Hoooooray !

Left by dianne on April 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

The donks are always whining about voter fraud but block any attempt to prevent it.

Left by Anonymous on April 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Dang!
I love good news on Blues Monday.

Left by no2liberals on April 28th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

I bet you miss the poll tax too.

Left by Preston on April 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

People who are so disengaged from society as to not even have a valid photo ID?

I really don’t care if they are disenfranchised from the voting process.

Left by Robbie Cooper on April 28th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Henh, a poll tax being referred to in the same breath as a photo ID for a voting privilege, is a tired old flailing refrain.
One person, one vote. In the world we live in, if you don’t have a photo ID, you don’t exist. You can’t cash a check…you can’t rent a DVD.
What was the old refrain from the SALT II Treaty? Trust, but verify.

Left by no2liberals on April 28th, 2008 at 10:16 pm

And since Preston wishes to bring up tired old laws from the past, then calling B-HO a Black candidate is a lie. That is honoring the old Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, which of course the Democrats promoted and passed, which says if a man has “one drop of blood” from a Black parent, then he is considered Black, or in those days, Negro. Since we have advanced from those old racist Democrat days, B-HO should be regarded as the Mulatto candidate.

Left by no2liberals on April 28th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Is not having a car disengaged from society? The old and the poor are disproportionately likely not to have a car and thus not need a photo id- is that a crime?

The justification for the whole law would be a lot more convincing if the lawyers for Indiana had been able to come up with, you know, an actual problem of voter fraud.

(Of course, the more likely type of voter fraud involves absentee ballots but putting restrictions on absentee ballots would disproportionately affect Republicans so that wasn’t a valid option for the legislature, was it?)

[Editor --- I didn't say anything at all about a driver's license. Because, as we all know, that's the only thing in our society that you need a valid photo ID for. And just how did all of these people get to be so old without having a valid ID? Have they never purchased beer? Signed a lease? Bought a house? Cashed a check? HAD A JOB?]

Left by Preston on April 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

The old and the poor, are most likely to be receiving some (or many)form/s of government assistance, and therefore are more likely to have a photo ID than not. Poor excuse for not verifying who is voting.
How are absentee ballots most likely involved in fraud, than not identifying the voter at the polling place? Have you ever seen an absentee ballot, and what is required to receive and submit one?
There is no logical reason why a person shouldn’t be required to identify themselves when voting, none! Just because the liberal voices that scream victimology slogans upon waking each day, say it discriminates, doesn’t make it true.

Left by no2liberals on April 28th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

B-HO should be regarded as the Mulatto candidate.
I don’t even know what to say to such a bizarre comment.

There is no logical reason why a person shouldn’t be required to identify themselves when voting, none!
THEY ALREADY DO!
When I vote I sign my name. The poll worker verifies that it matches the signature on file then allows me to vote. Simple.

Oh, and FYI: Absentee Votes Worry Officials as Nov. 2 Nears

Seriously- compare the potential for fraud- it’s not even close.

Left by Preston on April 29th, 2008 at 3:04 am

at least today preston admits that the bizarreness in actuality renders him speechless. this could be considered progress… until he starts driveling again.

Left by adam on April 29th, 2008 at 7:26 am

Okay Preston, if B-HO shouldn’t be considered a Mulatto candidate, a word that is not yet on the list of PC unapproved words, then B-HO should be considered a White candidate. Considering his mother was white, and he was raised by his white mother and grandparents. His claims of being a Black candidate are convenient for his political opportunities, or as I said, you are still honoring those antiquated Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.

THEY ALREADY DO is a logical reason as to why a photo ID NEEDS TO BE REQUIRED.

Left by no2liberals on April 29th, 2008 at 8:38 am

this seems like a pretty good way to make sure that we cut down on voter fraud at the polls, but how do we cut down on fraud that’s not at the polls? it seems like you rightards wouldn’t be up in such a tiff about this since you have a habit of calling urban voters and telling them that voting day has changed. i mean, if you guys can keep people from voting altogether then its not really an issue right? then the world can be all sunshine and happy thoughts and alien and sedition acts and no more habeus corpus and all that stuff we need to keep us safe. especially from those pesky people who don’t agree with us.

