Moe provides a critique I can resonate with:
VOTER ID: I have absolutely no problem with voter ID. My problem is with 1) making it difficult, and 2) rushing it. Voter ID? Not a bad idea. The way they’re doing it? That’s suppression.
I’m not sure what of the specific way and manner in which she objects, but I’m encouraged by the acknowledgement that proving you are who you say you are is not scandalous.
Today North Carolina voted on “Amendment One”. This is the constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. It bans gay marriage. In fact, some feel that the amendment is written such that it bans civil unions between men and women as well. I’m not so sure about that, but it’s possible.
Anyway, an interesting con-flux occurred tonight.
It involves primary voting, age and fraud. All the best election night news.
Posted in Government, Liberty, Politics: National, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged Voter Fraud, Voter ID
Arizona passed legislation in 2004 that would require individual present photo ID when they want to vote. In fact, Arizona went so far as to require proof of citizenship in order to vote. I’m trying to understand how that whole proof of citizenship thing would work. But clearly I’m in favor of demonstrating you are who you say you are.
At the heart of the case, apparently, is whether or not this requirement presents an undo burden on Latinos. And the court ruled it didn’t:
Arizona is entitled to demand that people present identification before being allowed to cast a ballot, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
In a split decision, the judges rejected arguments that mandating would-be voters show a driver’s license or other identification unfairly discriminates against Latino voters.
I can’t think of a circumstance where anyone, Latino or not Latino, would find difficulty in obtaining identification that had a picture on it.
I suspect we’ll see more of this in the near future.
With the wave of Republican victories in the states in 2010 elections, one of the goals has been to tighten Voter ID laws. Currently there is no requirement to show ID in order to vote. Republicans are changing that by passing legislation into law that requires some form of state ID in order to vote on election day.
Democrats are crying foul.
The claim from those on the left is that such laws are aimed to diminish the Democrat vote. The logic, as I understand it, is that the people who don’t have valid state IDs are the poor, minority voters. And these poor and minority voters typically vote Democrat.
As evidence that these laws are being passed to repress voters is the argument that voter fraud is not common; in fact, it’s very rare. While I’m willing to accept the fact that voter fraud is not rampant, I have little faith in the methods that measure it. For example, how are you able to audit such an event? Ballots are private, anonymous and carry no identifying marker. I’m not sure of the science behind the data.
In any event, the whole argument smacks of, “We are willing to allow a certain degree of fraud in order to allow more of my voters to vote.”
The whole of the Democrat argument is one of politics.
However, there IS a certain statistic that is easily validated when verifying voter fraud; dead voters. How surprised was I to see this:
Time and time again the reporters were given ballots. In some cases they even tried to make the case that they didn’t have ID only to be assured that they didn’t need it.
No fraud indeed.
Hat Tip: Larry Volker
Posted in Elections 2012, Liberty, Politics: National
Tagged New Hampshire, Voter Fraud, Voter ID
That is if you believe the Democrats when they say that Voter ID laws are discriminatory. See, the logic goes like this:
The very young, poor, rural, urban, minority Democrat citizens in our nation are disproportionally unable to obtain State ID. Further, this inability to obtain such ID is based solely on cost. State ID’s are prohibitively expensive.
I checked. Here in North Carolina you can obtain State ID by:
With some combination of these documents a resident of North Carolina can obtain a state ID. That and $10.00.
The burden to obtain an ID is not significant or overly burdensome.
So, anyway, back to Illinois. How is the state of Illinois now discriminating against the young, elderly, urban, rural Democrats in the state?
They are requiring the discriminatory practice of providing state ID to purchase…Liquid Plumber. Hat Tip Dan Mitchell
CHICAGO (CBS) – A new state law requires those who buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a log.
…
The law, which took effect Sunday, requires those who seek to buy caustic or noxious substances, except for batteries, to provide government-issued photo identification that shows their name and date of birth. The cashier then must log the name and address, the date and time of the purchase, the type of product, the brand and even the net weight.
What possible excuse could the Republicans of the state make for such discriminatory practices?
State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) obtained passage of the new law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago women, badly scarring them.
Truly unbelievable. Democrats feel perfectly okay to require state ID to buy Draino but not to vote.
Politics anyone?
Posted in Fun, Government, Idiots on Parade, Liberty, States Behaving Badly
Tagged Illinois, North Carolina, State ID, Voter ID
In June of last year our North Carolina governor Bev Purdue vetoed a bill that would have required voters present government issued ID at the ballot. In other words, our citizens would have to prove they are who they say they are.
Bev’s comments upon vetoing this bill:
“The right to choose our leaders is among the most precious freedoms we have – both as Americans and North Carolinians. North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right.
