

[PratchettFan]

Your SS card is an acceptable replacement for a birth certificate on an I-9 form. So what you're admitting is that you've had to show valid ID in order to be employed which is my point. If you've traveled outside of the US then you'd have been asked for a birth certificate to obtain a passport. Any travel outside the US?

By the way...the notion that "we the people" shouldn't have to pay for ID is rather amusing since it's "we the people" who pay the taxes that would pay for the free ID that you don't think we the people should have to pay for.

Again, I don't have a problem with showing and ID to vote. I just have a problem with charging people for the right to vote.

Is it amusing? Are you saying that if someone makes so little money they are below the level where they pay taxes that they are no longer part of "we the people"?

This notion that people are being charged to vote amuses me, Prat...would you care to show me where that's taking place? Every legislative attempt to require valid ID that I've seen also contains a method for those who can't afford ID to have it provided for them free of charge. This isn't about people not being able to "afford" to get an ID...this is about a political calculation as to how many votes would be lost by people being too lazy to get the ID to vote and on which side of the political equation that loss would be felt. The truth is...progressives don't think a part of their "base" will bother to get ID's no matter WHO pays for them. That's what all this is about...

Too lazy? Is that a reason to disenfranchise someone?

Frankly, I don't think it is taking place anywhere. I don't think there is a single state which has a sole form of ID. The issue itself is smoke and mirrors, just so politicians can tell you that they are on your side while really being on their side.

Now, if you wish to speculate on the polticial equation. I think a lot of people, mistakenly, think that making it harder to vote will make sure that the people they disagree with don't vote. That is based upon the assumption, mistakenly, that anyone who disagrees with one must be lazy or stupid. Otherwise, why make a change at all? Why would people who claim they are opposed to more government regulation be in favor of more government regulation?

 

[Navy1960]

OK, I'd be willing to compromise. A person requests a birth certificate they must indicate on the form whether (A) it is for the sole purpose of obtaining a voter qualifying ID, or (B) Whether it will be used for that or any other purpose needed by the individual. If they indicate (A), the the birth certificate is free. If they indicate (B) then normal costs are charged.

Printed in large, bold, red text across the top is:

"For Use in Voter Identification Processing Only"​

Now, when the person uses the Birth Certificate for obtaining a voter approved ID, the issuing agency of ID retains and shreds the birth certificate if it has the red printing on top. If on the other hand the birth certificate had the proper signatures and raised seals, but no red printing - then it is returned to the holder.

Birth Certificates with the red printing would not be legal as:

• Proof of employability for I-9 purposes,
• Proof of age for admittance to any public school (primary, secondary, or college) that accepts federal money in any way,
• Is not an acceptable proof of identity/age for any sports team (football, little league, soccer, etc.),
• Would not be proof of identify for induction into any branch of the armed services,
• Would not be proof of identify for hiring for any public position.

>>>>

Agreed, and as I have indicated in several posts, I really do not have an issue with the ID in general and it seems to me the process of having multiple ID's seems somewhat of a mess and more trouble than it's worth. It would make more sense to use one's voter registration card with a picture one it as a standard for of ID to avoid all this confusion.

In theory. However, the problem with a voter registration card is that it has only one purpose - to vote. To charge for a card you are required to have in order to exercise your right to vote constitutes a tax. To get around that, the card has to be free. I think the cost of such a thing is simply not worth it. I don't think there is a state which does not currently require some kind of identification. I see no reason why that is not good enough. Let the states decide how they want to handle it.

Personally I think it's a cost well worth the money spent, and your correct I am sure about every state has some method of Identification of a voter. I see these new laws though as over-broad, and wide-ranging and in many cases so complex to some that they tend to make the states jobs harder not easier, and in turn make the voting process that way as well and discourage people from doing so. It is my humble opinion we should do everything we can to encourage people to vote ( no this does not mean commit fraud) in order for our nation to have the chance to pick leaders who will be more attuned to their needs rather that perhaps the needs of those small few who put them in office. I am in full agreement that charging for a card would be a tax, but that said there are already costs to the state involved in voter registration anyway, reproduction of paperwork, staffing, etc. So frankly, I don't see it being that much of a burden to an individual state when it would accomplish something that both sides of this issue want to see happen. Which is protect the process itself from fraud and keep it fair and honest for everyone who wishes to participate.

