Supreme Court upholds Photo-ID law for Indiana voters

Damocles said:
LOL Go Montana!

Has anybody told you that we plan on retiring there? Don't be inviting any more people!
Click to expand...
Where 'bouts in MT are you looking at?

A lot of people are choosing to retire here. Very annoying what that has done to housing prices here, not to mention the open space that people are coming here for.

I have an excuse, though. I came BACK to Montana to retire.
 
Good Luck said:
Where 'bouts in MT are you looking at?

A lot of people are choosing to retire here. Very annoying what that has done to housing prices here, not to mention the open space that people are coming here for.

I have an excuse, though. I came BACK to Montana to retire.
Click to expand...
I don't really know yet. It depends on where I can go that I can get away from people.

The goals is to be able to look in any direction and not see evidence of another person. It doesn't have to be large, just private.
 
Superfreak said:
Care....

1) You have to have a photo ID to fly or to go in and out of the country

2) you have to have a photo ID to write a check

3) Most places card anyone who looks like they could be under 30 for alcohol

4) I am not talking specifically getting a drivers license.... I am talking about a state issued ID.

5) I do not think this is restricted to simply stopping illegals from voting.

6) Yes, there are other issues of voter fraud. I have mentioned that as well.

7) I agree absentee ballots pose a problem. Solved again by a valid state ID. A copy must accompany the ballot. Done.

8) Electronic machines. Again, I would go with the scantronic machines. Fill out paper, feed paper into machine, it says... "you are voting for person A" If person A is who you are voting for... you hit ok... you get a paper receipt of your vote. done. Next???
Click to expand...

Just answer me one question super, this law was set in place to stop voter fraud, can you PLEASE show me where there was any voter fraud that this new law with a picture id would stop...ANY kind of fraud that has been documented by any state for any number of people.

I have googled and searched from here to high heaven and THERE IS NONE...but go ahead and try yourself....if you come up with voter fraud at the voting boots as a problem and the id being the solution to stop this fraud I will EAT MY WORDS on this.....

But as far as I can see there is NO FRAUD, what so ever that a pictured gvt id card having to be shown at the poll, is going to prevent.

THIS IS WHY I AM AGAINST IT. If it solved any or just one of the major problems we have with voter fraud I would agree to it, BUT it does NOT Super!!!

Soooooo, one has to ask oneself, why is this being forced on to us in the guise of making us think that our votes will be more secure/sanctified?

something fishy is going on and it doesn't smell pretty....:shock:

care
 
Care4all said:
THIS IS WHY I AM AGAINST IT. If it solved any or just one of the major problems we have with voter fraud I would agree to it, BUT it does NOT Super!!!

Soooooo, one has to ask oneself, why is this being forced on to us in the guise of making us think that our votes will be more secure/sanctified?

something fishy is going on and it doesn't smell pretty....:shock:

care
Click to expand...

Exactly care. Superfreak is one of those Big Government Republicans who really likes the blinders he's been issued.

It is NOT about vote fraud, it is about gaining more ownership of the individual by the government. And Superfreak just loves that.
 
Beefy said:
Exactly care. Superfreak is one of those Big Government Republicans who really likes the blinders he's been issued.

It is NOT about vote fraud, it is about gaining more ownership of the individual by the government. And Superfreak just loves that.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahaha mbl! I never saw Super that way, has he changed in the time I've been away?

How are ya cutie pie? In Hawaii I hear? Man oh man are you a lucky dog...matt and I went to Maui a while back on vacay and it was one of the best vacations ever...snorkling was supreme!

mama Care lol
 
Sorry BAC I strongly disagree with your statement of:
"There have been few if any cases of people voting when they shouldn't."

We did elect Bush twice :shock:
 
Care4all said:
Just answer me one question super, this law was set in place to stop voter fraud, can you PLEASE show me where there was any voter fraud that this new law with a picture id would stop...ANY kind of fraud that has been documented by any state for any number of people.

I have googled and searched from here to high heaven and THERE IS NONE...but go ahead and try yourself....if you come up with voter fraud at the voting boots as a problem and the id being the solution to stop this fraud I will EAT MY WORDS on this.....

But as far as I can see there is NO FRAUD, what so ever that a pictured gvt id card having to be shown at the poll, is going to prevent.

THIS IS WHY I AM AGAINST IT. If it solved any or just one of the major problems we have with voter fraud I would agree to it, BUT it does NOT Super!!!

