Court's photo ID ruling is bad for democracy

What a crock. This is something that folks of all political persuations can agree on. Yes, you have to prove who you say you are. You have to have photo ID for almost everything anymore. How could you get through life without one.
Hardship? For God's sake, what hardship. If your right to vote doesn't mean enough to have a simple thing like the propper identification then you don't deserve to vote, nor do I want you to.

The requirements of Indiana's voter photo-ID was well publicized since I moved here two years ago.

A free photo ID is available at all motor licence branches. In fact, all licence branches were open extra hours on the weekend and monday before the election just to give voters a chance to get a driver license or the free ID.

I do not see how these nuns rights were violated. Part of having the right to vote is educating yourself on the requirements of voting and meeting those requirements. I don't find having to have a photo ID as an overly burdensome requirement. Photo IDs help prevent voter fraud. IF the law did not give the nuns and other voters due time to obtain a photo ID, that is a different issue entirely. I realize that it may be slightly difficult for older citizens to obtain aphoto ID, having had a relative who needed to obtain one shortly after 9/11 to be able to travel by plane. Although the process is tedious it is not overly difficult. I believe the Supreme Court made the coorect decision! The league of Women Voters provide an excellent service to voters, however this time I feel THEY are the ones who are on the wrong side of the issue.

What is the league trying to do rig elections with non-citzens voting? Unless your trying to stuff the ballot box your are dead wrong! Have no problem with producing photo ID. The idea is to prevent fraud not keep people from voting. Maybe the league instead of whining and being anti-citzen should help people get a photo ID if they are LEGAL residents instead of destroying the intregity of the elections. Just anoither whiner who did not get their way. Grow up

Buck 298 wrote:

What a crock. This is something that folks of all political persuations can agree on. Yes, you have to prove who you say you are. You have to have photo ID for almost everything anymore. How could you get through life without one.
Hardship? For God's sake, what hardship. If your right to vote doesn't mean enough to have a simple thing like the propper identification then you don't deserve to vote, nor do I want you to.

Yet tell them they'll get a free cruise around the world or week free at the casinos and all they'll need is a picture id/passport and they'll be ther before you can say Aunt Jemima!

Those who think it is wrong for voter id uphold illegal immigration and don't understand that to have a true voter turn out and integrity minded election is what America is about. So you left right middle of the road stradelers need to have a gut check. maybe you don't believe in America anymore?

Dems don't like photo ID's because much of their voter base consists of the criminal element who get nervous because someone may recognize them as the same picture hanging in the local Post Office.

It is frightening that the President of the League of Women Voters in Northampton County would be so strenuously opposed to such a common sense method of combatting voter fraud. Her hysterical reaction illustrates her leftist leanings. Does she represent all of the League of Women Voters?

Does this mean I should be able to use Santa Bannon-Shillea's name when I vote so I can get an extra vote cast for my candidate? I mean, by her logic, I won't have to show any ID. That way, if I get there early enough I can use all of my neighbor's names too, just in case they're not voting for who I want.

I bet these people can cough up some I.D. to collect Social Security or welfare.

I work the polls and in PA, new voters must show their ID cards. Everyone must sign their name when they vote, so unless someone has registered twice, they will not be able to vote twice. Since you need proof of identity to register, if someone does register twice, they will most likely have the fake identification to coincide with it.

I can see where people in assisted-living situations could experience an undue burden to getting government photo IDs. As long as these issues are taken into consideration, there should be no problem for new legislation.

I am a proud Democrat who totally supports picture IDS!!!!!!!!!! What I don't support is neo-cons like you who use it specifically to surpress voters who dont agree with your ultra right wing BS!

Dem Exterminator wrote:

Dems don't like photo ID's because much of their voter base consists of the criminal element who get nervous because someone may recognize them as the same picture hanging in the local Post Office.

drmmkr wrote:

I am a proud Democrat who totally supports picture IDS!!!!!!!!!! What I don't support is neo-cons like you who use it specifically to surpress voters who dont agree with your ultra right wing BS!
<quoted text>

I am a proud Republican (and certainly not what you call a "neo-con") who totally supports picture IDS!!!!!!!!!! What I don't support is liberals like you who pretend that voter fraud (ORGANIZED voter fraud at that) doesn't occur. Picture ID's do not surpress voters who dont agree with me. They MAY suppress people wanted for crimes from showing up at the polls (and in case you missed it, THAT was my point).

Jim wrote:

I work the polls and in PA, new voters must show their ID cards. Everyone must sign their name when they vote, so unless someone has registered twice, they will not be able to vote twice. Since you need proof of identity to register, if someone does register twice, they will most likely have the fake identification to coincide with it.
I can see where people in assisted-living situations could experience an undue burden to getting government photo IDs. As long as these issues are taken into consideration, there should be no problem for new legislation.

Thats all well and good with the signing the name. But what if these frauds get a list of names of registered voters and vote for them do at their precinct before they get a chance to? Photo ID is common sense. It is a shame that common sense is hardly common these days.

Voter fraud doesn't normally occur around here. I agree ,you should be required to show a photo id with your signature.

Why do you think in the west Virginia primary it took till 1:00 am to get a count from the county bordering Chicago ? Cematary votes.

Jeeze: cemetery

I Got a Hummer from AVIS wrote:

<quoted text>
I am a proud Republican (and certainly not what you call a "neo-con") who totally supports picture IDS!!!!!!!!!! What I don't support is liberals like you who pretend that voter fraud (ORGANIZED voter fraud at that) doesn't occur. Picture ID's do not surpress voters who dont agree with me. They MAY suppress people wanted for crimes from showing up at the polls (and in case you missed it, THAT was my point).

I like the name. That should piss off avis

I guess the myth of non-partisanship of the League of Women's Voters is completely gone. Since the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2000 election was 7-2 it does not seem as though the Court is nearly as partisan as the League. To get the real scoop on the poor nuns in Indiana see John Funds commentary in the Wall Street Journal Online. These women hand many opportunities to vote but refused all of them, out what appears to be defiance.

Disenfranchisement occurs when a fraudulent vote cancels out a legal vote not when a citizen is asked to show a photo ID the same as when they rent a video at Blockbuster.

The League needs a new President if the want to regain any credibility.

A quick review of the posts seems to indicate great conservative support for government-mandated picture-ID.

I thought you guys were all in favor of smaller government, and less government intrusion into people's lives.

Please make up your minds.

Here are some facts to chew on:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >
Rationale for Voter ID Requirements

Voter identification requirements, while increasingly popular in state legislatures around the country, are a solution without a problem. There is virtually no evidence that voters engage in voter impersonation – the only kind of fraud addressed by additional ID requirements – with any frequency. As noted by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law:“This rare kind of fraud is very risky and promises little reward.”

In Ohio, a statewide survey found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9,078,728 votes cast – a rate of 0.00004%. Despite the invocation of fraud as support for the new Georgia law, Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox has stated that she could not recall one documented case of voter fraud relating to the impersonation of a registered voter at the polls during her ten-year tenure as an election official.

Nationwide, since October 2002, 52 individuals have been convicted of federal crimes relating to election fraud (including several offenses not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871 ballots have been cast in federal general elections. Statistically, Americans are more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning.”

The fact that this crime is almost never committed can be attributed in part to the severe penalties already in place under existing law. Most states and the federal government have criminalized election fraud, and the crime may result in fines up to $10,000 and up to five years in prison.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Learn more about this non-existent problem here:
http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/...