Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Prove citizenship to vote?

Feedback Response to this article:
House acts to require voters to prove citizenship

How many on the Left hold this POV?

Just Another Effort By the Cons

To disenfranchise those who they think would NEVER vote for them. This is probably illegal under the Voting Rights Ammendment. Something our delightfully decadent Attorney General, Mr. Alberto "Torture" Gonzalez, has been working feverishly with the neocons State-by-State to undermine over the last several months. The Cons are masters of the political oxymoron. Whatever they say they're doing, they're actually doing the opposite. But their base obviously approves of lying and cheating, so we'll just have to hope all decent Americans continue to turn away from them.
I hope the ACLU or someone sues and the lower courts kill this Con plot quickly. Or at least put it on hold until after the elections. Because we know Alberto. He'll appeal any lame Bushco scheme all the way up to the Supreme Court. There are already protections in place. The Cons are just up to their usual dirty tricks.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Prove citizenship to vote?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Prove citizenship to vote?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
true as if they dont

In reply to: Prove citizenship to vote?

how will the illeagles vote:)

Collapse -
I couldn't help but notice...

In reply to: Prove citizenship to vote?

I couldn't help but notice two segments of the story:
''Democrats said the bill's requirements would hurt the poor, the elderly and others unable to easily obtain the documents required.'' and
''This is calculated to disenfranchise a certain segment of our society and those are minorities. The collateral damage will be seniors, the homebound, victims of disaster and members of the armed services.''
Don't members of the armed services already have a photo ID? The inclusion of ''victims of disaster'' makes me think of Katrina and calls to mind the recent election for Mayor of NOLA and Nagin putting up billboards in Atlanta. I can't help but wonder how many of the people from NOLA who now live in Atlanta and voted for Nagin will vote for a canidate for Govenor in Georgia's upcoming election.
In the mentioned case of Georgia's photo ID situation, if you didn't have one and/or had trouble getting to a place to get one the State provided vans that would go to you, on request, and make one for you free of charge. But the Democrats seem to still object, even though it would make it simple and free for the elderly, disabled, and others who don't have one to get it. I suspect that there is another reason for their objections, other than the obvious one that those vans probabily wouldn't issue one to somebody in a grave.

Collapse -
J, anything that makes it harder (and more time-consuming)

In reply to: I couldn't help but notice...

to vote specifically works to deny the opportunity to vote to those who much punch an hourly clock and get docked for time off the job. It also works to the disadvantage of those who are not highly mobile, whether because of age or infirmity, or because of limited transportation options. Now ask yourself, which party and philosophy gets a higher percentage of the votes of those who are highly mobile and hold professional jobs that don't require punching a clock, and which party primarily gets its votes from the folks mentioned in the first half of this message? Given that the party/philosophy that stands to gain has the attitude that too many of the wrong kind of people vote (earlier in my lifetime oft enshrined in bumper stickers and buttons reading ''this is a Republic, not a democracy -- let's keep it that way!) it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see this as part of the Republicans' routine ''vote suppression'' efforts. Democrats/liberals generally try to get out their own vote; most Republicans/ conservatives seem to feel that anything they can do to supress opponents' votes is ethical and allowable. And that's a belief that is indeed inimicable to democracy.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
That's ridiculous

In reply to: J, anything that makes it harder (and more time-consuming)

You have a right to vote. There is no right to vote w/o expending any effort at all. Having a valid ID to show is a no-brainer. Anything less is just an invitation to fraud. If you're a citizen, you have a FREE social security number.

All of the items you list are more than reasonably accomodated for by keeping the polls open for 12+ hours, advanced in-person voting in many locations, and absentee ballots.

So a better question, would be why you would want to make it easier for NON-citizens to vote?

You making this argument to J is especially ironic, no?

BTW, where's Jonah ''spelling cop'' Jones when you need him? The word you were looking for was inimical

Devil

Collapse -
I actually looked it up in the dictionary, Evie,

In reply to: That's ridiculous

and either form can be used. Inimicable is the original, and has gradually been shortened to inimical -- just the way ''pathological'' is often becoming ''pathologic.'' About liguistics, I'm conservative!

As for your argument -- taking time off work when you make a pittance anyway, and then having to find a way to the few locations where an ID can be obtained (in some states, twice, as they won't mail the card -- you have to come back for it ''to prevent fraud'') is hardly just ''inconvenient'' -- it's a major barrier. And, of course, the number of locations is kept low, again ostensibly to prevent fraud, which also makes them difficult to reach for those who don't own a car. In Texas, we have ''voter ID cards'' (without picture) that are mailed out to each registered voter in January each year. The law says that's the accepted ID -- but the highest Republican county office-holder, who's responsible for the mailing, actually tried to prevent the mailing on the basis that even thought the ID proscribed by law, she didn't consider it ''adequate.''
So much for faithfully executing the duties of her office (she's the county tax collector -- don't ask me why she's the one who mails them out...)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
I really wish the moderators would simply ...

