758,000 Pennsylvania voters

[TheConfessor]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/id-law ... 13382.html

Since Cal is linking to an op-ed in my local newspaper, he might be interested in this much more objective and detailed report on the subject that ran in yesterday's edition:
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-pol ... 12608.html

[flockofseagulls104]

Do I believe that some supporters of Voter ID laws do so out of less than pure motivation? Sure. But, I believe that the overwhelming majority of supporters do so because of a legitimate desire to have fair elections.

And the overwhelming majority of those supporting overreaching legislation like the Patriot Act do so because of a legitimate desire to be safe from terrorism.

This is pure marketing from the Republican party which a lot of people have bought into. Create a "need," namely to avoid voter fraud, and then people will accept the solution without really looking into whether there ever was a need in the first place or whether the "solution," which is invariably chosen by Republican legislators, is the best way to meet whatever actual need there might have been or whether, instead, it acts to disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters.

If there is such a need to prevent voter fraud, then why haven't any of these states taken steps to clamp down on ID requirements for absentee voting, which presents an even greater possibility for voter fraud (but which disproportionately favors Republican candidates).

Dammit, You need to be a citizen of this country to vote, and to vote you need to be a citizen of this country. PERIOD. (Anyone disagree with that fact?)

With so many people currently in this country that are NOT citizens, it is imperative that we validate that the person voting is indeed eligible to cast a ballot. I agree that the people that are adamantly against requiring a voter to provide a valid ID (mostly democrats) are opposing it not because it disenfranchises any legal voter, but because it prevents many illegal voters from casting ballots.

Every federal election, there are accusations of voter fraud on one side or another, and sometimes on both sides. Let's go through the process of making sure that every vote is legal, and everyone who can vote is able to and stop the political wrangling.

[Bob Juch]

Do I believe that some supporters of Voter ID laws do so out of less than pure motivation? Sure. But, I believe that the overwhelming majority of supporters do so because of a legitimate desire to have fair elections.

And the overwhelming majority of those supporting overreaching legislation like the Patriot Act do so because of a legitimate desire to be safe from terrorism.

This is pure marketing from the Republican party which a lot of people have bought into. Create a "need," namely to avoid voter fraud, and then people will accept the solution without really looking into whether there ever was a need in the first place or whether the "solution," which is invariably chosen by Republican legislators, is the best way to meet whatever actual need there might have been or whether, instead, it acts to disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters.

If there is such a need to prevent voter fraud, then why haven't any of these states taken steps to clamp down on ID requirements for absentee voting, which presents an even greater possibility for voter fraud (but which disproportionately favors Republican candidates).

Dammit, You need to be a citizen of this country to vote, and to vote you need to be a citizen of this country. PERIOD. (Anyone disagree with that fact?)

With so many people currently in this country that are NOT citizens, it is imperative that we validate that the person voting is indeed eligible to cast a ballot. I agree that the people that are adamantly against requiring a voter to provide a valid ID (mostly democrats) are opposing it not because it disenfranchises any legal voter, but because it prevents many illegal voters from casting ballots.

Every federal election, there are accusations of voter fraud on one side or another, and sometimes on both sides. Let's go through the process of making sure that every vote is legal, and everyone who can vote is able to and stop the political wrangling.

A driver's license is not proof of citizenship.

[Bob78164]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/id-law ... 13382.html

Since Cal is linking to an op-ed in my local newspaper, he might be interested in this much more objective and detailed report on the subject that ran in yesterday's edition:
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-pol ... 12608.html

Aw,c/mon Confessor. I'm just chock full of certainty that the Attorney General of Texas (who wrote the Op-Ed TheCalvinator has linked) is presenting an unbiased and objective account of the issue. --Bob

[Weyoun]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/id-law ... 13382.html

Since Cal is linking to an op-ed in my local newspaper, he might be interested in this much more objective and detailed report on the subject that ran in yesterday's edition:
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-pol ... 12608.html

Aw,c/mon Confessor. I'm just chock full of certainty that the Attorney General of Texas (who wrote the Op-Ed TheCalvinator has linked) is presenting an unbiased and objective account of the issue. --Bob

Let me get this straight, you are accusing the Attorney General of brazenly... having an opinion? Gracious, what must he be thinking?!?