Soooooo, one has to ask oneself, why is this being forced on to us in the guise of making us think that our votes will be more secure/sanctified?

something fishy is going on and it doesn't smell pretty....:shock:

care
Click to expand...
First, try to explain exactly how in-person voter fraud can be caught. The lack of numbers is more likely to be due to the inability to prove fraud than it is due to lack of fraud. We all know there are those extremists of both parties who are willing to do anything to get their candidate elected.

It is only logical that in-person fraud is one method they use BECAUSE with out the need to prove identity, there is no practical way to prove in-person vote fraud has occurred unless the fraudulent voter screws up. And even if they make mistakes it is still unlikely to be caught. Do you think polling officials go over the sign-in forms in fine detail looking for evidence of fraud? At best they count the number of signatures to make sure it comes reasonably close to the number of ballots cast.
(note: REASONABLY close, not exact match.)
 
Good Luck said:
First, try to explain exactly how in-person voter fraud can be caught. The lack of numbers is more likely to be due to the inability to prove fraud than it is due to lack of fraud. We all know there are those extremists of both parties who are willing to do anything to get their candidate elected.

It is only logical that in-person fraud is one method they use BECAUSE with out the need to prove identity, there is no practical way to prove in-person vote fraud has occurred unless the fraudulent voter screws up. And even if they make mistakes it is still unlikely to be caught. Do you think polling officials go over the sign-in forms in fine detail looking for evidence of fraud? At best they count the number of signatures to make sure it comes reasonably close to the number of ballots cast.
(note: REASONABLY close, not exact match.)
Click to expand...

they ask you your full name, what address you live at, your party that you are registered under at the poll, who's gonna know all that about you and take the chance going in to your voting district poll kowing the polling person may know you and you may have also voted already which would send the sirons going?

why WASTE the time and money for these ids that solve NONE of our KNOWN ways of committing voter fraud in the numbers of thousands per community, while IGNORING ALL of these known voter fraud crimes like using dead voters via absentee ballots or an insecure voting machine or when illegals register to vote?

something AIN'T RIGHT with this picture and i'm calling foul on it!!!!!

care
 
Voter-ID laws .. a solution looking for a problem.

The opinion of Justice Stevens ..

"The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

The "scattered instances of in-person voter fraud" .. the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election, a partial investigation confirmed that one voter committed in-person voting fraud.

In other words, there is no real problem of in-person voter fraud, just a solution that may do far more harm than good. There is however, many documented cases of absentee fraud and fraud using electronic voting .. but let's just ignore those because they benefit the Republican Party.

What "democracy?"
 
Care4all said:
they ask you your full name, what address you live at, your party that you are registered under at the poll, who's gonna know all that about you and take the chance going in to your voting district poll kowing the polling person may know you and you may have also voted already which would send the sirons going?

why WASTE the time and money for these ids that solve NONE of our KNOWN ways of committing voter fraud in the numbers of thousands per community, while IGNORING ALL of these known voter fraud crimes like using dead voters via absentee ballots or an insecure voting machine or when illegals register to vote?

something AIN'T RIGHT with this picture and i'm calling foul on it!!!!!

care
Click to expand...
They can read info right off the sheet. A lot of times I point out my own name on the registry when voting. An did you ever think some of the hundreds of phone polls going on are for other purposes than anticipating who will win? They all ask similar questions: "are you registered to vote?" (yes) "What party did you register under?" (independent) "Do you plan on voting in the November 2008 election?" (no)

Bingo. They have your address from getting your phone number out of the phone book.

Add that to a little research on who died in the last 12 months, but are still on the registry, and they can gather a whole bunch of names. Divide them among several people who go from polling place to polling place. With thousands of people voting at each place, it is even possible to vote the same place twice - just time it so the people on duty the first time are on break the second time.

You seem to think in-person vote fraud is going to be a few loners acting randomly. That would not make sense if the intent was to truly influence the outcome of a vote. As with years past when people would organize to purchase people's votes, in-person vote fraud, by necessity, is organized and planned - and almost impossible to track.

Several thousand people attend each polling place. What are the REAL chances a poll worker will know the person whose name has been targeted for fraud? Practically nil. Through planning they can reduce the chances of targeting an active voter to almost nil. And once fraud has taken place, unless one of the above mistakes were made, it is literally impossible to detect from going back over the registry sheets. It is not like they have the money to have people go over signatures one by one to make sure they match. Nor do they go back over polls and call people asking them if they really voted or not.

