*This* is why we need voter ID

[Rooster]

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/09/30/de ... g-19-times

The Left claims there isn't any voter fraud, so why would we need identification to prove who we are while voting? Well, when your elected Democratic party government officials are busy committing 18 voting felonies in the course of her duties, perhaps a little common sense needs to be applied to our electoral system. And save your "Thas raysis!" emails, trolls.

[Left Seater]

Wow, finally there is an example.

Which was caught, and is being prosecuted under existing laws. Yay.

This is exactly why we need photo ID to vote. Yes, she will be prosecuted under existing laws, but had she been required to show an ID at any of the polling locations she wouldn't have been able to vote at all and this is a non issue.

You side likes to say show me the fraud, but the problem is unless you are a complete idiot like this Democrat, you can vote multiple times with almost zero chance of being caught.

[BSmack]

State Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala, D-Bridgeport

That explains it. The whole city of Bridgeport is a criminal conspiracy.

[Wolfman]

No one in Florida votes multiple times in key districts.

Ooops, wrong thread.

[smackaholic]

State Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala, D-Bridgeport

That explains it. The whole city of Bridgeport is a criminal conspiracy.

Don't forget this.....

[Goober McTuber]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked Wisconsin from implementing its new voter identification law on the eve of next month's elections.

In a related action, a district court judge in Texas ruled that state's voter ID law is racially discriminatory and violates the Voting Rights Act. The state attorney general's office said it would appeal.

Both Wisconsin and Texas had claimed the new rules were intended to crack down on instances in which voters impersonate others at the polls. Such incidents are extremely rare, courts have found.

The Supreme Court's order reverses a trend established by the justices in two other cases from Ohio and North Carolina, in which they allowed voting restrictions imposed by Republican legislatures to take effect.

In all three cases, however, it appeared the court wanted to respect changes made by elected officials without confusing or disenfranchising voters.

The court gave no reason for its action, as is routine for such emergency orders. But Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the court cannot block an appeals court ruling unless the lower court "clearly and demonstrably erred in its application of accepted standards."

In Wisconsin, the state requires voters to produce photo ID at the polls based on a 2011 law that was rolled out in time for low-turnout primaries the following year. Because of early problems, a state court blocked further use of the law.

Earlier this year, a federal district judge ruled the law unconstitutional because it disproportionately affected black and Hispanic residents. He also said the rationale for the law -- voters impersonating others at the polls -- was virtually non-existent.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision last month, in part because of last-minute changes made by state officials to ease the burden on those lacking the proper ID. The full appeals court then deadlocked 5-5 on whether to reconsider the issue, thereby keeping the photo ID rule in place.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Advancement Project, a civil rights group, contend that the law jeopardizes the votes of some 300,000 residents who lack the proper ID — particularly racial minorities, seniors, students and people with disabilities.

Imposing the photo ID requirement "will cause chaos at the polls and will disenfranchise many thousands of Wisconsin voters," they argued in their petition to the Supreme Court. The groups said the justices should block the law for now and grant one of the cases challenging photo ID for a full hearing and decision.

State officials argued that they had been implementing the photo ID rule since early September. "Plaintiffs are asking this court to pinball state and local election officials between enforcing and not enforcing the law with November elections less than four weeks away," their brief said. "Voters would get the pinball treatment, too."

In the other two recent voting-rights cases, the Supreme Court acted differently:

• It allowed Ohio officials to eliminate one of five weeks set aside for early voting, as well as some evening and Sunday hours.

• It allowed North Carolina officials to eliminate same-day voter registration and discount votes cast mistakenly in the wrong precincts. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from that ruling.

All three cases are part of a broader national challenge by groups aligned with Democrats and minorities against laws passed by Republican legislatures that tighten voting procedures. Other cases are pending in Texas and Arkansas. Most face continued court battles that ultimately could be heard by the Supreme Court and decided on their broader merits.

[Left Seater]

Most if not all states already require a form of photo ID for all residents over 18. So showing it at the polls will not cause an undue burden or disenfranchise anyone.

Those who claim this is unfair etc, are admitting that those in violation are already law breakers.

By not having an ID you are violating law.

[Goober McTuber]

Yes, because we've had so many voter fraud cases here. Well, actually we've had one. It was a Republican trying to show how easy it was to vote multiple time. He caught caught and was prosecuted. A solution in search of a problem.