[flockofseagulls104]

And the overwhelming majority of those supporting overreaching legislation like the Patriot Act do so because of a legitimate desire to be safe from terrorism.

This is pure marketing from the Republican party which a lot of people have bought into. Create a "need," namely to avoid voter fraud, and then people will accept the solution without really looking into whether there ever was a need in the first place or whether the "solution," which is invariably chosen by Republican legislators, is the best way to meet whatever actual need there might have been or whether, instead, it acts to disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters.

If there is such a need to prevent voter fraud, then why haven't any of these states taken steps to clamp down on ID requirements for absentee voting, which presents an even greater possibility for voter fraud (but which disproportionately favors Republican candidates).

Dammit, You need to be a citizen of this country to vote, and to vote you need to be a citizen of this country. PERIOD. (Anyone disagree with that fact?)

With so many people currently in this country that are NOT citizens, it is imperative that we validate that the person voting is indeed eligible to cast a ballot. I agree that the people that are adamantly against requiring a voter to provide a valid ID (mostly democrats) are opposing it not because it disenfranchises any legal voter, but because it prevents many illegal voters from casting ballots.

Every federal election, there are accusations of voter fraud on one side or another, and sometimes on both sides. Let's go through the process of making sure that every vote is legal, and everyone who can vote is able to and stop the political wrangling.

A driver's license is not proof of citizenship.

OH! Wow BJ. By your answer, I would extrapolate that you actually agree with me that proof of citizenship is required to be eligible to vote. And your response indicates that you believe that simply a driver license is not enough to prove that fact. I am assuming, of course, that you are very logical and not misinformed because you are definitely not a republican or a conservative, and that your well thought out response was not a knee jerk contradictory statement just to be contrary or to patronize me.

Maybe you can let me (an illogical and misinformed conservative), and others who are not inclined to your innate logic and don't have access to or understanding of the great pool of information that liberals do: What would be sufficient to provide adequate proof that someone who wants to cast a ballot is indeed eligible to do so?

[Bob Juch]

Dammit, You need to be a citizen of this country to vote, and to vote you need to be a citizen of this country. PERIOD. (Anyone disagree with that fact?)

With so many people currently in this country that are NOT citizens, it is imperative that we validate that the person voting is indeed eligible to cast a ballot. I agree that the people that are adamantly against requiring a voter to provide a valid ID (mostly democrats) are opposing it not because it disenfranchises any legal voter, but because it prevents many illegal voters from casting ballots.

Every federal election, there are accusations of voter fraud on one side or another, and sometimes on both sides. Let's go through the process of making sure that every vote is legal, and everyone who can vote is able to and stop the political wrangling.

A driver's license is not proof of citizenship.

OH! Wow BJ. By your answer, I would extrapolate that you actually agree with me that proof of citizenship is required to be eligible to vote. And your response indicates that you believe that simply a driver license is not enough to prove that fact. I am assuming, of course, that you are very logical and not misinformed because you are definitely not a republican or a conservative, and that your well thought out response was not a knee jerk contradictory statement just to be contrary or to patronize me.

Maybe you can let me (an illogical and misinformed conservative), and others who are not inclined to your innate logic and don't have access to or understanding of the great pool of information that liberals do: What would be sufficient to provide adequate proof that someone who wants to cast a ballot is indeed eligible to do so?

A voter's registration card. The procedure for issuing one should include using E-Verify.

[TheCalvinator24]

A driver's license is not proof of citizenship.

OH! Wow BJ. By your answer, I would extrapolate that you actually agree with me that proof of citizenship is required to be eligible to vote. And your response indicates that you believe that simply a driver license is not enough to prove that fact. I am assuming, of course, that you are very logical and not misinformed because you are definitely not a republican or a conservative, and that your well thought out response was not a knee jerk contradictory statement just to be contrary or to patronize me.