In reply to: I actually looked it up in the dictionary, Evie,

... make a second post if they screw up, just like the rest of us. This is the second time in recent memory that I've been unable to post my reply because a moderator has deleted their initial post and reposted. Now I have to C&P to make the post.

Which was:

You'll have to provide links relating to the situation you describe. Sorry, but you have demonstrated an inability to accurately describe such in the past so your credibility is in question.

Having an ID will, if anything, expedite the voting process, so your whole time off scenarios are simply bogus. One has to wonder why Democrats are so lock step behind doing anything to fix the REAL fraud problems in our election process.

As to the word usage in general, I wouldn't have brought it up, but today was apparently the day for such. As for the usage in question, I think a quick google of ''definition inimical'' vs. ''definition inimicable'' will show that the former is far more widely and appropriately used. It's more akin to saying ''unequivocably'' when ''unequivocally'' is the correct word. Kerry was good at that last one, so you'll feel in good company.

Collapse -
dk

In reply to: J, anything that makes it harder (and more time-consuming)

how does it hurt the hourly worker to have a valid id card?
and as to loseing time bs
they have time to vote then take time to get id

seems to me its the democrates who seem to think that wonder why could it be fraud

Collapse -
DK drags that old argument out ...

In reply to: dk

... every time. I wonder if he's ever even punched a clock. But it becomes more bogus with each advancing year now that most places offer absentee ballots for everyone (used to be you had to have a reason not to vote in person) and the ability to vote several days in advance.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Do any colleges require ID

In reply to: DK drags that old argument out ...

to take tests or finals??

Collapse -
Not for regular exams

In reply to: Do any colleges require ID

And when I was a freshman (and lesser extent a sophomore) there were often several hundred students from different sections of a class taking an exam at the same time with proctors. Never really occurred to me at the time, but I suppose it would have been possible to have a different student take my exams for me!

However, at many universities, you are required to carry ID at all times. Citizenship isn't checked for that, unfortunately, so taxpayer dollars go to subsidize illegals in the higher education system. Sad

Evie Happy

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Probably should --- high school, too

In reply to: Do any colleges require ID

Collapse -
as you know

In reply to: DK drags that old argument out ...

ill be in nj in nov
ill go the week b4 to vote early
such a hardship its an outrage i tell you

wheres the king when you need him
and i dont mean elvis:)

Collapse -
If anyone can tell me what the problem would be ...

In reply to: as you know

... with the following suggestion, I would love to hear it.

When you register to vote, you get a bar-coded voting card. That is scanned into a nationwide system when you vote. No double voting, etc. If you are denied a vote in your proper polling place because the number has been used already (fraud of some sort) then a contingency ballot will be issued, to be counted when the error has been cleared up.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
NO WAY !!!!

In reply to: If anyone can tell me what the problem would be ...

way too much oppertunity for fraud and abuse

Collapse -
It just so happens

In reply to: If anyone can tell me what the problem would be ...

I read an article yesterday about 2-D bar codes. "...the barcodes cannot be used again as each is unique..."

That would keep people from using fakes.

Collapse -
Unless the fake is used first...

In reply to: It just so happens

then it would prevent the real one from being used.

Collapse -
Maybe not --

In reply to: Unless the fake is used first...

If the machine knows what to expect and gets something different, then it'll be smart enough to know the fake is a fake. Happy

Collapse -
No problem with that at all, Evie,

In reply to: If anyone can tell me what the problem would be ...

with two caveats:

1) Registration should be available at every police precinct/sheriff's office in America.
2) The deadline for registration should be at most two weeks before election day, and thse who will be 18 BY election day should be allowed to register.

Here's another example of the Republican supress the vote effort:

Some say voting law being used to scare minorities.
(Chronicle login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)

>> At issue for the women and others investigated by Abbott is a 2003 Texas law that makes it a crime to put other voters' absentee ballots in the mail or deliver them to election officials.

Backers of the law say it's needed to prevent election fraud by paid political operatives who take advantage of the elderly or even steal their votes. Detractors say the law is overly broad, goes too far in criminalizing legitimate political activity and infringes on voters' rights to assistance. <<

While the law may in fact be a good one, the problem is selective enforcement:

>> Democrats complain, and the suit will argue, that Abbott is selectively enforcing the law against Hispanics and blacks to intimidate minority voters and dilute their strength at the polls.

Abbott, a Republican, said he's enforcing state law to root out an "epidemic" of fraud and to prevent "cheaters" from abusing or intimidating the elderly or disabled. For too long, he argues, Texas officials have failed to hold accountable those who undermine the electoral process....

