GOP State Rep Admits Voter ID Is To Allow Election Rigging

Democracy4Sale wrote: You have proof that GOP seniors, students, and veterans don't seem to have these same issues? I'll wait for a link to that source...

No sources probably because Republican voters take care of the problem instead of whining and trying to make it a campaign issue.

GOP Voter: "I am not on the voter rolls? Well, let me fix that."
Dem Voter: "I am not on the voter rolls? Waaaahhhh! The man is keeping me down! Let me take this to the press."

I didn't think so.

Can anecdotal examples be found of laws requiring photo-id at the polls be found which say that a small degree of inconvenience is experienced to obtain the photo-id? Of course, you can find a small example of any law creating random examples of the law being difficult to comply with. Do these sparse and random examples rise to the level of disenfranchising voters on the massive scale that the "progressives" repeat to themselves inside of their echo chamber? Of course not.

The left has a long history of removing words, spoken or written, entirely from their context in a vain attempt to convince people of something that doesn't exist and this is but the latest example of such an effort. The Supreme Court of the United States of America, in a 6-3 decision with Justice John Paul Stevens, an avowed "progressive" if there ever was one, ruled that a requirement to produce an identification issued by the State or federal government that included both a photograph of the person and an expiration date was not an infringement on a citizen's right to vote no matter how many times "progressives" repeat the lie that it does.

What is incredibly ironic is that the particular "progressive" responsible for starting this thread has made it a point to declare that since SCOTUS decided something it is a matter of settled law - as long as she happens to agree with the ruling that is. If she doesn't she either refuses to acknowledge the ruling at all or she calls it the actions of an "activist" court. If one is insistent on having a ruling by the Supreme Court "settle" the law once and for all on such things as the "right" to an abortion, then one should be willing to accept as "settled law" rulings with which they disagree with the same vigor, which said person responsible for starting this thread is categorically unwilling to do. Hypocrisy thy name is Democracy4Sale.

To be allowed to attend a fund raiser for BO by Michelle Obama a person must show a photo ID. Go figure!

PrintSmith wrote: Can anecdotal examples be found of laws requiring photo-id at the polls be found which say that a small degree of inconvenience is experienced to obtain the photo-id? Of course, you can find a small example of any law creating random examples of the law being difficult to comply with. Do these sparse and random examples rise to the level of disenfranchising voters on the massive scale that the "progressives" repeat to themselves inside of their echo chamber? Of course not.

The left has a long history of removing words, spoken or written, entirely from their context in a vain attempt to convince people of something that doesn't exist and this is but the latest example of such an effort. The Supreme Court of the United States of America, in a 6-3 decision with Justice John Paul Stevens, an avowed "progressive" if there ever was one, ruled that a requirement to produce an identification issued by the State or federal government that included both a photograph of the person and an expiration date was not an infringement on a citizen's right to vote no matter how many times "progressives" repeat the lie that it does.

What is incredibly ironic is that the particular "progressive" responsible for starting this thread has made it a point to declare that since SCOTUS decided something it is a matter of settled law - as long as she happens to agree with the ruling that is. If she doesn't she either refuses to acknowledge the ruling at all or she calls it the actions of an "activist" court. If one is insistent on having a ruling by the Supreme Court "settle" the law once and for all on such things as the "right" to an abortion, then one should be willing to accept as "settled law" rulings with which they disagree with the same vigor, which said person responsible for starting this thread is categorically unwilling to do. Hypocrisy thy name is Democracy4Sale.

Speaking of Hypocrisy, you have severely misread the Supreme Court case and the Indiana law. The Indiana law at issue made provisions to allow individuals to vote without photo id. Instead, they could sign an affidavit stating they could not afford one, or return within 10 days with a photo id and their vote would be counted. The justices held that by providing mitigation against the lack of photo id, that this mitigated against the hardship. The present laws do not have this mitigation.