Maybe you can let me (an illogical and misinformed conservative), and others who are not inclined to your innate logic and don't have access to or understanding of the great pool of information that liberals do: What would be sufficient to provide adequate proof that someone who wants to cast a ballot is indeed eligible to do so?

A voter's registration card. The procedure for issuing one should include using E-Verify.

And how would you ensure that the person presenting the registration card for voting is the person to whom it was issued?

[Bob Juch]

OH! Wow BJ. By your answer, I would extrapolate that you actually agree with me that proof of citizenship is required to be eligible to vote. And your response indicates that you believe that simply a driver license is not enough to prove that fact. I am assuming, of course, that you are very logical and not misinformed because you are definitely not a republican or a conservative, and that your well thought out response was not a knee jerk contradictory statement just to be contrary or to patronize me.

Maybe you can let me (an illogical and misinformed conservative), and others who are not inclined to your innate logic and don't have access to or understanding of the great pool of information that liberals do: What would be sufficient to provide adequate proof that someone who wants to cast a ballot is indeed eligible to do so?

A voter's registration card. The procedure for issuing one should include using E-Verify.

And how would you ensure that the person presenting the registration card for voting is the person to whom it was issued?

A photo? Does it really matter though? People aren't going to steal others' cards to vote.

[Beebs52]

A driver's license is not proof of citizenship.

OH! Wow BJ. By your answer, I would extrapolate that you actually agree with me that proof of citizenship is required to be eligible to vote. And your response indicates that you believe that simply a driver license is not enough to prove that fact. I am assuming, of course, that you are very logical and not misinformed because you are definitely not a republican or a conservative, and that your well thought out response was not a knee jerk contradictory statement just to be contrary or to patronize me.

Maybe you can let me (an illogical and misinformed conservative), and others who are not inclined to your innate logic and don't have access to or understanding of the great pool of information that liberals do: What would be sufficient to provide adequate proof that someone who wants to cast a ballot is indeed eligible to do so?

A voter's registration card. The procedure for issuing one should include using E-Verify.

According to several HR peoples E-verify isn't that reliable.

[Beebs52]

A voter's registration card. The procedure for issuing one should include using E-Verify.

And how would you ensure that the person presenting the registration card for voting is the person to whom it was issued?

A photo? Does it really matter though? People aren't going to steal others' cards to vote.

Because the DL requirements require ashitload of verification, most of which also has photo id. Therefore the photo ID required with thenew laws attaches to the voter registration. In other words, you've vetted yourself already, photographically.

[mellytu74]

One of the problems is...

The state of PA is STILL issuing paper voter registration confirmation cards that state that the voter registration card (basically a heavyweight piece of paper with printing on both sides) is valid to vote for the first time at a new polling place.

The front states name, address, party affiliation, date of birth, date of voter registration, polling place. There is fine print noting that she will need a photo ID.

BUT the reverse side (larger type) states that the voter registration card is valid.

TLAF got one of these when she registered to vote.

So, the state's own issued-after-the-law-was-passed material says two different things on two different sides of the voter registration card. Mine says the same thing.

TLAF registered to vote when she got the new ID to replace the NJ ID. So, she got the new picture, etc.

BUT, there are still paper voter registration forms in the state. In return, you get the paper voter registration card.

SO, PA passed a law that its own paperwork doesn't back up.

It ISN'T the ID part that is so troublesome to me. I said as much upthread in stating I am with Weyoun on this.

It is that the state ramrodded this through in time for November.

A reasonable amount of time to get its own paperwork in order, to say nothing of allowing people to get the proper verification papers, would have been nice.

I am a PA taxpayer. I am paying for the state to produce obsolete voting material? REALLY?

[flockofseagulls104]

A driver's license is not proof of citizenship.

OH! Wow BJ. By your answer, I would extrapolate that you actually agree with me that proof of citizenship is required to be eligible to vote. And your response indicates that you believe that simply a driver license is not enough to prove that fact. I am assuming, of course, that you are very logical and not misinformed because you are definitely not a republican or a conservative, and that your well thought out response was not a knee jerk contradictory statement just to be contrary or to patronize me.