The fact is we have no real idea how much in-person vote fraud is taking place because of the difficulties in detecting it. I would imagine there are a lot of SUSPECTED instances, but since they cannot be proven, it would not make the news.

Conversely, the concern over fraud via absentee voting is over rated. Having worked with the military on absentee ballots, I know the verification process is a lot more thorough than what I go through voting in person. In some areas the verification process needs to add a check against registered voteers who have died. A lot of areas already do that check. Plus the verification process leaves a paper trail that makes it FAR easier to prove a fraud has taken place, which is why there are more established cases than in-person fraud. There is not an equivalent paper trail for in-person voting, just a signature on a registry sheet.
 
Good Luck said:
They can read info right off the sheet. A lot of times I point out my own name on the registry when voting. An did you ever think some of the hundreds of phone polls going on are for other purposes than anticipating who will win? They all ask similar questions: "are you registered to vote?" (yes) "What party did you register under?" (independent) "Do you plan on voting in the November 2008 election?" (no)

Bingo. They have your address from getting your phone number out of the phone book.

Add that to a little research on who died in the last 12 months, but are still on the registry, and they can gather a whole bunch of names. Divide them among several people who go from polling place to polling place. With thousands of people voting at each place, it is even possible to vote the same place twice - just time it so the people on duty the first time are on break the second time.

You seem to think in-person vote fraud is going to be a few loners acting randomly. That would not make sense if the intent was to truly influence the outcome of a vote. As with years past when people would organize to purchase people's votes, in-person vote fraud, by necessity, is organized and planned - and almost impossible to track.

Several thousand people attend each polling place. What are the REAL chances a poll worker will know the person whose name has been targeted for fraud? Practically nil. Through planning they can reduce the chances of targeting an active voter to almost nil. And once fraud has taken place, unless one of the above mistakes were made, it is literally impossible to detect from going back over the registry sheets. It is not like they have the money to have people go over signatures one by one to make sure they match. Nor do they go back over polls and call people asking them if they really voted or not.

The fact is we have no real idea how much in-person vote fraud is taking place because of the difficulties in detecting it. I would imagine there are a lot of SUSPECTED instances, but since they cannot be proven, it would not make the news.

Conversely, the concern over fraud via absentee voting is over rated. Having worked with the military on absentee ballots, I know the verification process is a lot more thorough than what I go through voting in person. In some areas the verification process needs to add a check against registered voteers who have died. A lot of areas already do that check. Plus the verification process leaves a paper trail that makes it FAR easier to prove a fraud has taken place, which is why there are more established cases than in-person fraud. There is not an equivalent paper trail for in-person voting, just a signature on a registry sheet.
Click to expand...
hahahahahaha! you'd make a GOOD crook!!!!! lol

I hadn't thought about some of the things you suggested!

but to sharp shoot it....IF any of what you speculate can happen or actually has happened, then why haven't there been any cases in which the actual registered voter changing their minds and showing up at the polls and their names being crossed off already as voting....don't you find it strange that if people were really committing fraud the way you say, that a few of them did not get caught?

Also, I have never been in a poll where the voter's registration list was just laying in any kind of plain view! The election poll personel was always facing me and always had the clipboard held to her chest, and the same with my husband's polling registration check person on the republican side....her registered voter list was on a clipboard and it was held to her chest or in her own direction, opposite of ours.

they knew us by face after the 2nd election or so...how come that none of these proposed perps that you suggest have not been pegged by a poll person?

There is absolutely no record of any of this Good luck? I honestly believe that cheaters already know that this type of fraud could be easily caught and this is why they do not approach fraud from this angle...and this is why there IS MORE FRAUD prevelent in absentee voting....

so I view this differently from you....though I will say you did have me going for a minute or two regarding the things that could be done...until I thought it through and examined the results.... I would NEVER SAY NEVER on this though...meaning, some fool might try to get away with some sort of single handed fraud in one way or another, but certainly not worth abridging the right of some in this country to vote.

We all have the right to vote, without gvt abridgement of any sort....

if there is a conversion to mandatory id's that are going to take place...I would like to see it done over a 5 year grace period or something like this...

