1
   

GOP Says They'll Continue Racist Voter Suppression Tactics

 
 
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 09:04 am
GOP Says They'll Continue Racist Voter Suppression Tactics
By Steven Rosenfeld
AlterNet
Thursday 27 September 2007

In 2004, Republicans used a Jim Crow-era tactic to target the voter registrations of a half-million likely Democratic voters - often minorities - for Election Day challenges in nine states, a national voting rights group has charged in a new report.

"The intended effect of voter caging operations is to suppress minority votes," Project Vote said in its report, "Caging: A Fifty-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters. "Several court decisions and occasional public comment by Republican officials lend support to this conclusion."

But Republicans say Project Vote's report is biased because it excludes Democratic examples of filing fraudulent voter registrations to pad voter rolls and because it ignores Democratic efforts to "knock" opponents off the ballot, such as Ralph Nader in 2004, after identifying fraudulent signatures on his nominating petitions.

"When you send out a letter to people who have registered recently and the letter comes back as an address of an empty lot or is undeliverable, you tell me is that fraud or not?" said Heather Heidelbaugh, Republican National Lawyers Association vice president for Election Education. "When people say to me there is no such thing as evidence to commit voter fraud, it is false. I've seen it. I've witnessed it. I've lived through it."

Project Vote's report is likely to draw more congressional scrutiny of tactics that may continue in the upcoming presidential election. Since 2004, three battleground states - Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania - have "made it easier for private individuals to challenge a voter's eligibility," the report said, while two states, Washington and Minnesota, have passed laws "making it harder."

While the report - like many Democrats - says the GOP is relying on voter suppression methods developed in once-segregated South, Republicans like Heidelbaugh say mass registration drives intended to bring in new Democratic voters often are rife with errors that can be used to pad vote totals. She defended the GOP's use of mailings to identify voters to be challenged on Election Day as a legitimate tool to ensure fair elections.

"Both sides should recognize that voter fraud exists and both sides should want to minimize it without prohibiting anybody's right to vote," Heidelbaugh said. "The integrity of elections has to be maintained for the credibility of the system."

Project Vote organizes voter registration drives among low-income voters and in 2004 worked with ACORN, another low-income advocacy group, to register 2.3 million people across the country. In several states, ACORN workers filed a handful of registrations that were shown to be false and some of its workers were subsequently tried and convicted. That relationship undermines the credibility of the Project Vote report, said Heidelbaugh, who was Election Counsel in Pennsylvania for the Bush/Cheney '04 Campaign.

"It is telling me what I have seen for 23 years doesn't exist," she said. "It is a waste of my time to hear ACORN, which has been indicted for voter fraud, say that voter fraud doesn't exist."

Project Vote Deputy Director Michael Slater said GOP criticism of his group's ties to ACORN was fair, but he said Project Group, which is non-partisan, did not find any evidence that Democrats had used the same "caging" tactic to try to repress likely Republican supporters from voting.

"We didn't target the Republicans in our research," Slater said. "We did a broad review, using multiple sets of tools and didn't find incidents of Democratic voter caging. If we missed something, we'd like to know about it. We think vote caging is a problem. If Democrats did it we'd want it stopped as well."

The Republican National Committee did not return phone calls to comment. However other RNLA members, who often oversee their party's Election Day legal activities at the state level, said the voter challenges could reappear in 2008.

"I wish there was no need for any of this stuff," said Michael Theilen, RNLA executive director. "But I don't think we are there yet."

"I think we are going to have big problems in many urban areas - Philadelphia, St. Louis, Madison, Los Angeles, Miami, Jax (Jacksonville), Washington, D.C.," Thomas Spencer, RNLA vice chair, a Florida lawyer, said in an e-mail this summer. "I think that it is a huge and solvable problem."

