Romney Supports Voter ID Laws That Could Disenfranchise 25% Of African-Americans

christiefan915 said:
So they get a "free" card but have to pay $10 to get a certified copy of the birth certificate, and the costs/aggravation of going to a license center.

I still would like to know how anyone thinks this is constitutional.
Click to expand...

Voting is a privilege christy. Pretending that it is some great tragedy to get the documentation needed to get an ID is an extreme stretch. You do it once and you are done (assuming not a DL, but rather a state issued ID). Once you have your birth certificate, you are done. You never have to do it again. Once you get your state ID, you are done.

Given that you also need an ID for employment, logic would suggest that the majority of people without an ID are not employed. Meaning they have the friggin time to go get an ID. Only those that are physically immobile have an excuse that they can't get there. Everything else can be provided for via the states for those that cannot afford it.
 
Superfreak said:
Voting is a privilege christy. Pretending that it is some great tragedy to get the documentation needed to get an ID is an extreme stretch. You do it once and you are done (assuming not a DL, but rather a state issued ID). Once you have your birth certificate, you are done. You never have to do it again. Once you get your state ID, you are done.

Given that you also need an ID for employment, logic would suggest that the majority of people without an ID are not employed. Meaning they have the friggin time to go get an ID. Only those that are physically immobile have an excuse that they can't get there. Everything else can be provided for via the states for those that cannot afford it.
Click to expand...

since when did voting become a privilege and not a right

as i already pointed out, what about the retired and those that became employed before the i-9 requirements
 
WinterBorn said:
If an employer hired them with only a social security card for an ID, the employer is in violation of federal law.
Click to expand...

Christie doesn't believe ID should be required for anything. Apparently it wasn't so long ago that driver's licenses in PA didn't even have a photo, so her logic is "well that's how it's always been hurr in Pennsylvania." Of course, her true motivation is rooted in concern that Obama will lose the State if the Democrats aren't able to pull their usual dirty tricks. Liberals do not care about truth or integrity. They only care about winning.
 
It is amazing how many knots liberals can twist themselves into trying to excuse voter fraud. Oh the horror of getting an ID card.

ROFLMAO. It is actually laughable
 
Don Quixote said:
since when did voting become a privilege and not a right

as i already pointed out, what about the retired and those that became employed before the i-9 requirements
Click to expand...

It has always been a privilege. That said, as Dung and I discussed a few days ago... it should be a Constitutional right.

Those that became employed before are still required by law to present the ID to their company. (their company should have asked for it as many may not know they are required to do so).

The retired are another story. They still are required to have an ID when applying for SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps etc... Those that are already on them that let their IDs expire will need help in getting them. Which is something we should find a way to help them do. Whether it be via a mobile ID as you suggested or having shuttles take them to and from to get one.
 
Superfreak said:
Voting is a privilege christy. Pretending that it is some great tragedy to get the documentation needed to get an ID is an extreme stretch. You do it once and you are done (assuming not a DL, but rather a state issued ID). Once you have your birth certificate, you are done. You never have to do it again. Once you get your state ID, you are done.

Given that you also need an ID for employment, logic would suggest that the majority of people without an ID are not employed. Meaning they have the friggin time to go get an ID. Only those that are physically immobile have an excuse that they can't get there. Everything else can be provided for via the states for those that cannot afford it.
Click to expand...

You call it a privilege, I call it primarily a right with a few qualifications, i.e. age, competency, criminal record. I haven't yet seen widespread evidence of voter fraud (not registration fraud) that would compel the government to mandate photo IDs for voting. It seems like right after the 2000 election people would have been clamoring to have photo IDs and voting regulations tightened up but that didn't happen. Why now? The problem IMO isn't voter fraud, it's voter indifference.