Left by kit churchill on April 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

also, will someone PLEASE do something about getting you a history teacher. you’re quoting a guy who says that the winners are federalists/state’s rights advocates. FEDERALISTS ARE FEDERAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES WHICH IS THE GOD DAMNED OPPOSITE OF STATE’S RIGHTS ADVOCATES. you basically just quoted and therefore supported someone who said that EVERYONE is a winner.

i mean, fuck, stupidity is only a bigger reason to NOT listen to you.

Left by kit churchill on April 29th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

So telling that the handful of wingnut posters on this blog can never engage in even one serious argument about anything substantive. All you have to offer is elementary-grade ad hominem, dismissing all your opposition as either effete cowards or gay, assigning cute little jock-boy nicknames just like your action hero Commander Codpiece. Your classic authoritarians - you have to beat up on others to pump yourselves up because without your cheap bluster, you got squat.

Some authoritarians grow out of it once they’ve had their asses kicked a few times by the bigger bullies. Pretty obvious that y’all missed that stage of your development.

Left by Pat on April 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

this seems like a pretty good way to make sure that we cut down on voter fraud at the polls

Actually, Kit, the State was unable to provide ONE example in Indiana of voter fraud through this kind of identity theft.

If there was a voter fraud problem- yeah, maybe we consider changing the law- even if it makes it more difficult to vote. As it is, there is only one reason for the law: to restrict the ballot to people the state doesn’t want to vote.

Left by Preston on April 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Kit’s still a dipshit.
Pat’s still a butt-nuggett.
Both are in scroll over territory.
Preston, why did they have to provide an example? Their legislature passed a law, the Governor signed it, and the person who sued was registered in two states. The Supremes ruled that no undue burden was placed on the public.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Justice Stephen Breyer dissented separately), states “there is no denying the abstract importance, the compelling nature, of combating voter fraud.” In other words, the Court uniformly confirmed that states have a valid and legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the vote.
—————————
“For most voters who need [photo IDs], the inconvenience of making a trip to the [Bureau of Motor Vehicles], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting,” writes Justice Stevens.

The majority also agreed that these election laws should be scrutinized under a standard that shows deference to state legislatures trying to thwart fraud. Opponents of the law wanted a “strict scrutiny” standard applied, which would have thrown out most photo ID laws and compelled the Court to ignore Indiana’s explanation of why it passed the law in the first place.
———————
Voter ID laws don’t discourage voting, but they do discourage fraud and increase voter confidence in the system. The Court’s common sense ruling protects the public’s belief that elections will be fair and honest.

WSJ

Best deal with the reality now, as there are twenty other states with photo ID laws.

Left by no2liberals on April 29th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Preston, why did they have to provide an example?

Because they are disenfranchising American voters. Not something done lightly.

I love conservative patriotism.

Left by Preston on April 29th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Well, I don’t love liberal reactionaries.
Exactly how are American voters being disenfranchised? Are you saying you and your liberal memo producers are more wisened than state legislatures and the Supremes?
I challenge that assertion.

Left by no2liberals on April 29th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

I don’t know how to spell it out for you: not everybody is you.

Scalia is a hack and a hypocrite. “Wise” isn’t in his repertoire.

Look, I’m a reasonable guy. If there actually was a problem with this type of voter fraud (aside from the confused 72 year old who sometimes voted in Florida and sometimes voted in Indiana) I would set up a law that allowed people to bring in a wide variety of identification. The widely used technique to prove residency is a utility bill. If the person, came into vote without this I would have a provisional ballot.

But in the end all of this is unnecessary: because there is no problem!!! If I want to throw an election am I really going to go from precinct to precinct voting illegally or am I going to get a giant stack of absentee ballots? Even better, I am going to compromise the integrity of an electronic voting machine and completely change the tally.

