Maybe the Democrats are too busy trying to stop the Republicans from deciding what choice a woman can make to think about a picture at the moment. Stop with pointing the finger at one Party and maybe we can accomplish something. I stated that in my first sentence to show how dumb it all sounds. Sherry
If you are referring to the NC bill from a few weeks ago, you might want to read it again. Maybe this time read it more slowly.
elaboration The ONLY argument they use is - asking anyone for a photo ID would disinfranchise low income voters. Trying to get them to elaborate further is difficult.[/QUOTE] Those are the people that dems in office
Those items you mention are privileges. Voting is a right. Big diff in my book. I do not show ID when I vote. I'd be PO'd if asked. As to the claim that it would prevent voter fraud, please cite examples of the voter fraud issues that this will address. Even the SBOE admits there is little to no voter fraud. This comes across to me as an attempt to disenfranchise some voters.
I still don't understand the opposition to this. It seems perfectly reasonable that you prove you are who you say you are especially for something as important as voting. To me it's more like the requirement to show one's passport to re-enter the country. Regarding the possibility of voter fraud, you don't wait until after you're robbed to lock your door- you take common sense precautions beforehand. ...and I do agree 100% that this action is politically motivated.
There is no way to prove something unless there is evidence...and since there's never been a law needing evidence, such a study is worthless. It's more likely a study funded by liberals so they can keep dead people and illegals in their constituency.
It speaks to me of slippery slope of :"Show us your papers, please." Leading to "Show us your papers!". Whatever happened to those who viewed any government intrusion into privacy as a bad thing? As to the analogy of locking the door before the burglary, what's to stop the next iteration of having to prove innocence instead of being presumed guilty?
Are you serious? Nobody is making you vote. One has to show a license when stopped by the cops. One has to show an ID when buying beer/tobacco. One has to show an ID when boarding an airplane. The list is endless and all of the above are choices you make voluntarily provided you show identification.
I'm all for it! Do you know how easy it would be to commit voter fraud if you wanted to? All you have to do is know your neighbors name and address. Then be sure to show up to the polls before he does. Showing ID would put an end to this. Quickly.
But Harvey!! The abject horror of asking some to do so before they vote, I mean really, what is the world coming to? :lol: Again, this is such common sense that it should not be an issue..............except for those who stand to gain by voter fraud. And anyone who doesn't think it has happend and is going to continue to happen has their head in the sand......................or somewhere else.
1. Not sure what I have to gain by not showing ID or objecting to a requirement for doing so. On the other hand, I can easily see where those legislators proposing this might benefit. 2. Head in the sand? Naah, just haven't seen factual evidence of voter fraud in JoCo or in the state that has become such an issue that the legislators need address it. And all the claiming that it 'might' happen or has somehow affected election outcomes is unsupported. 3. Show the facts as relates to JoCo or NC. How many cases of voter fraud have been suspected/investigated? What elections have been thrown out because of voter fraud? From the SBOE, http://ncvoters.blogspot.com/2010/04/alamance-county-nc-balks-at-obeying.html except JoCo is mentioned...paragraph 6 "According to a Feb. 25 letter from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the DSS offices in Alamance, Burke and Johnston counties “have consistently and substantially failed to comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act.” Sounds like we need to clean up our own mess, before we get to the nonexistent ones.
Just answer me this Hat, why in the heck would you REALLY object to showing your ID? As already stated ad nauseum, if you are a registered voter, which you are supposed to be to vote.........right???..............your name, address, etc is already on that sheet of paper. They are checking you off as you go in there anyway, what difference could it possibly make to use your ID instead of just saying who you are? You haven't presented one good argument for NOT doing it other than saying we don't need to.
We don't need to. And that's my point. Do you want the legislature to spend their time fixing problems that don't exist, or do you want them legislating potential issues that may never rise? Should the legislature vote on a bill outlawing Martian invasion of Johnston County? Should they outlaw termite damage? Here's one. Let's outlaw fire ant stings. For the crowd who objects to government intrusion and often speaks to the 'cradle to grave' entitlements as demonstrating the lack of need for government providing solutions, sure seems convenient to try to legislate a non issue, that only benefits the party in power. My biggest objection is that the legislature is, according to those proposing it, to prevent voter fraud. And I haven't been shown factual evidence that such fraud exists, that would suggest a law fixing the problem. There's not been a problem with it, that anyone can demonstrate. Out of 8 million voters registered, and millions of votes cast in 2008 or 2010, how many were investigated or demonstrated to be fraudulent? Certainly not enough for this "use a sledge hammer to kill a few ants" response. How do you propose voter id for one filling out an absentee ballot and ensuring that vote will count? As it is, if the precinct worker believes that a fraud is being committed, I'm sure they have an SOP to deal with that. No proof of a problem, no need for the solution, except that if there isn't a problem, then one wonders why the push for it. Who benefits?
I agree that it's a solution in search of a problem. But my main objection to it is that not everyone has a driver's license or government issued picture ID. How many elderly people have given up their driver's licenses? There are younger people, too, who don't have a driver's license, and not all of them have gone to the trouble of getting a state issued ID. Will the state provide those free of charge to eligible voters who don't have them? And what about the documentation required to get one, will the state help with that as well? Smells like a poll tax to me.