Republican Ballot Security

The Project Vote report details a half-century of Republican "ballot-security" efforts, culminating in a multi-state effort in 2004 to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters through a tactic called "caging." That effort begins with a mailing Republicans send to newly registered voters. If those letters are returned, the GOP assumes the recipient's address on their voter registration form is incorrect and the registration is fraudulent.

Republicans identified 500,000 individuals whose registrations were to be challenged on Election Day in 2004, Project Vote reported. The GOP, usually at the state party level, recruited thousands of volunteers to monitor who signs in to vote at local precincts with the goal of contesting the registrations of the people who did not respond to its mailing. This practice is legal and allowed in most states.

Project Vote noted that relying on undelivered mail was weak standard to disqualify voters, because postal delivery rates tend to fall off in lower-income neighborhoods. In 2004, journalist Greg Palast reported soldiers serving in Iraq were among those who did not receive mailings and were put on GOP lists in Florida to be challenged.

Federal courts have found "caging" can violate the Voting Rights Act, which bars race-based discrimination in elections. Comparing the demographics of zip codes where the mailings are sent and the challenges are conducted is one tool used by federal courts to make that determination.

A 1982 federal court decree barred the Republican National Committee from caging after the RNC targeted African-American and Hispanic voters in New Jersey. That decision was reaffirmed in 1986 in a separate case involving African-American voters in Louisiana. Since then, state Republican Parties have contended in recent litigation that these rulings only apply to the RNC, as state parties are different political entities.

According to Project Vote, Republican Parties in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin targeted hundreds of thousands of voters in 2004. Individuals who described themselves as partisan Republicans did the same thing on a smaller scale in Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky, the report found. These efforts were mostly unsuccessful due to a mix of factors: ensuing litigation that stopped or delayed the challenges; and protests by local election officials and in some cases by African-American Republicans who were angered they had been targeted by their political party.

"The party went too far for some of its members," the report said.

Republicans say the measures are necessary to prevent "voter fraud," a widespread belief among some Republicans that large numbers of Democratic voters are voting more than once, stuffing ballot boxes and doing other illegal actions to win elections. Independent studies - including a recent U.S. Election Assistance Commission report that was initially censored - have found rare instances of this kind of abuse on both sides of the aisle, although it is usually insignificant in terms of swaying election outcomes.

The RNLA's Heidelbaugh, who ran the GOP's legal efforts in Pennsylvania in 2004, said there was a "national concerted effort by Democrats to try to convince the American public that voter fraud doesn't occur."

However, in 2004 in the Oakland area of Pittsburgh where several universities are located, she said she witnessed hundreds of students being bussed in from New York who demanded to vote after local precincts had run out of provisional ballots. Heidelbaugh said local election judges allowed the students - who she said were John Kerry supporters - to vote, creating a stir that did not end until sheriffs impounded the voting machines. She said the media did not cover the incident and no charges were brought after the election.

"Bush won. Where are the kids?" she said. "Who am I going to bring charges against?"

Jim Crow Roots

Caging and other ballot security measures have their roots in the South after the Civil War when "former Confederate states reacted to strong political participation" by African-Americans, the report said. "The Southern system had five salient features: burdensome residency requirements, periodic registration, imposition of poll taxes, literacy or understanding requirements and stringent disqualification provisions."

Today's push by Republicans for new voter identification laws, aggressive voter roll purges, and more elaborate voter registration requirements are seen as continuing this political legacy, according to the report's authors.

"Many of the state challenges laws have their roots in the post-Reconstruction Era and are relics of Jim Crow laws intended to deprive African-Americans of their franchise," it said. "The origin of Florida's voter challenge statute, for example, illuminates the racial bias behind its passage ... In 1887, federal law pre-empted Florida law and extended the right to vote to African-American men. The newly re-enfranchised African-American voters responded by voting in large numbers. In response, one year later, the Florida legislature enacted a challenge voters statute that extended the power to challenge to private poll watchers.