Maybe you can let me (an illogical and misinformed conservative), and others who are not inclined to your innate logic and don't have access to or understanding of the great pool of information that liberals do: What would be sufficient to provide adequate proof that someone who wants to cast a ballot is indeed eligible to do so?

A voter's registration card. The procedure for issuing one should include using E-Verify.

Well that is a good start. The process of making sure the person is a citizen should be done when they register to vote. However, is there any process in place to take a person off the voting roles when they move, or die? What prevents someone from getting a ballot and voting as someone who will not be voting? Do you suppose any of that goes on? Dead people voting? What about the registering of non existent people to vote? Anything like that ever go on?

I know I am limited in the logic area, and I may be misinformed or don't understand the current process, but I think that maybe some kind of check has to be done on both sides of the voting process: When a person registers, to make sure they are a citizen and are eligible to vote, and to remove them when the register somewhere else. And when a person votes, to make sure they are indeed the person who has been registered. A verified legal photo ID with verification of an address (or lack of one) may not be proof of citizenship, but it will be a help in verifying the person's identity.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I do have a rare example of difficulty getting a photo id. I have a client who moved to this state, when he tried to get a new Drivers License his previous IDs did not match his Birth Certificate. The bureaucrats refused it issue a license. He is Hispanic and growing up in California in the 1950s his name was informally Anglicized to William by school authorities. That was never a problem until after 911. Now we are having do a formal name change to change his name to match his Birth Certificate. What makes this interesting is that his family are New Mexico Jews so his family history is of Jews who left Spain in the 16th Century to avoid the Inquisition and have been in New Mexico since before the American Revolution.

[Bob Juch]

I do have a rare example of difficulty getting a photo id. I have a client who moved to this state, when he tried to get a new Drivers License his previous IDs did not match his Birth Certificate. The bureaucrats refused it issue a license. He is Hispanic and growing up in California in the 1950s his name was informally Anglicized to William by school authorities. That was never a problem until after 911. Now we are having do a formal name change to change his name to match his Birth Certificate. What makes this interesting is that his family are New Mexico Jews so his family history is of Jews who left Spain in the 16th Century to avoid the Inquisition and have been in New Mexico since before the American Revolution.

My Ortiz ancestors were in Arizona in the 16th century. One cousin founded San Francisco, California in 1776. I can image the problem they'd have today if Arizona had just become part of the U.S. My uncles and cousins in California had huge problems with land claims.

[silverscreenselect]

I do have a rare example of difficulty getting a photo id.

Effective July 1, Georgia went to a Secure ID driver's license, so anyone getting or renewing a license for the first time after July 1 has to apply in person and provide:

1. Proof of identity: Birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, etc.
2. Proof of social security: Original card, pay stub, etc.
3. Two documents proving address: bank statements, utility bills, property tax bills, etc.

Needless to say, so far this year, lot's of people are showing out without everything they need, and lines are running several hours at most locations.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/gover ... w-renewals

In past years, renewals could usually be handled by mail. Fortunately, my license isn't renewed for another year.

[Bob Juch]

I do have a rare example of difficulty getting a photo id.

Effective July 1, Georgia went to a Secure ID driver's license, so anyone getting or renewing a license for the first time after July 1 has to apply in person and provide:

1. Proof of identity: Birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, etc.
2. Proof of social security: Original card, pay stub, etc.
3. Two documents proving address: bank statements, utility bills, property tax bills, etc.

Needless to say, so far this year, lot's of people are showing out without everything they need, and lines are running several hours at most locations.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/gover ... w-renewals

In past years, renewals could usually be handled by mail. Fortunately, my license isn't renewed for another year.

When my wallet was stolen in January it had my South Carolina driver's license in it. I filled out an online form for a replacement and had it mailed to me here in Texas. The new one was a Secure ID; the old one wasn't.

[christie1111]

The requirement for an official social security card is something that trips up a lot of people here in CT getting their first license.

[flockofseagulls104]

I do have a rare example of difficulty getting a photo id.