Care
 
Last edited:
Care4all said:
hahahahahaha! you'd make a GOOD crook!!!!! lol

I hadn't thought about some of the things you suggested!

but to sharp shoot it....IF any of what you speculate can happen or actually has happened, then why haven't there been any cases in which the actual registered voter changing their minds and showing up at the polls and their names being crossed off already as voting....don't you find it strange that if people were really committing fraud the way you say, that a few of them did not get caught?

Also, I have never been in a poll where the voter's registration list was just laying in any kind of plain view! The election poll personel was always facing me and always had the clipboard held to her chest, and the same with my husband's polling registration check person on the republican side....her registered voter list was on a clipboard and it was held to her chest or in her own direction, opposite of ours.

they knew us by face after the 2nd election or so...how come that none of these proposed perps that you suggest have not been pegged by a poll person?

There is absolutely no record of any of this Good luck? I honestly believe that cheaters already know that this type of fraud could be easily caught and this is why they do not approach fraud from this angle...and this is why there IS MORE FRAUD prevelent in absentee voting....

so I view this differently from you....though I will say you did have me going for a minute or two regarding the things that could be done...until I thought it through and examined the results.... I would NEVER SAY NEVER on this though...meaning, some fool might try to get away with some sort of single handed fraud in one way or another, but certainly not worth abridging the right of some in this country to vote.

We all have the right to vote, without gvt abridgement of any sort....

if there is a conversion to mandatory id's that are going to take place...I would like to see it done over a 5 year grace period or something like this...

Care
Click to expand...
What is the size of your polling place? Sounds pretty small if you have the same poll workers who recognize you after only two elections.

Think about BIG cities, a few thousand people going to a polling place over the day. You almost never see the same workers in the same place between two elections in high population areas, and they sure as heck are not going to recognize two faces out of several thousand after two elections unless they have additional contact between elections. Fraudulent voters are not going to target small places because, as you say, too easy to get caught. In small places, people know each other. Big places, there is too much anonymity and more opportunity to organize enough "workers" to make a difference in a close race.

As for reports of in-person voter fraud, I doubt they'd even make the news unless an election were close enough that it would have changed the results. Look for vote fraud stories prior to the last couple elections. Almost nil of any type of voter fraud stories. Even now most stories are about potential voter fraud, and not about actual cases.

Montana has had an ID requirement as long as I have been retired here. I haven't asked when it started because it doesn't bother me. It does not seem to bother anyone else either. The policy must have been fairly recent, though. possibly last presidential election. The 2006 election they had ads on TV reminding people to bring their IDs when voting. Even the governor made one.

Actually I have been registered as a Montana voter my entire career. One advantage of being military. My job can move me all over, but I get to keep claiming the same place as home. All it cost me was a PO box rental.

I've been over seas for three elections. Twice I did not receive my absentee ballot on time. THERE is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
 
Care4all said:
hahahahahaha! you'd make a GOOD crook!!!!! lol
Click to expand...
I was a security NCO for 12 years. One of my jobs was to think of ways to defeat security so we could plug holes before a real bad guy got through. The experience made me think like a crook. Got pretty good at it. Good thing I'm honest.:D

Later I transferred to intell. There I played the bad guy too - OpFor (short for Opposing Force). Was REALLY good at that. Bent a lot of egos when I'd whip some smart-assed colonel's regiment. Then my hip went bad and I finished out my career behind a desk as an analyst.
 
BTW, why is it that needing a (free) photo ID to exercise your Constitutional right to vote, is an "excessive Burden" that infringes that right......

....but requiring three forms of ID, six sets of fingerprints, a criminal background investigation, a state permit, a city permit, a character reference from the chief of law enforcement of your county, and a $200 Federal tax stamp to exercise your Constitutional right to keep and bear a small-arms weapon like an M16, **NOT** an infringement on your 2nd amendment rights? But merely a "reasonable restriction"?
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
I was a security NCO for 12 years. One of my jobs was to think of ways to defeat security so we could plug holes before a real bad guy got through. The experience made me think like a crook. Got pretty good at it. Good thing I'm honest.:D

Later I transferred to intell. There I played the bad guy too - OpFor (short for Opposing Force). Was REALLY good at that. Bent a lot of egos when I'd whip some smart-assed colonel's regiment. Then my hip went bad and I finished out my career behind a desk as an analyst.
Click to expand...
Do Jars play war at NTC as well or is your NTC 29 Palms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top