 

[PratchettFan]

Agreed, and as I have indicated in several posts, I really do not have an issue with the ID in general and it seems to me the process of having multiple ID's seems somewhat of a mess and more trouble than it's worth. It would make more sense to use one's voter registration card with a picture one it as a standard for of ID to avoid all this confusion.

In theory. However, the problem with a voter registration card is that it has only one purpose - to vote. To charge for a card you are required to have in order to exercise your right to vote constitutes a tax. To get around that, the card has to be free. I think the cost of such a thing is simply not worth it. I don't think there is a state which does not currently require some kind of identification. I see no reason why that is not good enough. Let the states decide how they want to handle it.

Personally I think it's a cost well worth the money spent, and your correct I am sure about every state has some method of Identification of a voter. I see these new laws though as over-broad, and wide-ranging and in many cases so complex to some that they tend to make the states jobs harder not easier, and in turn make the voting process that way as well and discourage people from doing so. It is my humble opinion we should do everything we can to encourage people to vote ( no this does not mean commit fraud) in order for our nation to have the chance to pick leaders who will be more attuned to their needs rather that perhaps the needs of those small few who put them in office. I am in full agreement that charging for a card would be a tax, but that said there are already costs to the state involved in voter registration anyway, reproduction of paperwork, staffing, etc. So frankly, I don't see it being that much of a burden to an individual state when it would accomplish something that both sides of this issue want to see happen. Which is protect the process itself from fraud and keep it fair and honest for everyone who wishes to participate.

I understand what you are saying. However, I don't think the problem actually exists. On either side of the issue. I disagree with the notion that we should fix a system unless it is broken. If a state think their system doesn't work to its satisfaction, it should fix it. The feds have no place in the equation unless there is demonstrative discrimination.

 

[bripat9643]

Republican want people to jump hurdles to vote...then tell everyone else that they arent hurdles because in their opinion they are really small hurdles that should be easy.

Still a hurdle....Where are the "more freedom" crowd on this?

Voting isn't freedom. A lynch mob is the very essence of democracy in action, but no one would call that freedom.

 

[Navy1960]

In theory. However, the problem with a voter registration card is that it has only one purpose - to vote. To charge for a card you are required to have in order to exercise your right to vote constitutes a tax. To get around that, the card has to be free. I think the cost of such a thing is simply not worth it. I don't think there is a state which does not currently require some kind of identification. I see no reason why that is not good enough. Let the states decide how they want to handle it.

Personally I think it's a cost well worth the money spent, and your correct I am sure about every state has some method of Identification of a voter. I see these new laws though as over-broad, and wide-ranging and in many cases so complex to some that they tend to make the states jobs harder not easier, and in turn make the voting process that way as well and discourage people from doing so. It is my humble opinion we should do everything we can to encourage people to vote ( no this does not mean commit fraud) in order for our nation to have the chance to pick leaders who will be more attuned to their needs rather that perhaps the needs of those small few who put them in office. I am in full agreement that charging for a card would be a tax, but that said there are already costs to the state involved in voter registration anyway, reproduction of paperwork, staffing, etc. So frankly, I don't see it being that much of a burden to an individual state when it would accomplish something that both sides of this issue want to see happen. Which is protect the process itself from fraud and keep it fair and honest for everyone who wishes to participate.

I understand what you are saying. However, I don't think the problem actually exists. On either side of the issue. I disagree with the notion that we should fix a system unless it is broken. If a state think their system doesn't work to its satisfaction, it should fix it. The feds have no place in the equation unless there is demonstrative discrimination.