Effective July 1, Georgia went to a Secure ID driver's license, so anyone getting or renewing a license for the first time after July 1 has to apply in person and provide:

1. Proof of identity: Birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, etc.
2. Proof of social security: Original card, pay stub, etc.
3. Two documents proving address: bank statements, utility bills, property tax bills, etc.

Needless to say, so far this year, lot's of people are showing out without everything they need, and lines are running several hours at most locations.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/gover ... w-renewals

In past years, renewals could usually be handled by mail. Fortunately, my license isn't renewed for another year.

If you don't like that, just imagine the great things we're in store for because we handed control of our health care to the federal government. At least they're supposed to be in control of voting. That is if you go by the Constitution. Not that it matters anymore....

[Bob Juch]

I do have a rare example of difficulty getting a photo id.

Effective July 1, Georgia went to a Secure ID driver's license, so anyone getting or renewing a license for the first time after July 1 has to apply in person and provide:

1. Proof of identity: Birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, etc.
2. Proof of social security: Original card, pay stub, etc.
3. Two documents proving address: bank statements, utility bills, property tax bills, etc.

Needless to say, so far this year, lot's of people are showing out without everything they need, and lines are running several hours at most locations.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/gover ... w-renewals

In past years, renewals could usually be handled by mail. Fortunately, my license isn't renewed for another year.

If you don't like that, just imagine the great things we're in store for because we handed control of our health care to the federal government. At least they're supposed to be in control of voting. That is if you go by the Constitution. Not that it matters anymore....

No, unfortunately they're not in control of voting; that states are. That's why we have such a mess.

[flockofseagulls104]

Effective July 1, Georgia went to a Secure ID driver's license, so anyone getting or renewing a license for the first time after July 1 has to apply in person and provide:

1. Proof of identity: Birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, etc.
2. Proof of social security: Original card, pay stub, etc.
3. Two documents proving address: bank statements, utility bills, property tax bills, etc.

Needless to say, so far this year, lot's of people are showing out without everything they need, and lines are running several hours at most locations.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/gover ... w-renewals

In past years, renewals could usually be handled by mail. Fortunately, my license isn't renewed for another year.

If you don't like that, just imagine the great things we're in store for because we handed control of our health care to the federal government. At least they're supposed to be in control of voting. That is if you go by the Constitution. Not that it matters anymore....

No, unfortunately they're not in control of voting; that states are. That's why we have such a mess.

You know, you're right. Control of voting is not an enumerated power of the federal government. That's something that the Constitution passes on to the States, isn't it? My mistake. We need the federal bureaucracy to trump the state bureaucracy on this one. We can ignore the constitution, we do it all the time.

[silverscreenselect]

If you don't like that, just imagine the great things we're in store for because we handed control of our health care to the federal government. At least they're supposed to be in control of voting. That is if you go by the Constitution. Not that it matters anymore....

Actually, that is the problem. It's not under the control of the federal government. It's under control of the insurance companies with the federal government writing a big part of the check.

Here's something from that well known radical leftist pinko organization, The Heritage Foundation:

Health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services--even if it means more prudent citizens pick up the tab.

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent he is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/102 ... /13354.pdf

This entire straw man argument about "eating broccoli" and "government health care" has never been about the Constitution. It's been about opposing whatever Democratic initiatives that have been proposed to deal with health care. When it appeared the Democrats would propose universal health care in the late 80s and early 90s, Republicans came up with something that's not too different from Romneycare and Obamacare today. A whole bunch of conservative Republicans co-sponsored a bill to that effect in the 1993 Congress.

Now that Obama has essentially adopted the Republican plan, Republicans come up with a new argument that what they were fine with on Constitutional grounds in 1989 and 1993 is somehow very, very bad today. The Consitution has not changed by one word since 1989 when this was written. Nor has the continued gullibility of lockstep "conservatives" to follow the thought processes of their "leaders" in interpreting the Consitution. The only thing that has changed is that we've got a much more conservative Democrat who's proposed a much more conservative plan than the Clintons did in the 1990s which the Republicans are determined to tear down, not out of a genuine concern about the problems of the plan (or they wouldn't have proposed it 20 years ago) or for the Constitution, but as part of their scorched earth strategy to fight Obama every inch of the way on anything he proposes without ever coming up with an alternative, only a pledge to "consider" alternatives at some future date.