Both Democratic and Republican political activists have traditionally assisted elderly or home-bound voters who need help in voting, said attorney J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of the Washington-based Campaign Legal Center, who plans to file the lawsuit on behalf of Democrats.

"Now, merely possessing the mail-in ballot of another person is a misdemeanor. If you do it for several voters, it becomes a felony. It is my view that this is unconstitutional," said Hebert, who headed the U.S. Justice Department's voting section of the civil rights division until 1994.

Of the 13 individuals indicted on charges of voter fraud by Abbott, 10 are accused of simply possessing another's absentee ballot for delivery to election officials or to a mailbox, Democrats say. Such activities had been legal until the 2003 law turned them into crimes [passed in the first session after Republicans took control of the newly gerrymandered Legislature -- DAK]

Democrats also complain that of the 13 individuals indicted by Abbott for voter fraud, 12 are minority women while one is a white male. Moreover, Abbott's voter fraud indictments include no Republicans.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
I was just bringing the ballot to the mailbox

In reply to: No problem with that at all, Evie,

LOL!

If you have no problem with this, what's your beef with showing ID?

Collapse -
Shouldn't be a LOL at all, Evie.

In reply to: I was just bringing the ballot to the mailbox

There are lots of old folks for whome that's a real problem, especially as the number of mail boxes in the country is down substantially, and continually decreasing. And as the article said, that was a service parties routinely used to perform. The law makes it a crime for one neighbor to take a ballot to the mailbox (on request) for another, and that's just absurd.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) How about the USPS pickup at the door?

In reply to: Shouldn't be a LOL at all, Evie.

Collapse -
Problem is...

In reply to: If anyone can tell me what the problem would be ...

you should still have to show proof of citizenship when registering. That's why DK has no problem with it; non-citizens could get those cards too.

Proof of citizenship needs to be provided at some step along the way.

Also, not so hard to counterfeit such cards. Needs a bit more security,

Collapse -
I don't have a problem with the proof aspect, Ed.

In reply to: Problem is...

My problem is with the typical Republican insistence on a minimal number of registration locations, ideally (for them) situated as far as possible from public transportation, and of course only operating 9-5 M-F. If you can't see how that is a particular disadvantage to a blue-collar worker on a time clock and without a car, or to the elderly and infirm, then you really aren't thinking clearly. And in this era of computerization, there's no excuse for a long delay between the last day to register and the election day -- those one-month rules (still the law here in texas Sad ) were designed for the days of large printed books that had to be printed and sent out to the appropriate polling place. I'd say the gap should ideally be zero (show a passport at the polls and register on the spot!), but two weeks is the maximum defensible number. And (unlike the law in many states) those who WILL reach voting age by election day should be registered, even though not yet 18, not told "wait two more years to vote."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) What an incredible load of LIES !!!

In reply to: I don't have a problem with the proof aspect, Ed.

Collapse -
That's right, DM, just deny reality.

In reply to: (NT) What an incredible load of LIES !!!

Remember the controversy over the "motor voter" bill? The Republican goal for decadews has been to make it as difficult to register as possible, because they believe (probably accurately) that their voters will take more effort to register than will the typical Democratic voter. And that's no lie! The nominal argument is "election security," but how does minimizing the number of places and times at which one can show legitimate proof increase security? It's a complete red herring.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
What you discount is...

In reply to: That's right, DM, just deny reality.

that the various Democrat schemes to loosen requirements makes it easier for non-citizens and other unqualified (or nonexistent) people to become voters. That is the Democrat aim because they feel that will increase their numbers.

Collapse -
Motor voter FRAUD has panned out.

In reply to: That's right, DM, just deny reality.

You are NEVER concerned about genuine cases of voter fraud.

Collapse -
Got an idea...

In reply to: Motor voter FRAUD has panned out.

Got an idea for somebody good with Photoshop and a sense of humor. Get a picture of the Georgia Voter ID, change the words Voter ID to Democratic ID at the top. For the address put metro cemetary, plot 1234, and for the picture put a photo of the "Cryptkeeper" from Tales of the Crypt.
That would make a funny poster.

Collapse -
Absolutely laughable

In reply to: That's right, DM, just deny reality.

That you think preventing voting fraud is suppression.

As for motor voter, are you aware that illegal aliens can get drivers licenses ?
And for the poor needing Ids to vote, they need ID to get welfare.

Collapse -
And they seem to be able to find ...

In reply to: Absolutely laughable

... transportation and time outside of work to cash those checkes at the check cashing places! Wink Next time they can stop by the DMV on the way to get their voting ID!

BTW, I don't know many "working poor" who work 9-5 jobs anyway. But that's another issue.

Evie Happy

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

SMART HOME

This one tip will help you sleep better tonight

A few seconds are all you need to get a better night's rest.