GOP faces set back in voter hurdle efforts

[therealUT]

Sorry to break it to you, but things have changed a little since then. I don't think they had too much fraudulent voting in the 1844 election.

Right...politics today is much cleaner than it was in America's past.

Signed,

James Pendergast

 

[therealUT]

Are you against voter registration?

No. I am not necessarily against voter IDs, either. However, I am against putting in place inefficient barriers that address a non-issue and that are certain to cause large inconveniences that cannot be sufficiently dealt with in the time before the election.

Seeing as there is no evidence that points in the direction that voter fraud has materially influenced, in fact changed, the outcome of a Presidential Election in the United States, I fail to see what the rush is for?

You want to install a new system; fine. Start installing it right after this election and get everything in place before the midterms.

 

[Cdywolfe]

Fair enough, you support a pay to vote principle. Just letting you know that such a principle is unconstitutional.

I don't support a pay to vote princible. The $10 is to join the the rest of us at least half-way responsible adults who can manage to obtain an official form of identification. Once you get there voting is free. Though as I stated in the other thread I had to provide postage a few months ago to send in my voter registraion form. I suppose the USPS was trying to disenfranchise me right?

If you fail to see the difference in saying that since the time the government began offering the free IDs up to the election, it is the government that has been overwhelmed and cannot handle the consistent, daily traffic and a scenario in which the government is offering these IDs yet no one is coming in for four years to get them, then I do not know what else to say. Right now, the reason these individuals do not have the DOS IDs is due to the failure of government administration; if they do not have them in four years, it will most likely be because of their own failure.

I completely see the difference but I have little doubt the same crowd will be making, most likely, the same excuse next time. I will have the same pitty for them then that I do now.

One should not have to do so with a photo ID.

So you think a piece of paper with a name on it is adequate?

 

[milohimself]

The point is this: If, at any point in the process of being able to vote or voting, you end up HAVING to pay even one red cent (I'm not aware of any states where you must mail in your registration form, you did so because you had the option), it's unconstitutional.

 

[Cdywolfe]

The point is this: If, at any point in the process of being able to vote or voting, you end up HAVING to pay even one red cent (I'm not aware of any states where you must mail in your registration form, you did so because you had the option), it's unconstitutional.

I was obviously being facetious but it was either mail it in or drive the 25 minutes across town to the election commision office. That would have been $3-5 in gas and probably an hour round trip so either way it was gonna cost me something. I chose the $.44 (or whatever a stamp cost these days) and a walk to the mail box.

 

[volinbham]

The point is this: If, at any point in the process of being able to vote or voting, you end up HAVING to pay even one red cent (I'm not aware of any states where you must mail in your registration form, you did so because you had the option), it's unconstitutional.

Not sure I agree with this - the "being able to vote" part. I guess it depends on what you mean by being able to vote but certainly the majority of voters incur costs to vote - mostly transportation costs - so in effect the have to pay to be able to vote.

Paying to vote is a poll tax but saying people shouldn't have to pay something to be able to vote is a broad brush.

The notion that requiring positive ID to vote is being required to pay to be able to vote is a stretch too.

It simply can't be that the GOP is the only group trying to mess with voting - we're all too smart to believe that.

Rational voter ID laws with adequate time to comply simply make sense.

 

[milohimself]

Not sure I agree with this - the "being able to vote" part. I guess it depends on what you mean by being able to vote but certainly the majority of voters incur costs to vote - mostly transportation costs - so in effect the have to pay to be able to vote.

Paying to vote is a poll tax but saying people shouldn't have to pay something to be able to vote is a broad brush.

The notion that requiring positive ID to vote is being required to pay to be able to vote is a stretch too.

It simply can't be that the GOP is the only group trying to mess with voting - we're all too smart to believe that.

Rationale voter ID laws with adequate time to comply simply make sense.

If it weren't just the GOP, then some Democrat somewhere would have introduced such a law, but it's Republicans across the board.

I'm not so naive as to think Democrats don't mess with the ballot in their own way, but it's not this way.

At its core, I agree with photo ID laws, but the bottom line is to be constitutional, they must be provided for free.

Yes, transportation costs money, but is not necessary to get to a polling place. Walking is free. Riding a bicycle is marginally free.

But if one must pay $10 or whatever in order to obtain an article that is required by law to vote, then one must pay $10 to vote, which is legally defined as a poll tax. It's as simple as that.