“We must always be vigilant in protecting the integrity of our elections. But requiring every voter to present a government-issued photo ID is not the way to do it. This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters. The legislature should pass a less extreme bill that allows for other forms of identification, such as those permitted under federal law.
“There was a time in North Carolina history when the right to vote was enjoyed only by some citizens rather than by all. That time is past, and we should not revisit it.
“Therefore, I veto this bill.”
I read the Constitution of North Carolina, I have to assume that Gov. Purdue was speaking about that state Constitution because she is acting as state Governor AND the United States Constitution has no “Right to Vote” language in it. And this is what the Constitution says:
Section 1. Who may vote.
Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided.
Sec. 2. Qualifications of voter.
(1) Residence period for State elections. Any person who has resided in the State of North Carolina for one year and in the precinct, ward, or other election district for 30 days next preceding an election, and possesses the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in this State. Removal from one precinct, ward, or other election district to another in this State shall not operate to deprive any person of the right to vote in the precinct, ward, or other election district from which that person has removed until 30 days after the removal.
(2) Residence period for presidential elections. The General Assembly may reduce the time of residence for persons voting in presidential elections. A person made eligible by reason of a reduction in time of residence shall possess the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall only be entitled to vote for President and Vice President of the United States or for electors for President and Vice President, and shall not thereby become eligible to hold office in this State.
(3) Disqualification of felon. No person adjudged guilty of a felony against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, shall be permitted to vote unless that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.
It is pretty clear. You have to be:
It is a reasonable request that an individual representing his desire to vote prove that. Any claim that this is NOT reasonable is based in pure politics. There are those who claim that requiring such proof would disenfranchise voters who, as it turns out, would vote for candidate of a certain political persuasion. It can not be ignored that the desire to create a system that so easily creates conditions where people who are not who they say they are can vote is a system that is inherently and purposely flawed in order to create election day advantages.
I bring this up because the state Republicans were unable to overcome the Governor’s veto and it appears the bill will remain just that, a bill.
The law says that you are only allowed to vote if you are a citizen. And then only once.
Why is it that the Obama Justice Department continues to block efforts to enforce existing law?
AUSTIN, Tex. — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to enter the turbulent political waters of voting rights on Tuesday, signaling that the Justice Department will take an aggressive stance in reviewing new laws in several states that civil rights advocates say are meant to dampen minority participation in the national elections next year.
Can you imagine passing a speed limit law and then forbidding law enforcement from checking how fast you’re going in order to enforce said law?
Posted in Idiots on Parade, Immigration, Politics: National, Rocket Surgery
Tagged Democrat, Eric Holder, Republican, Voter ID
Wait – wait. That’s not how that goes. Not at all.
However, for this purpose, it provides an interesting illustration.
For example, consider two bills:
One:
Raleigh, N.C. — Businesses, cities and counties in North Carolina are going to have to start checking the immigration status of new hires.
Gov. Beverly Perdue on Thursday signed into law a bill directing employers to use the federal government’s E-Verify system to prevent illegal immigrants from landing jobs. The legislation makes exceptions for companies that employ fewer than 25 people or which use seasonal workers.
Then, the other:
Two:
Gov. Bev Perdue has vetoed a controversial proposal to require voters to show photo ID at the polls.
Her statement:
“The right to choose our leaders is among the most precious freedoms we have – both as Americans and North Carolinians. North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right.
Get that?
If you are a business and wanna hire someone, you have to check and verify valid ID and legal status.
If you are a government and wanna protect the right that thousands have died to protect – not so ‘effin much.
The way of the Leftist ya’ll, the way of the Leftist.
Posted in Government, Liberty, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged Jobs, Leftist, North Carolina, North Carolina Politics, Politics, Voter ID
Here in North Carolina you are able to vote at a polling location if you have already registered as long as you claim that you who you say you are and live where you say you live.
No requirement to prove you are who you say you are or that you live where you say you live.
Just show up. State your name and address. Sign on the line.
Posted in Government, Politics: North Carolina, Race
Tagged Democrat, North Carolina, North Carolina Politics, Politics, Republican, Voter ID
I posted earlier about an effort to require ID to purchase prescription drugs. Apparently the abuse of prescription drugs is enough of a concern for liberal lawmakers to require proof of identity.
See, in North Carolina you don’t have to prove identity to vote. You only have to appear and recite your address. The polling volunteer can’t so much as ask you how long you’ve lived there or how many people live at the residence.
They just nod, smile and give ya a ballot.
Posted in Government, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged Damon Circosta, Democrat, Leftist, Republican, Voter ID