"The current Florida statute on voter challenges permits poll watchers to challenge a voter merely by signing an oath that states they have "reason to believe" that the voter is ineligible to vote and stating the reasons for the challenge."

There is little question that "caging" and other "ballot security" issues are alive in 2008.

Last week, a coalition of civil rights groups sued Florida alleging that new technology used to create statewide voter databases was disenfranchising thousands of minority voters because of mistakes in the state records used to validate the registrations. And this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a suit on whether Indiana's new voter I.D. requirements unfairly keep poor people and minority groups from voting.
--------------------------------------------------

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,313 • Replies: 70
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 09:06 am
Ohio, Florida Laws Could Dampen Democratic Voting
Ohio, Florida Laws Could Dampen Democratic Voting
By Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers
Wednesday 26 September 2007

Washington - Ohio and Florida, which provided the decisive electoral votes for President Bush's two razor-thin national election triumphs, have enacted laws that election experts say will help Republicans impede Democratic-leaning minorities from voting in 2008.

Backers of the new laws say they're aimed at curbing vote fraud. But the statutes also could facilitate a controversial Republican tactic known as "vote caging," which the GOP attempted in Ohio and Florida in 2004 before public disclosures foiled the efforts, said Joseph Rich, a former Justice Department voting rights chief in the Bush administration who's now with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.

Caging, used in the past to target poor minorities in heavily Democratic precincts, entails sending mass mailings to certain voters and then using the undelivered letters to compile lists of voters for eligibility challenges.

As the high-stakes ground war escalates heading into next year's elections, Republicans have led the charge for an array of revisions to state voting rights laws, especially in key battleground states. Republican political appointees in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division have endorsed some of these measures.

Over the last three years, the Republican-controlled state legislatures in Indiana, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have passed laws requiring every voter to produce a photo identification card - measures that civil rights groups contend were aimed at suppressing minority voting.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider a constitutional challenge to Indiana's ID law on grounds that it unfairly affects poor and elderly voters. Gubernatorial vetoes or court rulings have nullified legislation in the other four states. A federal judge in Georgia, however, recently upheld a new photo ID law that imposes fewer obstacles to obtaining one.

In Ohio, which swung the 2004 election to Bush, new Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said in a phone interview that an election law passed last year and signed by former Republican Gov. Bob Taft effectively "institutionalized" vote caging.

The law requires that the state's 88 county election boards send non-forwardable, pre-election notices to all 7.8 million registered Ohio voters at least 60 days before the election. Undelivered letters are public record, she said, meaning that effectively, "now the counties are paying for" the data needed to compile challenge lists.

In addition, Brunner said, the law toughened voter ID requirements and "took away rights of some voters to be heard about whether or not their registration was valid."

In the past, Ohio voters were entitled to an official notice and a hearing before an election board could declare them ineligible, but the new law says that the board can make that decision without notice. A disqualified voter who shows up at the polls must demonstrate that he's fixed any eligibility problem or opt for filing a provisional ballot that may not count.

Brunner said the new law has left her feeling "like being in a sword fight with one hand behind your back." She said she's sought, "while working within the framework of preventing fraud," to make it "as easy as possible for people who are eligible to participate."

"We feel the eyes of the nation are on us, no matter what we do," Brunner said.

A 2005 Florida law, approved by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act, stripped the state's 10.5 million registered voters of the right to contest challenges at the polls. Now a challenger need only swear to a "good faith belief" that a voter is ineligible to force the voter to file a provisional ballot.

At the same time, the law reduces from three days to 48 hours the deadline for challenged voters to produce evidence that they're eligible to vote in their precincts.

Another Florida law imposed a $250 penalty on voter registration workers for every registration application they fail to turn over to county registrars within 10 days. After the League of Women Voters sued and a judge blocked its implementation, the legislature cut the fine to $50 per infraction.

Sterling Ivey, a spokesman for Florida Republican Secretary of State Kurt Browning, said there has been no sign of a large caging operation.