Now maybe my teenagers didn't need to provide photo IDs to get a job because they were under 18, working part-time, getting minimum wage, something like that. But the SSN was the ID the company required. Your comments about ID for employment, cigarettes, liquor etc. apply to privileges, not constitutional rights. It's not a right to get a job with Company X so you go along with their requirements in exchange for a paycheck. Same for cashing checks, or renting apartments. These are privileges that aren't enumerated in the constitution. Voting is fundamental. Any changes in voting laws over the decades have been to expand rights, not limit them. This call for photo IDs is nothing but a transparent ploy to limit voting. The ACLU v. PA's case is going to get argued on July 25 and I'm having a tough time seeing how the state could win, on constitutional grounds.
 
c'est la vie said:
Christie doesn't believe ID should be required for anything. Apparently it wasn't so long ago that driver's licenses in PA didn't even have a photo, so her logic is "well that's how it's always been hurr in Pennsylvania." Of course, her true motivation is rooted in concern that Obama will lose the State if the Democrats aren't able to pull their usual dirty tricks. Liberals do not care about truth or integrity. They only care about winning.
Click to expand...

You can't just answer a post without lying and being an @sshole, can you. You need to be really careful about your accusations, clearly you're not in possession of the facts.

Mike Turzai, R-PA said it all:

In listing the accomplishments of the state House and Senate GOP for the partisan crowd, Mr. Turzai pointed to the new requirement for all voters to show a photo ID card as one example.


"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done," Mr. Turzai told the gathering of party activists. "First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

 
WinterBorn said:
If an employer hired them with only a social security card for an ID, the employer is in violation of federal law.
Click to expand...

I just double-checked with my younger son. He reiterated that he didn't need photo ID to get hired, and still hasn't had to provide one after being employed almost a year.

And here's what's on the EEOC website: "Similarly, employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted."

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
You call it a privilege, I call it primarily a right with a few qualifications, i.e. age, competency, criminal record. I haven't yet seen widespread evidence of voter fraud (not registration fraud) that would compel the government to mandate photo IDs for voting. It seems like right after the 2000 election people would have been clamoring to have photo IDs and voting regulations tightened up but that didn't happen. Why now? The problem IMO isn't voter fraud, it's voter indifference.
Click to expand...

I call it a privilege because it is. It is not a right. It should be, but as of right now it is not. If it is not a big deal for people to be required to have a photo ID to buy cigarettes or alcohol or to get a job, food stamps, welfare, social security etc.... then it is not a big deal for people to be required to have one to vote.

Now maybe my teenagers didn't need to provide photo IDs to get a job because they were under 18, working part-time, getting minimum wage, something like that. But the SSN was the ID the company required. Your comments about ID for employment, cigarettes, liquor etc. apply to privileges, not constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, the I9 rules apply to everyone. But I will have to check on minors... there may be an exception. Again... voting is also a privilege. It is not a Constitutional Right. If we provide those who cannot afford it with one for free, there is no reason to oppose them getting an ID given that they need it for so many other aspects of their lives it is simply common sense that we make sure everyone has an ID... whether we use them for voting or not.

It's not a right to get a job with Company X so you go along with their requirements in exchange for a paycheck. Same for cashing checks, or renting apartments. These are privileges that aren't enumerated in the constitution. Voting is fundamental. Any changes in voting laws over the decades have been to expand rights, not limit them. This call for photo IDs is nothing but a transparent ploy to limit voting. The ACLU v. PA's case is going to get argued on July 25 and I'm having a tough time seeing how the state could win, on constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...

Again... voting is also a privilege, not a right. You are not limiting anyone by requiring an ID, you are simply telling them that if they want to exercise their right, they need to go get one. They have plenty of time to do so. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this issue of requiring IDs.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf
 
christiefan915 said:
I just double-checked with my younger son. He reiterated that he didn't need photo ID to get hired, and still hasn't had to provide one after being employed almost a year.

And here's what's on the EEOC website: "Similarly, employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted."

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm
Click to expand...

That is a pre-employment requirement. the very next sentence states...

If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top