Well that seems to be the point of contention here I suppose, I honestly do not think there is a problem that rises to the level of needing these so called Voter ID laws to combat fraud. Still further I have yet to see any data that supports the need for them as well, I have seen numerous amounts of data to the contrary however. All that said, however I agree completely that a state has every right to fix a system within their state , unless that system run afoul of the consitution or prevents those within that state from being able to exercise a right under the constitution. I guess my feelings are that if a decent, and honest American who has voted in the past, or for that matter wishes to vote for the first time, and for whatever reason cannot vote now as a result of these laws, is prevented from doing so, I tend to fall on that side of those people regardless of who they vote for.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I guess my feelings are that if a decent, and honest American who has voted in the past, or for that matter wishes to vote for the first time, and for whatever reason cannot vote now as a result of these laws, is prevented from doing so, I tend to fall on that side of those people regardless of who they vote for.

I 100% agree, I would oppose laws which prevented decent, and honest Americans from voting. Whether they voted in the past is actually irrelevant though, if they were not an American (or legally allowed to vote, which is the case with some local elections) - then just because they voted in the past is not a qualifier for voting in the future.

I guess my felling is that verification of: (A) who the individual is prior to voting is a common sense idea, and (b) confirming that the person that presents themselves is eligible to vote is also a common sense idea.

No decent and honest American is prevented from voting. All they have to do is present the proper identification as specified in that State's law and they are allowed to vote. The laws prevent no one from voting. Now if you (not you personally of course, the generic "you") are to lazy to ensure you have the proper ID, then it is not the law that prevented you from voting - it's your own laziness in not the ID when needed. So you prevented yourself from voting, not the laws.



>>>>

 

[Oldstyle]

Again, I don't have a problem with showing and ID to vote. I just have a problem with charging people for the right to vote.

Is it amusing? Are you saying that if someone makes so little money they are below the level where they pay taxes that they are no longer part of "we the people"?

This notion that people are being charged to vote amuses me, Prat...would you care to show me where that's taking place? Every legislative attempt to require valid ID that I've seen also contains a method for those who can't afford ID to have it provided for them free of charge. This isn't about people not being able to "afford" to get an ID...this is about a political calculation as to how many votes would be lost by people being too lazy to get the ID to vote and on which side of the political equation that loss would be felt. The truth is...progressives don't think a part of their "base" will bother to get ID's no matter WHO pays for them. That's what all this is about...

Too lazy? Is that a reason to disenfranchise someone?

Frankly, I don't think it is taking place anywhere. I don't think there is a single state which has a sole form of ID. The issue itself is smoke and mirrors, just so politicians can tell you that they are on your side while really being on their side.

Now, if you wish to speculate on the polticial equation. I think a lot of people, mistakenly, think that making it harder to vote will make sure that the people they disagree with don't vote. That is based upon the assumption, mistakenly, that anyone who disagrees with one must be lazy or stupid. Otherwise, why make a change at all? Why would people who claim they are opposed to more government regulation be in favor of more government regulation?

If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and get a job I don't think they should be supported by society. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and obtain a valid ID so that the process can be kept from being abused then I don't think they should be allowed to vote. What can I say...I'm one of those "hard asses" who believes in personal responsibility.

As for government regulation? I'm sorry but I don't see requiring a valid ID as an oppressive government regulation. It's something that every adult should already have if they're a functioning part of society.

 

[Navy1960]

I guess my feelings are that if a decent, and honest American who has voted in the past, or for that matter wishes to vote for the first time, and for whatever reason cannot vote now as a result of these laws, is prevented from doing so, I tend to fall on that side of those people regardless of who they vote for.

I 100% agree, I would oppose laws which prevented decent, and honest Americans from voting. Whether they voted in the past is actually irrelevant though, if they were not an American (or legally allowed to vote, which is the case with some local elections) - then just because they voted in the past is not a qualifier for voting in the future.

I guess my felling is that verification of: (A) who the individual is prior to voting is a common sense idea, and (b) confirming that the person that presents themselves is eligible to vote is also a common sense idea.