"We don't see a significant number of challenges of voters in Florida," he said.

But former voting rights chief Rich said Ohio's and Florida's new laws "make one wonder whether there will be new efforts to have massive challenges in the future."

A federal court injunction has barred the Republican National Committee for 25 years from engaging in racially targeted vote caging, but it doesn't extend to state parties.

Asked whether they might employ vote caging in 2008, Executive Director Jason Mauk of the Ohio Republican Party and spokeswoman Erin VanSickle of the Florida Republican Party said they couldn't discuss election strategy.

Chandler Davidson, a Rice University sociology professor who has studied voter suppression, said the new laws are questionable because "there has been virtually no evidence presented that there has been wide-scale voter fraud in the United States."

Pointing to a Yale University study showing that mail is less likely to reach residents of low-income neighborhoods, he said mass mailings of non-forwardable mail will "discriminate in a pretty straightforward way" against poor people and minorities.

A study to be released Thursday by the liberal-leaning group Project Vote noted that Minnesota - with bipartisan support - altered its election law in 2005.

The law prohibits political parties from bringing in challengers from out of state and from using non-forwardable mail to compile challenge lists.

"The fundamental question," said Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, "is do you want to make sure everyone can vote, or do you want to make sure some people can vote and other people have a harder time voting?"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 09:21 am
Interesting articles, Aunt Bee. I noticed that the Republican volunteers are challenging tens of thousands of voters, whereas the documented cases of fraud referred to (not just Republican allegations, but the reports of agencies which were referred to) represented a handful of cases. Wrapping themselves in a flag of civic virtue, the Republicans seem to be able to prevent a few dozen to a few hundred instances of fraud, while effectively disranchisning tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters who are not engaged in fraud.

This is the more disturbing when coupled with the specter of voting machine fraud, which would seem to be the preferred method of the Republicans. I suspect most people have forgotten the memorandum, on company letterhead, from the CEO of Deibold promising that that company, a major manufacturer of voting machines, would "deliver Ohio" for Bush in 2004.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 09:31 am
It's good to have a company like Diebold in your back pocket. Bet them dem's are awful jealous of the big business connection the rep's have.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 09:40 am
The last time i voted, my address was the fourth address i had had since i had registered in Ohio, more than 15 years ago. If the Republicans were able to use this tactic in Ohio, they might have prevented me from voting. Since i vote every year, in each case in which i had a change of address, i was given a provisional ballot for the new precinct, and i signed the rolls when i voted. In Ohio, when you vote, you provide picture identification, and sign your name. In each of those cases, the following year, my name with my new address was on the roll, and i signed my name below a facsimile of my signature on the rolls kept by the poll workers. It would be very difficult for Republicans to challenge a voter in that system, since the precinct keeps the record of eligible votes, and has a roll produced by the county Board of Elections with facsimiles ot the signatures of all eligible voters. If you have moved, you complete a provisional ballot, and your signature is compared to the facsimile record at the Board of Elections. Further hampering such efforts is the fact that in Ohio, you do not stipulate a party affiliation at the time your register (at least i was not required to do so when i registered).

No surprises here, though. In Florida in 2000, tens of thousands of voters were removed from the rolls due to the report of a private corporation, and it was subsequently revealed that in thousands of cases (and perhaps more--the post-election investigation was quashed), the information which disqualified the voters was faulty, and often based on nothing more than common names being identical--but no further checking had been done. Katherine Harris was the Secretary of State of Florida at the time, a Republican, who had contracted with the private firm to review the voter registration rolls, and who subsequently ended the investigation into the activities of that corporation. She is now a Republican member of the House of Representatives.