[flockofseagulls104]

This entire straw man argument about "eating broccoli" and "government health care" has never been about the Constitution. It's been about opposing whatever Democratic initiatives that have been proposed to deal with health care.

All I can say is 'No, it's not.' The Constitution either means something or it doesn't.

[flockofseagulls104]

If you don't like that, just imagine the great things we're in store for because we handed control of our health care to the federal government. At least they're supposed to be in control of voting. That is if you go by the Constitution. Not that it matters anymore....

Actually, that is the problem. It's not under the control of the federal government. It's under control of the insurance companies with the federal government writing a big part of the check.

Here's something from that well known radical leftist pinko organization, The Heritage Foundation:

Health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services--even if it means more prudent citizens pick up the tab.

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent he is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/102 ... /13354.pdf

This entire straw man argument about "eating broccoli" and "government health care" has never been about the Constitution. It's been about opposing whatever Democratic initiatives that have been proposed to deal with health care. When it appeared the Democrats would propose universal health care in the late 80s and early 90s, Republicans came up with something that's not too different from Romneycare and Obamacare today. A whole bunch of conservative Republicans co-sponsored a bill to that effect in the 1993 Congress.

Now that Obama has essentially adopted the Republican plan, Republicans come up with a new argument that what they were fine with on Constitutional grounds in 1989 and 1993 is somehow very, very bad today. The Consitution has not changed by one word since 1989 when this was written. Nor has the continued gullibility of lockstep "conservatives" to follow the thought processes of their "leaders" in interpreting the Consitution. The only thing that has changed is that we've got a much more conservative Democrat who's proposed a much more conservative plan than the Clintons did in the 1990s which the Republicans are determined to tear down, not out of a genuine concern about the problems of the plan (or they wouldn't have proposed it 20 years ago) or for the Constitution, but as part of their scorched earth strategy to fight Obama every inch of the way on anything he proposes without ever coming up with an alternative, only a pledge to "consider" alternatives at some future date.

You are so up to your ears in the democrat-republican crap, you can't see the forest for the trees. The problem is not democrats, it's not republicans, it's the elected republicrats and their legion of bureaucrats in Washington against the States and the people. The system has developed and is nurtured by transferring as much power and authority to Washington as possible.

I have as little respect for republicans as I do democrats, because they are basically the same. The republicans give lip service to limiting the size scope and power of the federal government, but they do nothing to stop it or even stem it. And when they pretend to take a stand, they are labeled by the opposition and their loyal media as 'obstructionist'.

The democrats do not even give lip service to it.

The Tea party tries to support and elect people who understand that there are and should be limits to the power and authority of the Fed, but they are demagogued and demonized to no end. I would be ashamed to call myself a tea party advocate if I believed half the things that are said about it, and did not know for sure that it is all lies. I would not have anything to do with the tea party if I saw or experienced anything like they are accused of.

John Roberts, according to credible sources, rewrote his opinion at the last minute and submitted his incoherent decision because of pressure from the republicrat establishment. The court asked for just 4 briefs on specific topics when they held hearings on obamacare. His opinion was not based on any of those 4 briefs, and the proponents went out of their way to specifically define the mandate mechanism as a penalty, not a tax. Roberts just made the whole thing up. But that's all water under the bridge now.

So you go right on thinking it's the republicans that are the enemy. You won't get any argument from me. Both parties will do their best to accumulate power and promote dependence on the federal government.

[Bob Juch]

This entire straw man argument about "eating broccoli" and "government health care" has never been about the Constitution. It's been about opposing whatever Democratic initiatives that have been proposed to deal with health care.

All I can say is 'No, it's not.' The Constitution either means something or it doesn't.

But it takes the Supreme Court to interpret what it means.