No decent and honest American is prevented from voting. All they have to do is present the proper identification as specified in that State's law and they are allowed to vote. The laws prevent no one from voting. Now if you (not you personally of course, the generic "you") are to lazy to ensure you have the proper ID, then it is not the law that prevented you from voting - it's your own laziness in not the ID when needed. So you prevented yourself from voting, not the laws.



>>>>

While I agree completely, what do you say to the women in video, who appears to me to be a decent and honest woman and yet it doesn't appear to me she prevented herself from voting. I suppose those are the kinds of people I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt too, and to be honest if a law regardless of intent does such a thing then it won't have my support.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I guess my feelings are that if a decent, and honest American who has voted in the past, or for that matter wishes to vote for the first time, and for whatever reason cannot vote now as a result of these laws, is prevented from doing so, I tend to fall on that side of those people regardless of who they vote for.

I 100% agree, I would oppose laws which prevented decent, and honest Americans from voting. Whether they voted in the past is actually irrelevant though, if they were not an American (or legally allowed to vote, which is the case with some local elections) - then just because they voted in the past is not a qualifier for voting in the future.

I guess my felling is that verification of: (A) who the individual is prior to voting is a common sense idea, and (b) confirming that the person that presents themselves is eligible to vote is also a common sense idea.

No decent and honest American is prevented from voting. All they have to do is present the proper identification as specified in that State's law and they are allowed to vote. The laws prevent no one from voting. Now if you (not you personally of course, the generic "you") are to lazy to ensure you have the proper ID, then it is not the law that prevented you from voting - it's your own laziness in not the ID when needed. So you prevented yourself from voting, not the laws.



>>>>

While I agree completely, what do you say to the women in video, who appears to me to be a decent and honest woman and yet it doesn't appear to me she prevented herself from voting. I suppose those are the kinds of people I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt too, and to be honest if a law regardless of intent does such a thing then it won't have my support.

I checked the Kentucky .gov web site and they have records that go back to 1911 for birth certificates. Here we have the case of someone that was born in 1910.

Is this case of finding someone who may have a difficult time just to make a web video?

How has she pursued this? I'm from New York, there is a process there that if you can apply for a birth certificate by providing confirmation of your birth in New York based on notarized confirmation of birth. In the case of this woman there should be an alternate confirmation process which results in her getting her a birth certificate -- if in fact she was born in Kentucky.

>>>>

 

[PratchettFan]

This notion that people are being charged to vote amuses me, Prat...would you care to show me where that's taking place? Every legislative attempt to require valid ID that I've seen also contains a method for those who can't afford ID to have it provided for them free of charge. This isn't about people not being able to "afford" to get an ID...this is about a political calculation as to how many votes would be lost by people being too lazy to get the ID to vote and on which side of the political equation that loss would be felt. The truth is...progressives don't think a part of their "base" will bother to get ID's no matter WHO pays for them. That's what all this is about...

Too lazy? Is that a reason to disenfranchise someone?

Frankly, I don't think it is taking place anywhere. I don't think there is a single state which has a sole form of ID. The issue itself is smoke and mirrors, just so politicians can tell you that they are on your side while really being on their side.

Now, if you wish to speculate on the polticial equation. I think a lot of people, mistakenly, think that making it harder to vote will make sure that the people they disagree with don't vote. That is based upon the assumption, mistakenly, that anyone who disagrees with one must be lazy or stupid. Otherwise, why make a change at all? Why would people who claim they are opposed to more government regulation be in favor of more government regulation?

If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and get a job I don't think they should be supported by society. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and obtain a valid ID so that the process can be kept from being abused then I don't think they should be allowed to vote. What can I say...I'm one of those "hard asses" who believes in personal responsibility.

As for government regulation? I'm sorry but I don't see requiring a valid ID as an oppressive government regulation. It's something that every adult should already have if they're a functioning part of society.

You are free to be a hard ass, if that pleases you. What can I say, I'm one of those bleeding hearts who does not assume he knows and understands the personal circumstances of every American citizen and would prefer to err on their behalf. It takes all kinds.

 

[Oldstyle]

Too lazy? Is that a reason to disenfranchise someone?

Frankly, I don't think it is taking place anywhere. I don't think there is a single state which has a sole form of ID. The issue itself is smoke and mirrors, just so politicians can tell you that they are on your side while really being on their side.

Now, if you wish to speculate on the polticial equation. I think a lot of people, mistakenly, think that making it harder to vote will make sure that the people they disagree with don't vote. That is based upon the assumption, mistakenly, that anyone who disagrees with one must be lazy or stupid. Otherwise, why make a change at all? Why would people who claim they are opposed to more government regulation be in favor of more government regulation?

If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and get a job I don't think they should be supported by society. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and obtain a valid ID so that the process can be kept from being abused then I don't think they should be allowed to vote. What can I say...I'm one of those "hard asses" who believes in personal responsibility.

As for government regulation? I'm sorry but I don't see requiring a valid ID as an oppressive government regulation. It's something that every adult should already have if they're a functioning part of society.

You are free to be a hard ass, if that pleases you. What can I say, I'm one of those bleeding hearts who does not assume he knows and understands the personal circumstances of every American citizen and would prefer to err on their behalf. It takes all kinds.

I notice that you didn't provide me with any examples of where voter ID laws had been passed where provisions hadn't been made to provide free ID's to those who could not afford them.

As for that charming old lady? There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have had to struggle to get valid ID's because of some circumstance or another. She's one of them simply because she's gone so long without having a valid ID. When I moved from North Carolina to Florida they wouldn't accept my North Carolina driver's license as a valid form of ID to get a Florida license. (That State was on a list of States whose licensing procedures had been deemed to be so shoddy that they weren't reliable) Trust me when I say it was a pain in the butt to get a Florida license. I had to contact the Town Clerk in the town I was born in back in Massachusetts and obtain a certified copy of my birth certificate...something which I believe cost me $40 to have mailed to me. The point I'm making is that this old lady in Arizona WILL get a valid ID if she is persistent. It's something that she really should have taken care of years ago (when she couldn't rent a movie without one and had to have her son do it for her SHOULD have been the tip off that an ID would be useful!) and she has nobody to blame but herself for not doing so.

Oh. sorry...was that me being a "hard-ass" again? Like I said before...that whole notion of "personal responsibility" is something that I was raised to admire.

 

[Too Tall]

My point is that it's almost impossible to navigate other parts of the modern world without showing proper ID yet liberals find it reprehensible that proper ID should be shown in order to do what is arguably the most important thing that we DO as citizens.

Getting a job isn't a right. Voting is. So you want some fascist police state to require you to prove you have a right???? What bullshit. Do you really think all those widows living in assisted living communities have State Required Papers?

No dipshit, the state insists that you prove you are who you say you are. And, those widows and widowers living in assisted living quarters had to prove who they were before they were ever admitted to the home.

There are trained professional at these state licensed assistance living homes that actually ASSIST. That would include helping to get the required papers to get an ID.

 

[Pho_King]

Why is it that the OWS parasites think the only citizens that are too pathetic to get an identification card would also vote for the same losers they would?

 

[Dick Tuck]

This notion that people are being charged to vote amuses me, Prat...would you care to show me where that's taking place? Every legislative attempt to require valid ID that I've seen also contains a method for those who can't afford ID to have it provided for them free of charge. This isn't about people not being able to "afford" to get an ID...this is about a political calculation as to how many votes would be lost by people being too lazy to get the ID to vote and on which side of the political equation that loss would be felt. The truth is...progressives don't think a part of their "base" will bother to get ID's no matter WHO pays for them. That's what all this is about...

Too lazy? Is that a reason to disenfranchise someone?

Frankly, I don't think it is taking place anywhere. I don't think there is a single state which has a sole form of ID. The issue itself is smoke and mirrors, just so politicians can tell you that they are on your side while really being on their side.

Now, if you wish to speculate on the polticial equation. I think a lot of people, mistakenly, think that making it harder to vote will make sure that the people they disagree with don't vote. That is based upon the assumption, mistakenly, that anyone who disagrees with one must be lazy or stupid. Otherwise, why make a change at all? Why would people who claim they are opposed to more government regulation be in favor of more government regulation?