Harris was the Co-Chair of Bush's election committee in Florida in 2000. The following is from the Wikipedia entry on Miss Harris:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris#2000_US_presidential_election][b]Wikipedia[/b][/url] wrote:
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 09:46 am
GOP electoral initiative dealt major blows
GOP electoral initiative dealt major blows
Two key consultants for an effort to change California's winner-take-all system quit over money and disclosure woes.
By Dan Morain, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 28, 2007

SACRAMENTO -- A proposed California initiative campaign that could have helped Republicans hold on to the White House in 2008 was a shambles Thursday night, as two of its key consultants quit.

Unable to raise sufficient money and angered over a lack of disclosure by its one large donor, veteran political law attorney Thomas Hiltachk, who drafted the measure, said he was resigning from the committee.

Hiltachk's departure is a major blow to the operation because he organized other consultants who had set about trying to raise money and gather signatures for the initiative. Campaign spokesman Kevin Eckery said he was ending his role as well.

There remained a chance that the measure could be revived, but only if a major donor were to come forward to fund the petition drive. However, time is short to gather the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed by the end of November. And backers said Thursday that they believed the measure was all but dead, at least for the 2008 election.

" 'Shambles' is the wrong word," said strategist Marty Wilson, who curtailed his fundraising efforts weeks ago. "The campaign never got off the ground."

Intended for the June 2008 ballot, the proposed initiative sought to change California's winner-take-all system to require that electoral votes be awarded based on how individual congressional districts vote.

Democrats were alarmed by the measure because they assume the Democratic nominee must capture all of California's 55 electoral votes to win the presidency. With Republicans holding 19 congressional seats in California, the GOP nominee would be expected to capture at least 19 of the state's electoral votes, nearly as many as are in Ohio.

A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to capture the White House. In the 2000 election, President Bush defeated Al Gore by five electoral votes.

Federal law authorizes states to establish their own methods for selecting electoral votes. As it is, Nebraska and Maine are the only states that allocate electoral votes by congressional district. All the rest select them on a winner-take-all basis.

Despite the attention the measure garnered after a report in the Los Angeles Times' political blog, Top of the Ticket, and in the New Yorker, it failed to attract significant financial support, perhaps because many Republican donors are less than energized this year, and perhaps because of the slowing economy.

"There is not a huge amount of donor interest in the measure for a variety of reasons," Wilson said. "I'm not willing to keep beating my head against the wall."

The campaign received only one sizable donation -- $175,000. That is less than one-tenth of the $2 million typically needed to gather sufficient signatures to qualify a measure for the California ballot.

The donation arrived on Sept. 11, one day after Missouri attorney Charles A. Hurth III created a company called TIA Take Initiative America that served as the vehicle for the donation. But the individual donors to the organization were not known.

Hiltachk said he had demanded that "Take Initiative America fully disclose the source of its funds," and said he was assured it would make such a disclosure soon.

"Nonetheless," Hiltachk said, "I am deeply troubled by their failure to disclose prior to my demand and by their failure to disclose to me or to our committee that Take Initiative America had been formed just one day prior to making the contribution. . . .

"I am not willing to proceed under such circumstances," Hiltachk said. "Therefore, I am resigning my role in this campaign."

Eckery added: "There's no reason to be cute on campaign contributions. We had nothing to hide, and the public has every right to know."

Eckery said the campaign would keep the money; it has been used to pay signature gatherers and other costs.

Hurth did not return repeated calls seeking comment. His spokesman, Republican consultant Jonathan Wilcox, would not say who provided the $175,000. Wilcox said the group was planning to donate to other conservative causes around the country, including one in Utah to create school vouchers.

Donors commonly establish entities such as nonprofit corporations to raise money for political campaigns. In at least some instances, donors to such organizations are able to hide their identities.

"I'm not authorized by my clients to speak with the media just yet," Cleta Mitchell, a Washington attorney representing the group, said in an e-mail.

Unlike federal campaign law, California law permits corporations to make political donations. And though there are caps on the size of donations to federal candidates, state and federal law permits donations of unlimited size to support or oppose ballot measures.

