Why Do "Desperate Democrats" Strongly Appose Voter Photo I.D. Requirement For 2012 ?

[M14 Shooter]

The law cannot be changed - during- the election.

No, but it can be interpreted.

If you the standard is something other than "determine the intent of the voter", then the law has changed.
"Chads hangng by one corner" or whatnot is a change from "determine the intent", and thus, tke law changed.

 

[Foxfyre]

It wouldn't surprise me if very deep blue districts within a purple state, run by democrats would allow anyone to vote, even if that individual barely spoke english and his/her only ID's were a library card and an electricity bill of their spouses who's last name was "Rodrigues" or "Smith",,,,,yes, yes, Cee! dat iz my husbands name on thee beel.

NY is "deep blue?" really? someone needs to tell pataki and giuliani and turner ....quick!

just because you pretend something is true... doesn't make it so. but thanks for the little racist BS.

I don't see in that post anythin about NY being 'deep blue'. I see 'very deep blue district within a purple state.' Big difference there.

I also don't see anything racist in that post unless you think knowing that many people barely speak English is racist.

 

[techieny]

because the dead, illegals, and such can't vote if they are required to show ID.

Yup this about sums it up!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

just because you pretend something is true... doesn't make it so.

Irony so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it.

 

[Londoner]

This is a distortion of the facts.

The Supreme Court did not find fault with Florida Supreme Court's decision to grant Gore a hand recount.

Are you sure?

{Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at ___—___ (slip. op., at 6—7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30—31).}

Are you talking about Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd or Bush v Gore? Given the dates in your pasted text, I think the former (but I'm not certain).

Wasn't it determined in Bush v Gore that Gore was legally entitled to a manual recount, but that there was not enough time to resolve the equal protection issue and meet the safe harbor deadline... (?) Meaning: the safe harbor deadline was more important than resolving the EP violation and trying to count all the legal votes.

Secondly, I've been trying to find the safe harbor deadline in Federal and Florida law, but I can't. I'm not saying it does not exist - because it was clearly a vital part of this case. I suspect it is hidden in language that is open to interpretation, but I can't say for certain.

 

[Intense]

It wouldn't surprise me if very deep blue districts within a purple state, run by democrats would allow anyone to vote, even if that individual barely spoke english and his/her only ID's were a library card and an electricity bill of their spouses who's last name was "Rodrigues" or "Smith",,,,,yes, yes, Cee! dat iz my husbands name on thee beel.

NY is "deep blue?" really? someone needs to tell pataki and giuliani and turner ....quick!

just because you pretend something is true... doesn't make it so. but thanks for the little racist BS.

When is the last time NY supported a Republican Candidate for President?

Granted, Surprisingly Governor Cuomo is Governing like a Conservative in many ways. I'm still not over the shock.

 

[Jarhead]

It wouldn't surprise me if very deep blue districts within a purple state, run by democrats would allow anyone to vote, even if that individual barely spoke english and his/her only ID's were a library card and an electricity bill of their spouses who's last name was "Rodrigues" or "Smith",,,,,yes, yes, Cee! dat iz my husbands name on thee beel.

NY is "deep blue?" really? someone needs to tell pataki and giuliani and turner ....quick!

just because you pretend something is true... doesn't make it so. but thanks for the little racist BS.

Jillian....very disingenuous of you.
New York is a very blue state...in particular in the lower tier....and seeing as you live here, I know you know it. It is obvious to anyone who is politically aware.
Help me out...when was the last time NY State voted in a Republican President?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you talking about Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd or Bush v Gore? Given the dates in your pasted text, I think the former (but I'm not certain).

Wasn't it determined in Bush v Gore that Gore was legally entitled to a manual recount, but that there was not enough time to resolve the equal protection issue and meet the safe harbor deadline... (?) Meaning: the safe harbor deadline was more important than resolving the EP violation and trying to count all the legal votes.

Secondly, I've been trying to find the safe harbor deadline in Federal and Florida law, but I can't. I'm not saying it does not exist - because it was clearly a vital part of this case. I suspect it is hidden in language that is open to interpretation, but I can't say for certain.

All cites are verbatim from Bush v. Gore. The SCOTUS ruling is linked in the post.

 

[Intense]

It wouldn't surprise me if very deep blue districts within a purple state, run by democrats would allow anyone to vote, even if that individual barely spoke english and his/her only ID's were a library card and an electricity bill of their spouses who's last name was "Rodrigues" or "Smith",,,,,yes, yes, Cee! dat iz my husbands name on thee beel.

NY is "deep blue?" really? someone needs to tell pataki and giuliani and turner ....quick!

just because you pretend something is true... doesn't make it so. but thanks for the little racist BS.

Jillian....very disingenuous of you.
New York is a very blue state...in particular in the lower tier....and seeing as you live here, I know you know it. It is obvious to anyone who is politically aware.
Help me out...when was the last time NY State voted in a Republican President?

New York is a Very Blue State. Privilege, State Workers, and Unions, set the tone. Fines, Fee's, and Penalties. The most used Phrase in the State Constitution, "You Must".

 

[Londoner]

If you the standard is something other than "determine the intent of the voter", then the law has changed.
"Chads hangng by one corner" or whatnot is a change from "determine the intent", and thus, tke law changed.

You might be right, but isn't a visual inspection of the ballet exactly what is meant by "determine the intent". (not being rhetorical, genuinely asking)

Not quite on point, but...

Consider the Votomatic punch card system (which has a lower error rate than optical scan, and thus treats voters differently). The Votomatic system punches the chad into a receptacle tray. When the tray fills up, the chad cannot be completely punched out, so it often hangs or displays a dimple. Until Bush v Gore, this type of ballot was reviewable by the canvassing board to determine voter intent. This authority to glean voter intent is provided in section 101.5614(5) of the Florida election code which concerns "damaged or defective" ballots, which declares that "no vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board". And section 102.166(7)(b), which governs manual recounts and provides that “f a counting team [conducting a manual recount] is unable to determine a voter’s intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter’s intent.” . This is part of the reason the dissenting SCOTUS's didn't see a genuine equal protection violation, because the power to interpret intent is granted by the Florida election code to the relevant canvassing board, that is, the canvassing board's discretion is the mechanism that ensures EP. If this is too broad and vague, than change the law . . . but not during an election.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you the standard is something other than "determine the intent of the voter", then the law has changed.
"Chads hangng by one corner" or whatnot is a change from "determine the intent", and thus, tke law changed.

You might be right, but isn't a visual inspection of the ballet exactly what is meant by "determine the intent". (not being rhetorical, genuinely asking)

I would suppose so - but unless thereis a consistent standard in evaluating what you see, it doesn't matter.

section 101.5614(5) of the Florida election code which concerns "damaged or defective" ballots, which declares that "no vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the canvassing board".

Yes... and because this vague w/o any sepcific standard in how to do so, it does not provide EP.

And section 102.166(7)(b), which governs manual recounts and provides that “f a counting team [conducting a manual recount] is unable to determine a voter’s intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter’s intent.”

See above.

This is part of the reason the dissenting SCOTUS's didn't see a genuine equal protection violation...

The vote went 7-2; the dissenters were the 2 most liberal members of the court.

because the power to interpret intent is granted by the Florida election code to the relevant canvassing board, that is, the canvassing board's discretion is the mechanism that ensures EP.

As noted before:
If no specific standard is given by law, the law does not provide EP.
If the law does not provide EP, then the law violates the Constitution, and is invalid.
Without a valid law for evaluating the ballots, the ballots cannot be evaluated

If this is too broad and vague, than change the law . . . but not during an election.

The law -was- too broad and vague, as the court ruled 7-2.
The 7-2 ruling invalidated the laws tha allowed for the manual recounts, and thus ended the election.

Once the laws that allow for manual recounts are invalidated, how can/do you conduct manual recounts?

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

I wasn't referring to New York/Cally/Illinois....I said "Purple State" like Pennsylvania, Nevada,Colorado. I still don't trust any possible shananigans that would occur in the blue districts of Philly. Especially after we had Black Panthers guarding their precinct. That's the equivalent of Three White Men in military guard standing in front of precincts in Denver/Vegas/Iowa making sure most democrats aren't allowed in without 5 forms of photo ID.