If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and get a job I don't think they should be supported by society. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and obtain a valid ID so that the process can be kept from being abused then I don't think they should be allowed to vote. What can I say...I'm one of those "hard asses" who believes in personal responsibility.

As for government regulation? I'm sorry but I don't see requiring a valid ID as an oppressive government regulation. It's something that every adult should already have if they're a functioning part of society.

Why don't you go down to a local assisted living community and sell that stupidity?

 

[Dick Tuck]

My point is that it's almost impossible to navigate other parts of the modern world without showing proper ID yet liberals find it reprehensible that proper ID should be shown in order to do what is arguably the most important thing that we DO as citizens.

Getting a job isn't a right. Voting is. So you want some fascist police state to require you to prove you have a right???? What bullshit. Do you really think all those widows living in assisted living communities have State Required Papers?

No dipshit, the state insists that you prove you are who you say you are. And, those widows and widowers living in assisted living quarters had to prove who they were before they were ever admitted to the home.

There are trained professional at these state licensed assistance living homes that actually ASSIST. That would include helping to get the required papers to get an ID.

That statement is a complete lie.

 

[OODA_Loop]

There are trained professional at these state licensed assistance living homes that actually ASSIST. That would include helping to get the required papers to get an ID.

That statement is a complete lie.[/QUOTE]

Not really.

 

[Oldstyle]

Too lazy? Is that a reason to disenfranchise someone?

Frankly, I don't think it is taking place anywhere. I don't think there is a single state which has a sole form of ID. The issue itself is smoke and mirrors, just so politicians can tell you that they are on your side while really being on their side.

Now, if you wish to speculate on the polticial equation. I think a lot of people, mistakenly, think that making it harder to vote will make sure that the people they disagree with don't vote. That is based upon the assumption, mistakenly, that anyone who disagrees with one must be lazy or stupid. Otherwise, why make a change at all? Why would people who claim they are opposed to more government regulation be in favor of more government regulation?

If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and get a job I don't think they should be supported by society. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and obtain a valid ID so that the process can be kept from being abused then I don't think they should be allowed to vote. What can I say...I'm one of those "hard asses" who believes in personal responsibility.

As for government regulation? I'm sorry but I don't see requiring a valid ID as an oppressive government regulation. It's something that every adult should already have if they're a functioning part of society.

Why don't you go down to a local assisted living community and sell that stupidity?

There was a time in this country, "Dick"...when we prided ourselves on initiative and personal responsibility (what you seem to think is stupidity!). We were ones who built the highest standard of living this planet has ever seen. Lately however an ever increasing "Nanny State" mentality has turned us into a nation of whiners, unable to take care of the simplest things like getting an ID.

Only the REALLY stupid think that MORE Nanny State is going to make things better.

 

[Pho_King]

If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and get a job I don't think they should be supported by society. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and obtain a valid ID so that the process can be kept from being abused then I don't think they should be allowed to vote. What can I say...I'm one of those "hard asses" who believes in personal responsibility.

As for government regulation? I'm sorry but I don't see requiring a valid ID as an oppressive government regulation. It's something that every adult should already have if they're a functioning part of society.

Why don't you go down to a local assisted living community and sell that stupidity?

There was a time in this country, "Dick"...when we prided ourselves on initiative and personal responsibility (what you seem to think is stupidity!). We were ones who built the highest standard of living this planet has ever seen. Lately however an ever increasing "Nanny State" mentality has turned us into a nation of whiners, unable to take care of the simplest things like getting an ID.

Only the REALLY stupid think that MORE Nanny State is going to make things better.

Well, the really stupid would think that. So would the really lazy.

 

[regent]

With all this voter ID stuff I got concerned about my own voting status. I spent one afternoon on the phone and online trying to make sure I was all shippy-shape and could vote in next election. The result, a wasted afternoon with so many dodges and runarounds I finally gave up. I'll have to take my chances when the election rolls around.