[Screw_Michigan]

I'm always in favor of less laws, but seriously - why is it such a fucking monumental problem just to show your driver's license to vote - or some valid ID? I mean - I know it's harder for criminals to get such things, but still...

Because this isn't the Soviet Union, you FAT fucking RETARD.

[Rooster]

My apologies in advance for the necropost, but I just had to show this:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/10/30/ma ... d-maryland

In short, a voter integrity group who had previously found 40,000 people who are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland, has now found thousands of non-citizens who admitted to voting illegally after being put on jury rolls in Fredrick County, Maryland. Furthermore, one in seven residents in that county are non-US citizens, which points to the potential for extravagent voter fraud.

[Screw_Michigan]

the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state.

[Left Seater]

Typical left leaning reply of nothing to see here.

Nevermind 40,000 duplicate voter registrations.

[Ace]

Anything to keep the darkies from voting, right 'pubs?

[Diego in Seattle]

[Screw_Michigan]

Typical left leaning reply of nothing to see here.

Nevermind 40,000 duplicate voter registrations.

I read the original story as well. Didn't see any evidence. Typical GOP response. "Evidence? Uhhhhh...."

[Left Seater]

Your president all but admitted voter fraud is rampant in Chicago.



Further, voter fraud is almost impossible to uncover or prove thanks to dems efforts. You have to be a special kind of dumb to get caught.

It is amazing that Dems fight voter ID requirements when the following already require a valid state or Federal photo ID:

Getting a job, photo ID is required upon hire

Cashing a check

Opening a bank account

Signing a lease

Obtaining a mortgage

Signing most contracts

Purchasing a vehicle

Purchasing many prescriptions

Obtaining a library card

Entering many city, county and state offices and most federal offices

Entering most colleges and universities (absolute must for Federal Aid)

All commercial air travel, most charter air, some private air travel

Discounts at movie theaters, theme parks, state parks, etc

Renting of most items (appliances, electronics, cameras) Of course a valid DL is required to rent a car

Some vendors require it prior to using a Credit Card

It is state law for residents to have some sort of photo ID


Despite all that, Dems think it is unreasonable to ask for a photo ID at the voting booth. It would be one thing if they were trying to remove the above photo ID requirements as well as voting ID, but they aren't. #Sad

[Screw_Michigan]

None of those are constitutionally protected rights, numbnuts. Why is that distinction so hard to understand?

[Left Seater]

None of those are constitutionally protected rights, numbnuts. Why is that distinction so hard to understand?

Exactly! All the more reason to require ID. If anything requires ID voting should be it. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Rooster]

Yes, but what is implicit in that constitutional right to vote, Screwy, is the corporate agreement that it will be free from corruption and and fraud. To that end, voter fraud should be something which I would think you'd be onboard to stamp out and that such allegations such as in Frederick County and by an elected official (of your party to boot!) impinges on your position that proof of citizenship and the legitimate right to participate in an election are unnecessary and wrong. To believe otherwise means yours and my constitutionally protected right to vote is negated by someone else's unethical behavior. A right that is made null and void by illegal action is no right at all, but is a farce.

I find it genuinely puzzling that possible voter fraud means so little to you and others since it impacts you just as it does someone on the other side of the political aisle.

[Dinsdale]

None of those are constitutionally protected rights, numbnuts. Why is that distinction so hard to understand?

Because you've obviously never read the Ninth Amendment?

MOST of the things he listed are indeed Constitutionally protected, dumbass.

[smackaholic]

Don't worry, there will be a federally mandated ID for everyone to do pretty much everything, once the lefties achieve their workers paradise.

[smackaholic]

The dems "nothing to see here folks, move along" defense is laughable.

You have to be weapons grade stupid to think that fraud does not exist.

And as for the "republicans do it too" replies, it is all the more reason to require basic safeguards which will at least make it difficult to cheat.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The illusion that you people have some sort of "choice"...

~chuckle~

How quaint.

[mvscal]

Anything to keep the darkies from voting, right 'pubs?

Pretty sure "darkies" are allowed even encouraged to have photo IDs. Do you have any other idiotic objections to proving you are who you claim to be before casting your ballot?