Hiltachk said he still believed the measure would "revive California's role in presidential politics, increase voter participation and better reflect the vast diversity of our state."

Democratic consultant Chris Lehane mounted an aggressive opposition campaign that received backing from wealthy donors such as real estate investor and movie producer Stephen L. Bing, who like Lehane is supporting New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid.

On Thursday, Lehane organized a news conference to demand that the organization disclose its donors, and threatened to file a complaint with election regulators.

California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres also called for disclosure.

"We want to make sure this is not the Freddy Krueger of initiatives that comes back to life," Lehane said. "We'll continue to monitor it. We thought it was a debacle from the beginning and seems it suffered from its own internal dysfunction."
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:27 am
If you don't have your name on a lease or title, or if you are on welfare, you shouldn't be able to vote. Period.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:36 am
cjhsa
cjhsa wrote:
If you don't have your name on a lease or title, or if you are on welfare, you shouldn't be able to vote. Period.


You evidently don't support the U.S. Constitution.

BBB
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:38 am
Quote:
If you don't have your name on a lease or title, or if you are on welfare, you shouldn't be able to vote. Period.


that's what i love about cjhsa: you should only have civil rights if you purchase them!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:40 am
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Amendment XIX in the National ArchivesAmendment XIX (the Nineteenth Amendment) to the United States Constitution provides that neither the individual states of the United States nor its federal government may deny a citizen the right to vote because of the citizen's sex.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

History

The 19th amendment was specifically intended to extend suffrage to women. It was proposed on June 4, 1919 and ratified on August 18, 1920.

The amendment was the culmination of the work of many activists in favor of women's suffrage. One such group called the Silent Sentinels protested in front of the White House for 18 months starting in 1917 to raise awareness of the issue.

On January 9, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson announced his support of the amendment. The next day, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the amendment but the Senate refused to even debate it until October. When the Senate voted on the amendment in October, it failed by three votes.

In response, the National Woman's Party urged citizens to vote against anti-suffrage senators up for election in the fall of 1918. After the 1918 election, most members of Congress were pro-suffrage. On May 21, 1919, the House of Representatives passed the amendment by a vote of 304 to 89, and 2 weeks later on June 4, the Senate finally followed, where the amendment passed by a vote of 56 to 25.[1]

It was ratified on August 18, 1920, upon its ratification by Tennessee, the thirty-sixth state to do so. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby certified the ratification on August 26, 1920.

On February 27, 1922, a challenge to the 19th Amendment was rebuffed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Leser v. Garnett.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:45 am
The 19th has nothing to do with my statement. Just MO.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 11:16 am
cjhsa
cjhsa wrote:
The 19th has nothing to do with my statement. Just MO.


Keep on making your excuses will only make you look more pathetic.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:04 pm
Make everyone who votes have an ID. No ID you can't vote. This would let everyone know who is real and who isn't. People who register people to vote should have to verify ID. Each district should also run those addresses listed as valid voters against the Post Offices address listing to verify legal addresses.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:06 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Make everyone who votes have an ID. No ID you can't vote. This would let everyone know who is real and who isn't. People who register people to vote should have to verify ID. Each district should also run those addresses listed as valid voters against the Post Offices address listing to verify legal addresses.


Unless you are required by law to have an ID, you can't require people by law to show an ID to vote.

Papers, please, the man said, in his best menacing voice...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:12 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Make everyone who votes have an ID. No ID you can't vote. This would let everyone know who is real and who isn't. People who register people to vote should have to verify ID. Each district should also run those addresses listed as valid voters against the Post Offices address listing to verify legal addresses.


Unless you are required by law to have an ID, you can't require people by law to show an ID to vote.

Papers, please, the man said, in his best menacing voice...