Left by Preston on April 30th, 2008 at 6:01 am

Scalia is a hack and a hypocrite.

Stevens wrote the majority opinion. And while I generally would agree that he is a hack and a hypocrite, in this instance he was not.

Look, I’m a reasonable guy.

No, you’re not.

Left by Anonymous on April 30th, 2008 at 8:07 am

Stevens wrote the majority opinion. And while I generally would agree that Stevens is a hack and a hypocrite, in this instance he was not. [Don't want you to get confused again.]

Left by Anonymous on April 30th, 2008 at 9:31 am

Preston, you call Justice Scalia names, then say you are reasonable?
Your arguments are hollow. You are just repeating the same meme the liberals in the ACLU, ACORN, and other “advocacy” groups are saying.
No one is being disenfranchised, other than those who aren’t legally eligible to vote. If some illegals immigrants aren’t able to vote, good, that’s as it should be. If some felons aren’t able to vote, once again, good, that’s the law. If some of the many thousands of bogus registrations that ACORN has submitted in several states aren’t accompanied with proper photo ID, then good, the integrity of the voting system is maintained.
You tend to repeat the argument that the litigants in this case tried and failed with, that the State didn’t show any examples of voter fraud. So why didn’t the litigants present these multitudes of people that will be disenfranchised?
Disenfranchisement is primarily a donk tool, such as algore and his counsel getting U.S. military absentee ballots thrown out, due to postmark technicalities, as APO’s don’t postmark, then celebrating that they had gotten those votes tossed. No one in favor of photo ID is celebrating that any will be denied their vote, we are celebrating the fact that those who are eligible to vote, will not have their votes rendered useless due to fraud.
Absentee ballots have controls that ballot boxes don’t, and the black helicopter theories on the electronic voting machines is just that, a conspriacy theory. Voter fraud has been going on for some time, to the point of being a standing joke, and the fact that so many states are taking action in this regard isn’t based on any conspiracy theory, but of an existing problem
Now, if you really want to talk about hacks at the SCOTUS, lets talk about Ruth…what a dingus ideologue!

Left by no2liberals on April 30th, 2008 at 11:23 am

It’s a drag to be in a debate where you have to stop arguing your position just to explain what happened:

Stevens wrote the plurality opinion not the majority. It’s hypothesized that he broke with the liberal wing to keep Scalia from forming a majority opinion that was even more extreme than this decision.

So, it’s ‘reasonable’ to call Ginsburg names but not Scalia? Incidentally, exactly what ‘ideology’ do you accuse Ginsburg of adhering to?

No one in favor of photo ID is celebrating that any will be denied their vote,

Check out the top of the page, dude. Despite NO EVIDENCE of systematic fraud this post cites blogs that drool with excitement at the prospect of Democrats being denied the vote.

Left by Preston on April 30th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

No, dude, it doesn’t.
Ginsberg, look up her background from her ACLU daze, a far left ideologue.
I’m glad you were able to discern that info on Stevens opinion, even if it took you awhile.
Whose hypothesis, Huff-N-Puff Post?
Of course, since the ruling was made from sound juridical principles, and common sense, because it doesn’t favor the liberal position, it’s extreme.
Reasonableness continues to evade you.

Left by no2liberals on May 1st, 2008 at 12:05 am

Plurality/majority whatever. The fact is that it was a 6 to 3 vote to uphold the Indiana voter ID law. So, get over it. But, thanks again for proving that leftards have a vested interest in voter fraud.

Left by Anonymous on May 1st, 2008 at 7:06 am

Plurality/majority whatever.
Sigh. Actually, anonymous, this isn’t just baseball where nothing matters but the final score: the text of the opinion is crucial. Sure, Stevens wrote that the state had the right to implement this law but Scalia was much, much more expansive in his interpretation.

Left by Preston on May 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Sigh. So what. The ruling is still 6 to 3 upholding the law. Get over it.

Left by Anonymous on May 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm