SCOTUS finds voter ID laws constitutional

[NoNukes]

No one has ever provided a real world example of voter fraud which ONLY Voter ID could have prevented.

Simple fact.

Most voter fraud can be fixed with existing methods. Proper maintenance of voter registration rolls, in particular. Key word: Proper.

It amazes me faux right wingers are screaming for more government interference in the exercising of their Constitutional rights!

OK, you go in to register to vote, you have to show some form of ID in order to register. WTF is wrong with having to show that same ID when you go to vote? Why do you on the left object to voters proving who they are before voting?

Who is being disenfranchised by having to prove their identity?

ID is fine if it is free and easy for everyone to get.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree with the idea of ID laws for voting. I always have.

Some jurisdictions (PA and OH?) had made the process so onerous that obviously that legitimate voters were being unreasonably denied the right.

You do agree that the process should not be so onerous.

Yes, of course, obtaining an ID should be easy for everyone. who in PA or OH was denied easy access to obtaining an ID?

We are not going relitigate what the courts decided.

I am glad you agree that obtaining ID should be easy.

That's all that counts.

 

[daveman]

We all know you are not telling the full story. When you do we can talk. Until you do we will laugh at you.

then tell it. lets hear your answers.

simple questions: Why do dems and libs object to a common sense action that would help ensure the honesty of our voting system? Who in today's society does not have some form of govt issued ID?

are you claiming that some american citizens are being prohibited from obtaining a govt issued ID? if so, who? and while you are working on that, tell us why the dems in Fla did not want to count the absentee military ballots in 2008 and 2012.

I agree with the idea of ID laws for voting. I always have.

Some jurisdictions (PA and OH?) had made the process so onerous that obviously that legitimate voters were being unreasonably denied the right.

You do agree that the process should not be so onerous.

Voter ID: State Requirements

Ohio:

All voters must provide to election officials at the polling place on the day of an election proof of the voter's identity. Also applies to voters requesting and voting an absentee ballot.

Current and valid photo identification, defined as a document that shows the individual’s name and current address, includes a photograph, includes an expiration date that has not passed, and was issued by the U.S. government or the state of Ohio
Current utility bill
Current bank statement
Current government check, paycheck or other government document

A voter who has but declines to provide identification may cast a provisional ballot upon providing a social security number or the last four digits of a social security number. A voter who has neither identification nor a social security number may execute an affidavit to that effect and vote a provisional ballot. A voter who declines to sign the affidavit may still vote a provisional ballot.

Voters who cast a provisional ballot because they did not provide acceptable proof of identity must appear in person at the board of elections to provide such proof within the 10 days immediately following Election Day. (see the Ohio Secretary of State's FAQ on provisional voting)​

Not at all onerous.

PA:

Each elector who appears to vote and desires to vote shall present proof of identification.

Identification must satisfy the following:
Shows the name of the individual, which must substantially conform to the individual's name on the precinct register
Show a photograph of the individual to whom it was issued
Be issued by the U.S. government, Commonwealth of PA, a municipality of the Commonwealth to an employee of the municipality, an accredited PA private or public institution of higher learning or a PA care facility
Include an expiration date and not be expired (exception for a military ID with an indication that it has an indefinite expiration date or a PA driver's license or non-driver ID card that is not more than 12 months past the expiration date)

A voter who is indigent an unable to obtain ID without any payment or fee, or who is otherwise unable to obtain ID, may vote a provisional ballot.
A voter who casts a provisional ballot because he or she is unable to provide proof of identification must execute an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and do one of the following within six calendar days after the election:

Appear in person at the county board of elections to complete the affirmation and present proof of identification;
Submit an electronic, facsimile or paper copy of the affirmation and the proof of identification.​

A voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee must submit an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and that he or she is indigent in the same time frame and manner as described above.​

Again, not at all onerous.

There really can be no valid objection to voter ID laws -- unless you want votes cast by people unable to vote legally.

That's all there is to it.

 

[Redfish]

I agree with the idea of ID laws for voting. I always have.

Some jurisdictions (PA and OH?) had made the process so onerous that obviously that legitimate voters were being unreasonably denied the right.

You do agree that the process should not be so onerous.

Yes, of course, obtaining an ID should be easy for everyone. who in PA or OH was denied easy access to obtaining an ID?

We are not going relitigate what the courts decided.

I am glad you agree that obtaining ID should be easy.

That's all that counts.

Good, but you said that OH and PA made is difficult to get an ID. Dave proved you wrong. Are you ready to admit that you either lied about that or made it up?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, of course, obtaining an ID should be easy for everyone. who in PA or OH was denied easy access to obtaining an ID?

We are not going relitigate what the courts decided.

I am glad you agree that obtaining ID should be easy.

That's all that counts.

Good, but you said that OH and PA made is difficult to get an ID. Dave proved you wrong. Are you ready to admit that you either lied about that or made it up?

Why would he start now?

 

[mudwhistle]

Finally, but I never understood why anyone would object to proving who they are before casting their ballot.

It should be easy to understand.

Bed wetting liberals live in a world of lies and deceit.

Retarding their ability to get their criminally insane leftist political whores into office by making people show ID to vote is cause for objection in their "minds".

How about we remove the requirement to show ID to buy guns, then let them stuff ballot boxes?

It's not as if leftist governments haven't been the greatest cause of mass murder and wars in the last century or anything.

The left and Islam.

 

[legaleagle_45]

SCOTUS long ago found voter ID laws to be constitutional (well if you consider 2008 to be "long ago"). The case was Crawford vs. Marion County, available here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf

What SCOTUS did recently was to void a portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which had required that any changes in voting laws of certain states and certain counties states must be approved by the federal government. These states and counties were determined by a formula which was established in 1965 to identify jurisdictions that had discriminated against minority voters.

Texas was one of the jurisdictions subject to the Voting Rights Act. There proposal for a voter ID law was rejected by the feds, not based upon the Constitution but upon the statute as tending to disenfranchise minorities.

The recent decision of SCOTUS declared that the determination made in 1965 concerning who was required to comply with the law was outdated and must be brought up to date to reflect changing circumstances. This eliminated the coverage of the law to Texas and thus allowed Texas to institute Voter ID in spite of the federal objections.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one has ever provided a real world example of voter fraud which ONLY Voter ID could have prevented.

Simple fact.

Most voter fraud can be fixed with existing methods. Proper maintenance of voter registration rolls, in particular. Key word: Proper.

It amazes me faux right wingers are screaming for more government interference in the exercising of their Constitutional rights!

OK, you go in to register to vote, you have to show some form of ID in order to register. WTF is wrong with having to show that same ID when you go to vote? Why do you on the left object to voters proving who they are before voting?

Who is being disenfranchised by having to prove their identity?

ID is fine if it is free and easy for everyone to get.

That defeats the purpose of Voter ID.

"Free and easy to get"? Gee, that's whats wrong with people, wanting everything free and easy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

then tell it. lets hear your answers.

simple questions: Why do dems and libs object to a common sense action that would help ensure the honesty of our voting system? Who in today's society does not have some form of govt issued ID?

are you claiming that some american citizens are being prohibited from obtaining a govt issued ID? if so, who? and while you are working on that, tell us why the dems in Fla did not want to count the absentee military ballots in 2008 and 2012.

I agree with the idea of ID laws for voting. I always have.

Some jurisdictions (PA and OH?) had made the process so onerous that obviously that legitimate voters were being unreasonably denied the right.

You do agree that the process should not be so onerous.

Voter ID: State Requirements

Ohio:

All voters must provide to election officials at the polling place on the day of an election proof of the voter's identity. Also applies to voters requesting and voting an absentee ballot.

Current and valid photo identification, defined as a document that shows the individual’s name and current address, includes a photograph, includes an expiration date that has not passed, and was issued by the U.S. government or the state of Ohio
Current utility bill
Current bank statement
Current government check, paycheck or other government document

A voter who has but declines to provide identification may cast a provisional ballot upon providing a social security number or the last four digits of a social security number. A voter who has neither identification nor a social security number may execute an affidavit to that effect and vote a provisional ballot. A voter who declines to sign the affidavit may still vote a provisional ballot.

Voters who cast a provisional ballot because they did not provide acceptable proof of identity must appear in person at the board of elections to provide such proof within the 10 days immediately following Election Day. (see the Ohio Secretary of State's FAQ on provisional voting)​

Not at all onerous.

PA:

Each elector who appears to vote and desires to vote shall present proof of identification.

Identification must satisfy the following:
Shows the name of the individual, which must substantially conform to the individual's name on the precinct register
Show a photograph of the individual to whom it was issued
Be issued by the U.S. government, Commonwealth of PA, a municipality of the Commonwealth to an employee of the municipality, an accredited PA private or public institution of higher learning or a PA care facility
Include an expiration date and not be expired (exception for a military ID with an indication that it has an indefinite expiration date or a PA driver's license or non-driver ID card that is not more than 12 months past the expiration date)

A voter who is indigent an unable to obtain ID without any payment or fee, or who is otherwise unable to obtain ID, may vote a provisional ballot.
A voter who casts a provisional ballot because he or she is unable to provide proof of identification must execute an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and do one of the following within six calendar days after the election:

Appear in person at the county board of elections to complete the affirmation and present proof of identification;
Submit an electronic, facsimile or paper copy of the affirmation and the proof of identification.​

A voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee must submit an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and that he or she is indigent in the same time frame and manner as described above.​

Again, not at all onerous.

There really can be no valid objection to voter ID laws -- unless you want votes cast by people unable to vote legally.

That's all there is to it.

That is the court's business to decide, and it did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, of course, obtaining an ID should be easy for everyone. who in PA or OH was denied easy access to obtaining an ID?

We are not going relitigate what the courts decided.

I am glad you agree that obtaining ID should be easy.

That's all that counts.

Good, but you said that OH and PA made is difficult to get an ID. Dave proved you wrong. Are you ready to admit that you either lied about that or made it up?

Dave did not. Dave showed what those states did after they were ordered do it, and you know it, and you are lying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, you go in to register to vote, you have to show some form of ID in order to register. WTF is wrong with having to show that same ID when you go to vote? Why do you on the left object to voters proving who they are before voting?

Who is being disenfranchised by having to prove their identity?

ID is fine if it is free and easy for everyone to get.

That defeats the purpose of Voter ID.

"Free and easy to get"? Gee, that's whats wrong with people, wanting everything free and easy.

Because voting is a right and should not be onerous. Because a fee can be a poll tax for the poor. Because, as usual, you have no idea of what you are saying.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Finally, but I never understood why anyone would object to proving who they are before casting their ballot.

We are still waiting for that link.

You wouldn't care if he provided it, hack.

 

[depotoo]

ID is fine if it is free and easy for everyone to get.

That defeats the purpose of Voter ID.

"Free and easy to get"? Gee, that's whats wrong with people, wanting everything free and easy.

Because voting is a right and should not be onerous. Because a fee can be a poll tax for the poor. Because, as usual, you have no idea of what you are saying.

show me one state that will not waive the fee for an ID if someone cannot afford it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

It's sure being a mixed bag of decisions..

There isn't anyone who is going to happy at all the rulings.

If a state is stupid enough to want Voter ID, go right ahead. But they need to provide evidence it won't disenfranchise voters.

Last year, before the election, Pennsylvania enacted a voter ID law which would have disenfranchised voters. And it was a Republican judge who had the incredible courage to reverse himself which stopped that law from being enacted. The judge had the integrity to go back and actually examine whether or not the law would disenfranchise people, and he found it would. So he reversed his previous ruling.

That Voter ID law did not allow enough time for everyone who did not have an ID to get one in time for the November election.

And that is why you heard the bullshit whining about entire voting precincts in Philly voting for Obama, as if some kind of fraud was going on. This was the faux right wingers attempts to cover up the embarrassment of being proven wrong about Voter ID laws. But gee, an entire black neighborhood chose not to vote for a party which clearly hates them, and tried to stop them from being able to vote. Who would have guessed?

Voter ID is a hugely stupid idea. It solves NOTHING, but does put one more hurdle between you and your constitutional rights.

Stupid idea for libtards who like illegal votes to get their fool in office, like obamaturd and franken.

 

[Redfish]

We are not going relitigate what the courts decided.

I am glad you agree that obtaining ID should be easy.

That's all that counts.

Good, but you said that OH and PA made is difficult to get an ID. Dave proved you wrong. Are you ready to admit that you either lied about that or made it up?

Dave did not. Dave showed what those states did after they were ordered do it, and you know it, and you are lying.

sorry, snake. But you lost this one early on. nothing I said was a lie, but almost everything you said was.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good, but you said that OH and PA made is difficult to get an ID. Dave proved you wrong. Are you ready to admit that you either lied about that or made it up?

Dave did not. Dave showed what those states did after they were ordered do it, and you know it, and you are lying.

sorry, snake. But you lost this one early on. nothing I said was a lie, but almost everything you said was.

Yeah, you lied, and all know it. It's what you do when you can't carry an argument. That was proven early on.

 

[depotoo]

Dave did not. Dave showed what those states did after they were ordered do it, and you know it, and you are lying.

sorry, snake. But you lost this one early on. nothing I said was a lie, but almost everything you said was.

Yeah, you lied, and all know it. It's what you do when you can't carry an argument. That was proven early on.

Just because Jake claims it doesn't make it so. Reader beware.

 

[tjvh]

Voter ID's will disenfranchise dead Democrats everywhere.

 

[Google]

Now nearly every voter ID law has been found to be constitutional.

Liberals still proclaim it is the same as Jim Crow laws, showing their incredible ignorance.

 

[Redfish]

sorry, snake. But you lost this one early on. nothing I said was a lie, but almost everything you said was.

Yeah, you lied, and all know it. It's what you do when you can't carry an argument. That was proven early on.

Just because Jake claims it doesn't make it so. Reader beware.

OH, I am well aware of that. snake jockey makes a fool of himself daily. I pay him no heed, but he is fun to destroy with facts and logical thought---two things that liberals never have on their side