 

[Londoner]

I would suppose so - but unless thereis a consistent standard in evaluating what you see, it doesn't matter.

If no specific standard is given by law, the law does not provide EP. If the law does not provide EP, then the law violates the Constitution, and is invalid. Without a valid law for evaluating the ballots, the ballots cannot be evaluated

Yes, but I was suggesting that the consistent standard is the discretion of the canvassing board, which is clearly empowered by the Florida election code to determine intent. If this is too vague, than change the law, just don't change it during an election. (Umpires sometimes see balls and strikes differently, but this doesn't change the fact that the consistent standard for determining balls and strikes is an umpire's interpretation of the strike zone. You might say that there is no real discretion here because umpires are bound to official strike zone parameters, and each umpire attempts to apply this to all batters equally. But each voting district is equally bound to the discretion of their canvassing board, just as each county is bound to different voting machine types, which have different error rates and thus treat votes differently county to county)

My irrelevant emotional response is: Just as the 6,000+ people who accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan (but then filled in Al Gore's name by hand) have no one to blame but themselves (quipped Rehnquist), the Florida legislature has to live with the discretionary power they granted to canvassing boards . . . unless they decide to change the law mid-stream. However, my quip doesn't work because the Legislature doesn't have to live with anything but the US Constitution, which left some low hanging fruit for the SCOTUS-5 w/ EP.

The vote went 7-2; the dissenters were the 2 most liberal members of the court.

I think I see your point, but wasn't it 7-2 that found for EP violation, but 5-4 for how to handle this finding, i.e., remand back to Florida Supremes who had no choice but to dismiss case(?). The final result was considerably more partisan than 7-2, which is a shame because this is the kind of decision where you would want the full support of the more centrist members. (Irrelevant, yes - but it shows the tragedy of having an election determined by 9 people along partisan grounds, which is extremely ironic because the south has a long history of fighting the concentrated power of the federal government. Irrelevant, again, but I'm guessing historians are going to have a field day on both sides of the political spectrum.)

 

[Londoner]

All cites are verbatim from Bush v. Gore. The SCOTUS ruling is linked in the post.

The paragraph you cited leads with:
The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ____ (per curiam) (Bush I).

I'm pretty sure they are referring to Bush v. Palm... within their Bush v Gore ruling.

I was only trying to say that their big problem with the recount was not the fact that it was legally available in a general sense, but that it could not be applied in this case because of the intricate way EP and Safe Harbor were interpreted by SCOTUS. In retrospect, I was saying something so trivial that it was not worth mentioning: Gore was permitted a manual recount under Florida law, but the proposed recount failed on something substantive - it didn't satisfy EP. I still don't understand why it wasn't sent back to Florida for a uniform standard, but M14 makes a good point that creating a uniform standard for measuring voter intent would be changing the law during an election contest. I'm inclined to get liberal semantic and fuzzy and say: they would not be creating but "interpreting" the law, which gives canvassing boards the right to determine intent. But to be honest with you, this case seems to have a frustratingly thin line between the legislative act of making law and the Court's role in interpreting it. This is because voter intent was never clearly defined by the legislature. One wonders how they survived this long with such a severe EP violation (e.g., empowering canvassing boards to interpret voter intent in the absence of clearly defined standard). Worse: if EP is so important, why has it been largely abandoned since this case? It makes you think that laws are fungible things used only when they support one's political or moral vision.

11 years later and the Flordia Legislature still gives canvassing boards the same standard-less authority to interpret voter intent. (This is either a "smoking gun" or the mark of severe incompetence. Since the "person" in question is government, my guess is that it's both)

 

[Lovebears65]

acorn voter fraud proof..


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkUKOSnv2zY]CNN Exposes How ACORN Steals Votes For Democrats - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jffk2Dxv-A&feature=related]ACORN Video Exposing FRAUD - Obama Caught - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0hUI33MVaQ&feature=related]Ohio Man Testifys ACORN Registed Him 18 + Times 10-13-08 - YouTube[/ame]
There are ton more examples on youtube

 

[Lovebears65]

here is a man that says he voted a couple times

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwng4omanI&feature=related]CNN-Philly Man says he is voted a couple of times - YouTube[/ame]