Yup.
ID is needed and since that doesn't prevent someone from voting multiple IDs let's ink those thumbs.
hey cowgirl lets discuss elections
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Yup.
ID is needed and since that doesn't prevent someone from voting multiple IDs let's ink those thumbs.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I would agree with the thumb ink and would consider it a sign that I've done my civic duty; but those that are cheating, without photo IDs, would just find a way to remove the ink stain.
evince
Truthmatters
there is no like record of the dem party doing the same cheating as he republican party.
Yes I have looked
have you?
evince
Truthmatters
before you go making bars to leap over first you need to prove a NEED for such laws.
no study has found this to be any kind of a real problem in our elections
evince
Truthmatters
where is your proof that someone is effecting elections this way?
There is mountians of proof the republican party cheats voters out of their rights to vote.
does that matter to you?
evince
Truthmatters
are you aware some people DO have trouble getting these IDs because of where they live?
evince
Truthmatters
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-10-25/news/mn-7435_1_republican-national-committee
In an Aug. 13 memo the court made public Friday, Kris Wolfe, the Republican National Committee Midwest political director, wrote Lanny Griffith, the committee's Southern political director, and said of the Louisiana campaigning:
"I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls. . . . If it's a close race . . . which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably."
In an Aug. 13 memo the court made public Friday, Kris Wolfe, the Republican National Committee Midwest political director, wrote Lanny Griffith, the committee's Southern political director, and said of the Louisiana campaigning:
"I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls. . . . If it's a close race . . . which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably."
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. Most recently, in late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the Republican National Committee had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. The RNC subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc.
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. Most recently, in late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the Republican National Committee had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the Republican National Committee asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. The RNC subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc.
evince
Truthmatters
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/news/la-pn-supreme-court-rnc-voter-fraud-20130114
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.
The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.
For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”
The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.
The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.
For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”
The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter to me who has cheated but instead ending cheating from all for today and the future. I can't change past cheating, but making it so that nobody of any party can cheat should be the goal.
That's an issue of logistics then and should be addressed by the local, county, or state government to ensure that they are able to obtain ID's. You need a license to drive a car and you need a physical address for that to happen just like if you get a state issued ID you usually need a physical address. If you are homeless then sure that could be a problem but otherwise even if you are renting you should still have an address to compare to along with a photo. You have to show a photo ID when you use a credit card to buy groceries so I guess to me it just makes sense to have to do a similar thing to vote for the leader of the free world.
Only registered votors can vote.
Yes that's correct however without a photo ID to verify the person at the voting booth is the same person that's on the registration sheet then in theory anybody can go vote under anybody's name with or without that person's knowledge. That's not to say that it happens a lot but if a photo ID helps put an end to even just one instance of voter fraud then that's not a bad thing.
The whole point is that no one cheats on the voter level
$10,000 fine and five years in jail in a pretty good deterant.
There simply isn't a problem here.
Illegals don't vote because they can't register therefore there is no ballot available to them.
Evince has been very kind to you, politely asking you to verify the need for extra poll security.
There simply is no need and attempts to "improve" the system have all been proven to be attempts to disenphrachise blacks or other minority segments of the population of their voting rights.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
People are can also be required to show an ID, when they rent, board an airplane, apply for food stamps, cash a check, buy tobacco, buy alcohol, go to a hospital, etc; but for some reason, when it comes to voting there seems to be this huge problem.
Just think how many "unfortunate" people the liberals could have helped, if they put the same energy into helping them get IDs instead of whining about it.
Voting is a right under the constitution.
None of the other things you mentioned are rights.
He has been very kind to me and I appreciate that. I hope i've been equally kind to him. I guess for me i'm just looking for a good example as to how a photo ID would disenfranchise someone. If they match the photo and their home address matches with where they are registered then skin color shouldn't matter I wouldn't think.
First off it doesn't happen.
Second, you would take the voting priviledge from millions of people to prevent one case of theorectical fraud?
Go find a single case of voter fraud and we can discuss it further.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
How would you propose you do a study?
There are a lot of people who have no I.D. and no means to aquire one.
Evince is a woman.