• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pennyslvania Did the Right Thing Regarding Voter ID Law

that would be amusing...if that ever happened.

Scumbag GOP:

Won't spend taxpayer money fighting global warming, saying it doesn't exist even though it does.

Wants to spend taxpayer money fighting voter fraud which might happen, but never does.
 
RJKarl said:
Here is one of thousands of such pieces of evidence:

"On the map, green shading means more than 66.6 percent of registered voters live within a half mile of the new polling location. Yellow means between 33.3 and 66.6 percent of registered voters living within a half mile of the new polling location. Red means less than 33.3 percent of registered voters live within a half mile of the new polling location." - Omaha
Click to expand...

Where do the quote come from?
 
From Omaha.com...

Here's another one that shows 79.2% of Americans live in urban areas. This is even higher than I thought.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/archives/metropolitan_planning/cps2k.cfm


This is as opposed to over 80 of Texas' 250 counties not having a DMV (I posted that link too many times to do it again). As other have shown on this thread, in PA some DOT locations only do IDs on certain days and for a specific time period. Many people can't get out of work during those times.
 
Last edited:
BeachBumDeac said:
No, you didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. I posted the text of the Amendments in question, which are very specific about what actions would constitute a violation of the Constitutional right protected thereby. I have yet to see anything from you or anyone else contradicting the plain text of the Amendments, other than someone's fairly weak attempt to claim that presenting the documents necessary to obtain an ID is somehow a tax. If you think the text of the Amendments mean something else then what they say, feel free to state what and why.
 
RJKarl said:
Here is one of thousands of such pieces of evidence:

"On the map, green shading means more than 66.6 percent of registered voters live within a half mile of the new polling location. Yellow means between 33.3 and 66.6 percent of registered voters living within a half mile of the new polling location. Red means less than 33.3 percent of registered voters live within a half mile of the new polling location." - Omaha
Click to expand...

OK. MANY people live within 1/2 mile of their poling place.
 
I also showed you how many people lived in urban areas.

Walking a mile isn't that much harder than half a mile for most. This would add many millions more.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
A person providing a birth certificate and one of about 10 other forms of acceptible documentation (including a school transcript or marriage certificate) in order to get an ID card is a tax? I just do not understand why it is so offensive to ask that people take even the most minimal of steps on their own behalf, as opposed to just showing up and saying "hey, you best believe it's me."
Click to expand...

You are requiring some people to pay (sometimes large amounts) in order to get a document in order to get an ID to vote.

Many of the same arguments used for voter ID laws were also used when literacy tests were added to suppress the black vote.

1) Who doesn't know how to read in today's society?
2) It's easy to learn how to read.
3) Intended to prevent fraud.
4) Language purposefully not discriminatory, but everyone knew the effects were
 
This is probably a good thing. Give everyone time to get an ID...a lot of time so they can not complain. If you can not get an ID in 3 years, the chances of you voting are pretty slim, so no harm, no foul. Make the ID's free for those who can prove that they can not afford it.

That should settle it.
 
How about the old people in Texas who have been voting for 30-65 years and live in a county that doesn't have a DMV office and you don't drive?
 
RJKarl said:
How about the old people in Texas who have been voting for 30-65 years and live in a county that doesn't have a DMV office and you don't drive?
Click to expand...

If you are voting and cant get a ride to get an ID, you don't care enough to keep voting. Again, I wish I was able to pull it up, but someone posted that you would think that there are millions of Americans living in a card board box and only emerge every 2 years to vote...they have no bank account, receive no government assistance, have no neighbors or relatives, yet, they are LEGIONS of Dem voters.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
If you are voting and cant get a ride to get an ID, you don't care enough to keep voting. Again, I wish I was able to pull it up, but someone posted that you would think that there are millions of Americans living in a card board box and only emerge every 2 years to vote...they have no bank account, receive no government assistance, have no neighbors or relatives, yet, they are LEGIONS of Dem voters.
Click to expand...

This is silly reasoning. If you aren't willing to pay $500 to vote, then you don't care enough. If you can't recite the Constitution from memory, then you don't care enough to vote. If you don't own property, then you don't care enough to vote.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
If you are voting and cant get a ride to get an ID, you don't care enough to keep voting. Again, I wish I was able to pull it up, but someone posted that you would think that there are millions of Americans living in a card board box and only emerge every 2 years to vote...they have no bank account, receive no government assistance, have no neighbors or relatives, yet, they are LEGIONS of Dem voters.
Click to expand...

People who live off the grid would clearly vote GOP.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
This is probably a good thing. Give everyone time to get an ID...a lot of time so they can not complain. If you can not get an ID in 3 years, the chances of you voting are pretty slim, so no harm, no foul. Make the ID's free for those who can prove that they can not afford it.

That should settle it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thank you. That definitely SHOULD settle it.
 
WFFaithful said:
This is silly reasoning. If you aren't willing to pay $500 to vote, then you don't care enough. If you can't recite the Constitution from memory, then you don't care enough to vote. If you don't own property, then you don't care enough to vote.
Click to expand...

To quote the Clash, "Wrong-em Boy-o" One is simply a matter of moving your body from point a to point b. The options you posit require cash (which in itself requires commerce activity, or in depth study, memorization and then moving your body from point a to point b.) The last is just as crazy.

NIce try.
 
WFFaithful said:
This is silly reasoning. If you aren't willing to buy your own health insurance then you don't care enough. The government will decide for you what you want. The goverment has the authority to make you spend thousands of dollars a year. It's in your best interest. But a ten dollar i.d. once every ten years? Now THAT'S outrageous.
Click to expand...

FIFY.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
the spirit of the law is to prevent the Government from making voting an unduly difficult process

why is this hard to understand?
Click to expand...

It's not, unless you have an agenda.

Any burden on constitutional right, such as having to be literate to sign your name at the polls, or having to carry an ID to validate who you are, has to be justified by specific evidence addressing a specific problem. All current burdens on the right to vote have passed that test. The lawyers in support of the PA ID law never submitted any evidence to establish that it served an actual purpose (likely because none exists), while the opposition submitted objective statistical and personal evidence that the law would create a demonstrable, disproportionate burden. Thus, it fails. This isn't really that hard.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I proved that I do not have to prove a necessity.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You named other, established burdens and tried to draw an analogy. But those burdens were either not challenged (i.e. had no discriminatory or disproportionate impact) or were proven to be necessary by actual evidence (as required to place a burden on a constitutional right). When challenged, this burden could not do the same -- no evidence was submitted that it served any actual purpose, but plenty was submitted establishing that it had discriminatory impact -- and therefore it failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top