Cycloptichorn


Several states have tried to create such laws. They get railroaded by the likes of Jesse Pimp Jackson and other protect the right to cheat groups. It should be a federal law to vote in national elections and all states should enact same laws when it comes to voting. Were not talking about walking down the street and men in black step out and ask you for your ID. Were talking about voting. Remove your fear of THE MAN and let people show ID to vote. You want every vote to count right? Well I want every voter verfied so that their vote can count.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:15 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Make everyone who votes have an ID. No ID you can't vote. This would let everyone know who is real and who isn't. People who register people to vote should have to verify ID. Each district should also run those addresses listed as valid voters against the Post Offices address listing to verify legal addresses.


Unless you are required by law to have an ID, you can't require people by law to show an ID to vote.

Papers, please, the man said, in his best menacing voice...

Cycloptichorn


Several states have tried to create such laws. They get railroaded by the likes of Jesse Pimp Jackson and other protect the right to cheat groups. It should be a federal law to vote in national elections and all states should enact same laws when it comes to voting. Were not talking about walking down the street and men in black step out and ask you for your ID. Were talking about voting. Remove your fear of THE MAN and let people show ID to vote. You want every vote to count right? Well I want every voter verfied so that their vote can count.


Sorry, but it's a short step from one to the other.

You are free to have your opinion that everyone should be forced by law to carry papers at all times; but others are free to have another opinion, and we will express that opinion. Until you can get the laws changed - and I would remind you that it has been several courts which have struck down attempts to do that in various states - then there's no requirement to show an ID to vote in America.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:35 pm
Okay, Baldi, this one is definitely for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask

You may want to start by making the lawmakers show their ID when they vote.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:42 pm
To buy alcohol you need to show ID. To board a plane, you need to show ID. Yet, this has not led to a need for anyone to carry "papers" with them every day.

Considering the routinely low voter turn out, I see no reason why showing an ID to vote would be an issue. If you don't want to vote, you'll have no worries about carrying "papers".
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Make everyone who votes have an ID. No ID you can't vote. This would let everyone know who is real and who isn't. People who register people to vote should have to verify ID. Each district should also run those addresses listed as valid voters against the Post Offices address listing to verify legal addresses.


Unless you are required by law to have an ID, you can't require people by law to show an ID to vote.

Papers, please, the man said, in his best menacing voice...

Cycloptichorn


Several states have tried to create such laws. They get railroaded by the likes of Jesse Pimp Jackson and other protect the right to cheat groups. It should be a federal law to vote in national elections and all states should enact same laws when it comes to voting. Were not talking about walking down the street and men in black step out and ask you for your ID. Were talking about voting. Remove your fear of THE MAN and let people show ID to vote. You want every vote to count right? Well I want every voter verfied so that their vote can count.


Sorry, but it's a short step from one to the other.

You are free to have your opinion that everyone should be forced by law to carry papers at all times; but others are free to have another opinion, and we will express that opinion. Until you can get the laws changed - and I would remind you that it has been several courts which have struck down attempts to do that in various states - then there's no requirement to show an ID to vote in America.

Cycloptichorn


Your slippery sloap isn't washing. Its a long way from that.

Do you have to show ID when you fly? Last time I checked you had to show ID to rent a video from Blockbuster. You have to show ID when you use a credit card if requested to show ID. I even have and ID card for my job that I show when I enter buildings and peoples homes. You have to show ID to cash a check and to remove money from the bank. You even have to show ID to get a Social Security card. Why should something that is more important then renting a video and riding a plane not require ID if those things do.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
To buy alcohol you need to show ID. To board a plane, you need to show ID. Yet, this has not led to a need for anyone to carry "papers" with them every day.

Considering the routinely low voter turn out, I see no reason why showing an ID to vote would be an issue. If you don't want to vote, you'll have no worries about carrying "papers".


You should not have to show an ID to get on an domestic-domestic airplane; it's ridiculous, a scam in order to allow the airlines to make more money. There's no vested interest in knowing who is on what plane.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » GOP Says They'll Continue Racist Voter Suppression Tactics
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 08:37:17