Do we need voter ID??? (Page 3): Dear Tex While I agree with what you have presented it would be great if you provided the source of the info. Thanks. Snoopy...

Snoopy

texasace wrote:

Ever wonder why voter ID is necessary? br THIS IS ... (show quote)

Dear Tex

While I agree with what you have presented it would be great if you provided the source of the info.

Thanks.

Snoopy

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Ricko wrote:

JFlorio-in answer to your question. What would yo... (show quote)

If the issue ever gets before the SCOTUS the attached ruling may well apply for ALL states~~And should~~We need an ID for just about everything, why is this such an issue other than "protecting the fraud involved?"
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_courts/breaking_supreme_court_rejects_challenge_to_indiana_voter_id_law

6-3 plurality decision just came down, split with 3 Justices rejecting the facial challenge. More to follow.
Justice Scalia: This is an area where the dos and don'ts need to be known in advance of the election ...It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes.
UPDATES: Opinion here. Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito would have upheld the law on the broader ground that it imposed the same requirements equally on all voters. Both opinions give great weight to the state interest in ensuring that only eligible voters cast ballots. Justice Souter, joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, dissented.
This is a major defeat for the Democrats' efforts to prevent states from requiring valid identification to vote. The lawsuit was brought by the Indiana Democratic Party.
Justice Scalia's separate opinion is redolent of the judicial hangover from Bush v. Gore in its emphasis on the hazards of permitting case-by-case judicial review of neutral rules established by state legislatures before an election takes place.
More below the fold.
Justice Stevens' plurality opinion starts by noting the rule laid down in the Court's poll tax cases (I'm omitting footnotes, citations, etc. as I go):
[E]ven rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.... [H]owever, we [have] confirmed the general rule that "evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself" are not invidious ...Rather than applying any "litmus test" that would neatly separate valid from invalid restrictions, ... a court must identify and evaluate the interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, and then make the "hard judgment" that our adversary system demands.
Justice Stevens then addressed the case at bar:
While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified.. <snip> plenty more that follows...

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

karpenter wrote:

How About A Birth Certificate

Too easy to fake....as you're well aware of....

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Super Dave wrote:

The picture ID is to make sure that they are the person on the voter roll. Drivers liscenses are fairly effective.

It's the only reasonable way, I agree, I don't mean to be irritating, but more one digs, the more one finds. I live in an area with a lot of foreign nationals. I have never heard anyone's citizenship challenged at the polls.

jimahrens Loc: California

First off Voter fraud starts with Corrupt people running elections. Should be quite apparent look what too place in Mississippi. I will keep saying it wherever you find corruption follow the money. We have to take the Money out of Politics.

Dummy Boy wrote:

It's the only reasonable way, I agree, I don't mean to be irritating, but more one digs, the more one finds. I live in an area with a lot of foreign nationals. I have never heard anyone's citizenship challenged at the polls.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

jimahrens wrote:

First off Voter fraud starts with Corrupt people running elections. Should be quite apparent look what too place in Mississippi. I will keep saying it wherever you find corruption follow the money. We have to take the Money out of Politics.

I don't think that will happen: unless we stop paying taxes. The result will be the government will go into default.

Don G. Dinsdale Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)

jimahrens wrote:

First off Voter fraud starts with Corrupt people running elections. Should be quite apparent look what too place in Mississippi. I will keep saying it wherever you find corruption follow the money. We have to take the Money out of Politics.

I agree, but how??? Don D.

MAD Patriot Loc: lost somewhere in america

She Wolf wrote:

As I have said on other posts regarding voter ID, I do not understand why it is such a problem. People can obtain a state ID for very little money. I do not mind showing my ID when I cash a check or use my insurance card.

By requiring ID, we can once and for all put the idea of voter fraud to bed.

Perfect answer and might I add they give you a number for everything else. Why is this the exception? The answers are in office right now :D

jimahrens Loc: California

I hate to say it but in that case States need to Need to back away from Federal funding. Run there own affairs. Does it make any sense to you that the States give money to Federal Government then have to ask for it back. Prime example it cost 55 cents of every dollar to collect your Federal Taxes. Don't you see something wrong here.

Dummy Boy wrote:

I don't think that will happen: unless we stop paying taxes. The result will be the government will go into default.

Ron1945

Very good post, you are correct most people live in a buble, and could care less what is happen out side of their buble. One day when they open their eyes it will be to late.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

jimahrens wrote:

I hate to say it but in that case States need to Need to back away from Federal funding. Run there own affairs. Does it make any sense to you that the States give money to Federal Government then have to ask for it back. Prime example it cost 55 cents of every dollar to collect your Federal Taxes. Don't you see something wrong here.

I don't disagree with you, but the states don't even have the guts to stop sending "tribute" to Washington. If every individual taxpayer, just changed their payment with their W4's, it would send a strong message.

just_sayin' Loc: Former United States of America

Requiring ID to buy alcohol discriminates against minorities and the poor. That explains why only wealthy caucasians ever get DUI's.

jimahrens Loc: California

just_sayin' wrote:

Requiring ID to buy alcohol discriminates against minorities and the poor. That explains why only wealthy caucasians ever get DUI's.

:mrgreen: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

Quote:

I don't think that will happen: unless we stop paying taxes.

Don't Do Drugs
Drugs Are Bad...

Quote:

If every individual taxpayer, just changed their payment with their W4's, it would send a strong message.

Send Out The Word !!
Multi-Faxes !!
Mass E-MAILS !!

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Thank you for the info. I am still shaking my head that liberals think getting a photo ID is hard work and that it may disenfranchise lazy, entitled, possible illegal voters.

lindajoy wrote:

If the issue ever gets before the SCOTUS the attached ruling may well apply for ALL states~~And should~~We need an ID for just about everything, why is this such an issue other than "protecting the fraud involved?"
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_courts/breaking_supreme_court_rejects_challenge_to_indiana_voter_id_law

6-3 plurality decision just came down, split with 3 Justices rejecting the facial challenge. More to follow.
Justice Scalia: This is an area where the dos and don'ts need to be known in advance of the election ...It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes.
UPDATES: Opinion here. Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito would have upheld the law on the broader ground that it imposed the same requirements equally on all voters. Both opinions give great weight to the state interest in ensuring that only eligible voters cast ballots. Justice Souter, joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, dissented.
This is a major defeat for the Democrats' efforts to prevent states from requiring valid identification to vote. The lawsuit was brought by the Indiana Democratic Party.
Justice Scalia's separate opinion is redolent of the judicial hangover from Bush v. Gore in its emphasis on the hazards of permitting case-by-case judicial review of neutral rules established by state legislatures before an election takes place.
More below the fold.
Justice Stevens' plurality opinion starts by noting the rule laid down in the Court's poll tax cases (I'm omitting footnotes, citations, etc. as I go):
[E]ven rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.... [H]owever, we [have] confirmed the general rule that "evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself" are not invidious ...Rather than applying any "litmus test" that would neatly separate valid from invalid restrictions, ... a court must identify and evaluate the interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, and then make the "hard judgment" that our adversary system demands.
Justice Stevens then addressed the case at bar:
While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified.. <snip> plenty more that follows...

If the issue ever gets before the SCOTUS the attac... (show quote)