Further, the Court held that while the laws could create a partisan effect, that would be ok as long as the harm in voter fraud was real. In the OP, the Republican stated that the purpose was primarily for partisan advantage, and that would be sufficient to overturn the law. Additionally, the Court ruled due to the lack of a defendant that was actually harmed. Once defendants come forward with evidence of actual hardship due to these laws, such laws will likely be overturned.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Speaking of Hypocrisy, you have severely misread the Supreme Court case and the Indiana law. The Indiana law at issue made provisions to allow individuals to vote without photo id. Instead, they could sign an affidavit stating they could not afford one, or return within 10 days with a photo id and their vote would be counted. The justices held that by providing mitigation against the lack of photo id, that this mitigated against the hardship. The present laws do not have this mitigation.

Further, the Court held that while the laws could create a partisan effect, that would be ok as long as the harm in voter fraud was real. In the OP, the Republican stated that the purpose was primarily for partisan advantage, and that would be sufficient to overturn the law. Additionally, the Court ruled due to the lack of a defendant that was actually harmed. Once defendants come forward with evidence of actual hardship due to these laws, such laws will likely be overturned.

Another clipped version from another "progressive" - why am I not surprised? The Pennsylvania law does allow for provisional ballots to be cast Dog. All of the voter photo-id laws make provisions for one to cast a provisional ballot on election day. Here is the requirement from PA for your viewing pleasure:

What happens if I can’t afford to get a photo ID for some reason?
If you come to the polls in November without a photo ID because you couldn’t afford to get one (e.g., you couldn’t pay $10 for an official birth certificate), you will be allowed to vote by provisional (paper) ballot. In order for your provisional ballot to count, you have six calendar days after the election to provide your county Board of Elections with an affirmation that states that you are the same person who cast the provisional ballot, and that you cannot afford to obtain proof of your identity. You can do this electronically, by mail, by fax – or you can show up in person at the Board of Elections.

http://www.seventy.org/Elections_Voter_ID.aspx

Colorado has a provisional voter law already too. One of my shipping clerks used it in 2008. He had moved without updating his voter information and was allowed to vote.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Speaking of Hypocrisy, you have severely misread the Supreme Court case and the Indiana law. The Indiana law at issue made provisions to allow individuals to vote without photo id. Instead, they could sign an affidavit stating they could not afford one, or return within 10 days with a photo id and their vote would be counted. The justices held that by providing mitigation against the lack of photo id, that this mitigated against the hardship. The present laws do not have this mitigation.

Further, the Court held that while the laws could create a partisan effect, that would be ok as long as the harm in voter fraud was real. In the OP, the Republican stated that the purpose was primarily for partisan advantage, and that would be sufficient to overturn the law. Additionally, the Court ruled due to the lack of a defendant that was actually harmed. Once defendants come forward with evidence of actual hardship due to these laws, such laws will likely be overturned.

Another clipped version from another "progressive" - why am I not surprised? The Pennsylvania law does allow for provisional ballots to be cast Dog. All of the voter photo-id laws make provisions for one to cast a provisional ballot on election day. Here is the requirement from PA for your viewing pleasure:

What happens if I can’t afford to get a photo ID for some reason?
If you come to the polls in November without a photo ID because you couldn’t afford to get one (e.g., you couldn’t pay $10 for an official birth certificate), you will be allowed to vote by provisional (paper) ballot. In order for your provisional ballot to count, you have six calendar days after the election to provide your county Board of Elections with an affirmation that states that you are the same person who cast the provisional ballot, and that you cannot afford to obtain proof of your identity. You can do this electronically, by mail, by fax – or you can show up in person at the Board of Elections.

http://www.seventy.org/Elections_Voter_ID.aspx

I am glad that you were able to recognize your misstatement that the Supreme Court did held constitutional that the ability of states to require photo id in order to vote, since it clearly did not. I also note that if the purpose of any requirement is to intentionally disenfranchise legitimate voters, as the PA rep suggested, then that would clearly violate the constitution.

FredHayek wrote: Colorado has a provisional voter law already too. One of my shipping clerks used it in 2008. He had moved without updating his voter information and was allowed to vote.

Colorado has used provisional ballots for years where the voter is not found on the registration rolls, or the voter went to the wrong precinct, etc.

I am curious about the equal rights application to requiring photo id at the voting booth, but drop off ballots, mail in ballots and absentee ballots do not require photo id? Why are not the Republicans concerned about voter fraud by these type of ballots? Is it because more of their constituency uses those types of ballots instead of voting in person.