The way in which these laws are being altered by GOP-led statehouses is being done in such a way as to affect voter turnout, to which they have openly admitted in PA.

 

[DC_Vol]

If it weren't just the GOP, then some Democrat somewhere would have introduced such a law, but it's Republicans across the board.

I'm not so naive as to think Democrats don't mess with the ballot in their own way, but it's not this way.

At its core, I agree with photo ID laws, but the bottom line is to be constitutional, they must be provided for free.

Yes, transportation costs money, but is not necessary to get to a polling place. Walking is free. Riding a bicycle is marginally free.

But if one must pay $10 or whatever in order to obtain an article that is required by law to vote, then one must pay $10 to vote, which is legally defined as a poll tax. It's as simple as that.

The way in which these laws are being altered by GOP-led statehouses is being done in such a way as to affect voter turnout, to which they have openly admitted in PA.

I had to pay for my ID that I am required to show to purchase firearms.

Have we really become so dependent on the government that it can't be expected that someone pay for the cost of their state issued identification?

What if you don't have the money for gas to drive to the polls? Should we pay for that, too? Maybe they could vote absentee. I hope you don't have to put your own stamp on the envelope.

No wonder our country is in the shape we're in.

 

[milohimself]

Again, if somebody is required to turn over one red cent to vote then its unconstitutional. Period.

 

[Cdywolfe]

Again, if somebody is required to turn over one red cent to vote then its unconstitutional. Period.

So me choosing to not walk 17 miles there and back to the election commision office was just something I did for convenience since I didn't HAVE to mail it in or drive it there.

But someone else can go their entire adult life without obtaining official identification and they're being disenfranchised?

Also... If walking to the election commision office is what it took to vote, then I would just pick a day I was off and do it.

 

[milohimself]

Yes, choosing to drive or mail is a matter of convenience; it happens to be one that most can afford, but you chose that mode. Not the government.

And maybe requiring adequate Id to vote disenfranchises people. Maybe there are thousands out there for whom getting that id is very burdensome. Who knows.

The point is the same; if anybody is explicitly required by the government to spend any amount of money in order to vote, then it is a poll tax.

 

[KingNick865]

The point is the same; if anybody is explicitly required by the government to spend any amount of money in order to vote, then it is a poll tax.

This just about sums up my feelings on the matter.

I actually have no problem with voter ID laws, if a state issued ID will be provided for free or if the fee can be waived. However, paying a fee, even one as relatively nominal as $10, is unconstitutional.

 

[DC_Vol]

This just about sums up my feelings on the matter.

I actually have no problem with voter ID laws, if a state issued ID will be provided for free or if the fee can be waived. However, paying a fee, even one as relatively nominal as $10, is unconstitutional.

I don't understand why the same logic hasn't been applied to firearm purchases.

 

[azVolFan]

Received the following in an email from my brother in law. I have not verified the quote but it sounds like Ben Stein.

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."

-Ben Stein

 

[Danl]

I don't understand why the same logic hasn't been applied to firearm purchases.

I'm not sure. Does "keep and bear arms" = purchase arms?

 

[DC_Vol]

I'm not sure. Does "keep and bear arms" = purchase arms?

Am i supposed to make them myself? steal them?

Can I get around this by just saying the government should be forced to give me a gun? It's a right. I can't afford a gun. Therefore the government should give me one.

This is really dealing with technicalities here. I could see a lawyer spending countless hours developing this argument.

 

[Danl]

Am i supposed to make them myself? steal them?

Can I get around this by just saying the government should be forced to give me a gun? It's a right. I can't afford a gun. Therefore the government should give me one.

This is really dealing with technicalities here. I could see a lawyer spending countless hours developing this argument.

I agree. I can somehow see a difference between a right to vote assuring that action, whereas the right to keep and bear arms doesn't specify how one may/must obtain said arm.

 

[DC_Vol]

I agree. I can somehow see a difference between a right to vote assuring that action, whereas the right to keep and bear arms doesn't specify how one may/must obtain said arm.

I was just trying to draw a parallel between the two, because in spirit they are similar. I was hoping not to go down the "lawyer route" because I knew where this might end up.

Note that the Constitution does not specifically give an individual the right to vote. It does tell you reasons you can't deny someone the right to vote.