- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,823
- 350
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.
See highlight above^. It would be ridiculous to think that a person would be obtaining an ID "for the sole purpose of voting". Is there a single American citizen that can get through life without any form of ID whatsoever? I highly doubt it. That person couldn't be hired w/o valid ID (IRS), couldn't collect public assistance, couldn't do pretty much anything. The term frivolous Lawsuit comes to mind.
I agree. The voter ID is needed to prove citizenship because our own government made it necessary to do this. If they had done their job all these years and upheld laws, we wouldn't be in this mess. The forefathers likely never saw this coming, as with many other things our government has done.
The constitution is for the American people, not for citizens of other countries who sneaked in here. The government has muddied the waters and now protests efforts to get things clear, namely who really can legally vote. We know damn well illegals are voting and there are an estimated 20 million here and that doesn't include anchor babies and their grandchildren. When members of a family are here illegally, the rest of the family will also vote for whomever is willing to overlook that.
We cannot allow millions of illegal aliens to cancel out the votes of millions of citizens. It is the citizens who are grossly disenfranchised when our votes no longer count because too many illegals are participating.
I believe the rights of the majority of citizens far outweighs the desires of illegal aliens.
Obamacare will require the use of IDs, so shouldn't people be getting those IDs anyway? I'm sure if Obama wins because of all those voters (who could register and get to polls with no problem) get him re-elected, he won't hesitate to turn around and demand that each and every person in America obtain ID so they can be forced to purchase and/or use his crappy health care plan. What will the left's argument be then? Probably the usual, "it's for your own good." Well, it's in the best interest of al citizens to protect our voting rights by ensuring no one casts an illegal vote. If the illegals have a problem with this, fuck 'em.
A hell of a lot more people will have their voting rights trampled if we don't insist on ID.
Last edited: