No, it’s not racist, xenophobic, or unconstitutional to ask voters for valid ID; Update: Obama blasted ruling
The Supreme Court gives us more good news this morning: Indiana’s voter ID law has been upheld.
Half of the states have passed similar laws.
The race-mongers and open borders lobby will be in an uproar. CQ summarizes:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to show photo identification at the polls, in a closely watched case with important ramifications for the 2008 elections.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Proponents of the Indiana law at issue in the case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, said the state’s interest in preventing voter impersonation fraud outweighs whatever burden might be placed on a small number of people. Opponents argued that the Indiana law unfairly burdens poor and elderly voters, who tend to favor Democrats but are least likely to have driver’s licenses or passports.
The Justice Department sided with Indiana in the case, agreeing that the voter ID requirement is constitutional.
You may recall that the woman who challenged the voter ID law in Indiana was, um, fraudulently registered to vote in two states.
D’oh.
La Shawn Barber excoriates liberal black leaders who lobbied against voter ID laws.
SCOTUSblog has full coverage.
Allahpundit takes a closer look at the ruling’s rejoinder to the Left’s argument that ID requirements impose an undue burden. One of the lib justices betrays his own.
***
Update: Barack Obama plies the Left’s bogus undue burden argument:
Obama said he was disappointed today in the new Supreme Court decision that has upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, calling it “wrong,” and emphasizing that the law could suppress turnout among minorities and poorer voters.
“I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s photo identification law — one of the most restrictive in the nation,” Obama said in a written statement.
He referenced his decision to file an amicus brief when Indiana’s voter ID law was first challenged, saying he did it because he believed that “it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Pirate's Cove
- SCOTUS Upholds Photo ID Law, DUmmies And Assorted Leftards Not Happy | McCain Blogs
- UrbanGrounds
- Democrat Vote Fraud dealt blow by Supreme Court | The TIW Blog
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Supreme Court: No, of course voter ID laws aren’t unconstitutional
- Leaning Straight Up
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Baseball Crank
- ACLU Extremely Upset with Supreme Court Decision on Indiana Voter ID Law : Stop The ACLU
- Random-American » Supreme Court says states can demand photo ID for voting
- monoblogue
- Leaning Straight Up
- Liberty Pundit
- Plumb Bob Blog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Supreme Court, Voter fraud
Stop The ACLU
» Even The Washington Post Sneers At Barry School ChoiceGateway Pundit
» Crackpot DA Pounds His Fist & Screams At Judge at Cheney TrialNewsBusters.org
» Chicago Tribune: All Obama, All the TimeRight Wing Nut House
» WILL NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE KILL CONSERVATISM?Redstate
» Obama: Billions for Pork Barrel EarmarksPajamas Media
» Must Conservatives Rally Round the Messiah?Marginal Revolution
» What are the lessons from the New Deal?
Actually, nyk, O’Reilly is more of a populist. I don’t actually watch him that much. But I do watch him enough to know he’s anything but a shill for Boooosh.
A conservative network? That’s a pretty difficult label to pin on them, as their owner isn’t that conservative. Most of the news hosts are pretty straight news-people (Hume, Smith, etc.) And they have more than a handful of liberal guests and pundits. Enough to annoy me. (I’m conservative, almost to the point of libertarian, though Paul-bot I am NOT).
BTW —
Feebs has more intellect in her toenail than you’ve shown in all the posts of yours that I have observed. You need to make stronger arguements. At least Rusty strings out some real answers and questions. (Even if they wind up worng.)
#301 SHoward wrote:
I’m sure in your world, that’s true.
Good night.
Gee, nyk, when you put it like that….
The sky is Blue in my world.
You know, I’m not gonna let that go so easily.
nyk —
Every time someone has put up a good stiff arguement to your blathering you resort to curt, silly and adolescent responses.
You, sir or madam, are an intellectual midget. I have come to the conclusion that you are not worth the electrons required to transmit your feeble attempts at discourse accross the internet. You have finally shown yourself to be a full-fledged member of the troll brigade!
There are others on here that are called trolls, but I actually enjoy debating them and responding to them.
They don’t resort with grade school comments like
When you have more than three functioning brain cells, feel free to enlighten us with your vast expanse of intellect and knowledge.
Until then–
Back under your bridge!
And yet, you keep writing.
Obviously, I have more than that, or you wouldn’t be so damn upset.
You sleep tight, Angry Smurf.
The legal bottom line in this case is the fact that the ACLU who brought the appeal claiming it would ‘disenfranchise’ or otherwise prohibit some people from voting who did not or could not obtain a valid ID, did not present a single person, instance,or example of this happening….ergo,they did not ‘prove up’ the basis for their appeal…and that is why the lower court decision stands….it’s all very well and good for the lefties who post here to whine about it,but unless they can give names of actual persons who have been denied the right to vote for lack of ID,then they have no case….and that means it will be a lot more difficult for them to win elections ‘by any means necessary’.
Folks,
please don’t feed the trolls.
IF you ignore their bird droppings, eventually they will go away.
Of course, nky/lgm and rusty do make a cute couple!
Some moron wrote they watch Olberman because they want to see Bush bashing and real criticism. This is fair and should be the norm for our choices in cable.
Here comes the Butt Monkey. But, when they trot this guy out as part of a team of moderators for a republican debate that goes over the line and demonstrates the gross intolerance always on display by the left.
Wow! Saw this posted by an angry “typical black woman”, couldn’t agree more.
Here comes the Butt Monkey again. But, FOX’s own Rupert Murdoch is a Hildabeast supporter. I would add that FOX bends over backwards bringing on too many slimballs like Jackson, Al, most all dem politicians and that idiot “typical black guy”(professor black idiot, I forgot his name because I quit watching FOX) always representint the black grievance community.
I think Rusty honestly tries to make intellectual points. The problem is that because he believes them to be true, he can’t let go once they’ve been repudiated.
nyk just wants to argue and stir things up. Once her initial argument is disproven, she resorts to her lexicographical/grammatical crutch. “See, I’m right because you made a typo. See how dumb you are”.
lgm can’t make a reasoned argument so drops talking points and leaves. “The workers should control the means of production”.
Kovacs is a sniper, he has a thought once in a while, but most of the time just can’t think of anything good, so he keeps his mouth shut.
Can we keep Rusty and throw the other three back?
Personally I agree with the SCOTUS on this, but only because identification can be obtained without cost (yes I do realize that means paid for by the taxpayers, but that’s not the point here).
In states where you have to pay to obtain ID, I think this law would amount to a poll tax and would be unconstitutional.
That would be more accurate, yes. This is semantics and off-topic, but liberties are freedoms granted by a government, often to act as a check against government power. Guns and speech are excellent examples. Rights on the other hand are inherent within humanity and are therefore less (in theory anyways) susceptible to government intervention.
In summation, liberties are granted to us. We are born with rights.
This is more philosophy than Constitutional law so it has no bearing on anything other than my personal belief that the right to vote supercedes all else.
Yes it was a joke. I find that using “/sarc” kind of makes the joke less funny so I try to avoid it. Maybe next time a winky face?
I still can’t believe the Court ruled that the state had a strong interest in this law when Indiana couldn’t provide a single example of person who voted when he/she shouldn’t have. If there were examples of fraudulent voting then we could have a real example of the cost of severely inconveniencing some voters while preventing phony votes. But that didn’t happen here. We shouldn’t be so cavalier with doing this to legitimate voters if the benefit is only in the minds of the legislators.
Not possible - the state-issued identification is used for more than just voting. As others have pointed out here, every job I’ve ever had, I was required to show some form of identification. People have to show identification to purchase guns, to buy liquor and tobacco products, to open a checking or savings account, to buy a house, in fact, every time you need to have something notarized for any reason, you need to show identification - usually two forms of personal photo ID.
And you can ask citizens of other countries about their inalienable “right” to vote. In all of history, you can count on the fingers of one hand countries that were founded on the “right” of its citizens to vote.
The “right” to vote is no more inherent within humanity that the “right” for all humans to be over six feet tall and have blue eyes.
Voting is a privilege given to the people of one country to elect that country’s leaders, NOT for everyone else to sneak in to that country and effectively deny that privilege of citizenship away by casting false and illegal ballots.
Still waiting for an answer to my question: Without some form of identification, how can you determine if a prospective voter is a citizen or not? Take their word for it?
Good morning, everyone.
I feel I must now bow to the absurd. I am frequently reminded that I should not “feed the Trolls.”
Last night I tried to make some reasoned arguements with a chap that goes by nyk. While I had noticed a propensity for nyk to stray from the arguement when they become unable to respond, I thought the thread was worth commenting.
After nyk’s arguements were ineffective, he resorted to rather embarrassingly silly one-word or one sentence responses. After ignoring the substance in one of my posts and going straight for this
I just lost any respect I had for him.
Now, it seems, I am an angry little smurf.
Well, while Papa Smurf was one of the many nicknames I had to bear as an average height individual among the abnormally tall mutants around me (
), I had no idea nyk was clairvoiant enough to know that.
Angry, nyk? Yep. Sure am. Anytime I wind up wasting the time I took trying to converse and argue with the uninformed likes of you.
Now, if you’re going to limit yourself to a one-word or one-sentence response, at least make it a good one. Please?
Troll-la-la…
Why does this image of an angry black woman, dressed in African “Queen” togs (including the Imperial hat), waving her hand over her head as she snaps her fingers, issuing the classic, “Oh, no you di’nt!”
nyk is a pu-r-r-fect example of a liberal, combined with a “smarter-than-you,” psuedo-intellectual black woman. Unable to win an argument, or sway opinions (here) based on actual facts, she, as a typical, liberally-minded mouth, has to resort to distortion, misdirection, name calling, and condescention, all in an attempt to show everyone her superiority.
She typifies the entire far-left wing of the Democrat Party, whose affiliates are SO SMART, they have solved all the countries problems when they controlled both houses of congress, and the Presidency.
Look at the facts. It’s true! They have;
1) fixed the problems in the public education system.
2)Corrected the inadequacies in the Welfare System.
3)Reduced fraud in government.
4) Eliminated poverty with all their generous social spending programs.
5) Delivered the black population out of slavery…(oops, sorry! Afro-American’s are still inclined to do what the Democrat Party tells them to do. Self-imposed slavery…who’d a thunk?) Maybe Rev. Wright meant that he wanted the Democrat Party to appologize for slavery?And,
6) Created, maintained, and supported the world’s most Professional Military.
Oh, wait. That wasn’t them. They haven’t had a chance to correct all the ills of American society, because the “right” people have not been in charge. At least that’s the same message I’ve been hearing from their leadership the last 40 years or so. The one positive thing I can say about nyk’s political party, is at least they are consistent in their message…until election time, that is, when they try to sound like conservatives.
You’re forgetting that the complainants in this case (the ACLU) also provided no evidence of someone who was denied the right to vote because of the law.
The Court recognized the state’s right to enforce voter laws through ID.
Saying the state has no right to establish laws because no crime has been committed is like saying laws against murder cannot be enacted or enforced until a murder happens.
Right. When he agreed with Not-a-Reverend Wright last night, was he a right-winger then? Was he a right-winger when he said Obama doesn’t agree with Wright’s beliefs, even though Obama sat in that church for 20 years? O’Reilly, while often right, is not right-wing. If I didn’t know better, I’d say he was an Obama supporter. It would appear that 47% of his audience agrees with me, based on a poll he conducted last week.
Futility in its essence. Sorry you wasted your time, man.
I think the murder example is just too simple. Laws against murder, theft, whatever don’t really come with the possibility that these laws will undermine someone’s civil rights (unless you want to go into false imprisonment and the system is set up to give the accused every benefit of the doubt).
Flenser was giving me a hard time about not having any alternative measures to prevent the voter fraud (which of course isn’t happening…the status quo is working people!).
Maybe there’s the rub. That benefit of the doubt. I’d like it a whole lot more if IN allowed voters without ID (which some don’t have and many more may forget) to fill out a provisional ballot and have a set amount of time (60 days?) to retrieve or obtain an ID.
I’m not comfortable with making voters jump through hoops to have their rightful (and not their privileged) say. People have mentioned how they need for IDs for so many things. Surely we’ve forgotten our ID before or accidentally let it expire. If time is an issue and that happens to a voter, it’s pretty draconian to refuse them a say in their government.
None of the other things you’ve mentioned are specificially guaranteed by the Constitution. Voting is.
If you allow a fee to be charged, then where do you drawn the line as to the amount?
“You want to get an ID to be able to vote? That will be one thousand dollars please.”
But it doesn’t say that specifically when you go to get a state-issued ID, at least in California - I can’t find anything that says it’s just for voting, and I don’t know of any other state that says that.
In fact, it doesn’t say you must show a valid state-issued picture identification at all when voting. All you need to do is provide some form of picture ID. I have in my wallet right now three different picture identifications: driver’s license, retired military ID card, and my employer-issued identification. The state will accept any of them as proof that I am who I say I am.
What is even more hilarious about Rusty’s asinine example of people working too much to have time to get a state ID is that (get this) you have to have an ID (two forms if memory serves me right for filling out your W-4) to get a legal job that you pay taxes on.
Watch out captain! Torpedoes in the water!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Don’t worry, you’re not the first liberal in this thread to play dice with words like rights vs liberties.
cpodug, your work ID wouldn’t be allowed under the IN law.
alaskangrizzly, you can easily get a job with no government photo ID. When my license briefly expired I used a student ID, social security card, and a birth certificate. All three are not allowed under the IN law.
ZAR-5 (This is my fifth request- old radio term)
Still waiting for an answer to my question: Without some form of identification, how can you determine if a prospective voter is a citizen or not? Take their word for it?
I wouldn’t have a problem with a provisional ballot, Rusty.
Like I said above, if I hadn’t had my ID when I picked up my package at Wal-Mart…I would have been told to get it and come back.
Why? They wanted me to prove I was the person who paid for and was authorized to pick up the package…so someone else couldn’t take what was rightfully mine.
Likewise, asking people to prove they are who they say they are protects not only my right to vote but your right and the right of every other American citizen to vote once and legally.
That right is trashed with every instance of voter fraud. Which has happened. Here is a summary of what happened in Milwaukee back in 2004, from a report by the Milwaukee PD:
How is it not in the best intrest of our electoral process to ensure that this doesn’t happen? Voter ID is one of the good steps we can take to clean up this inexcusable fraud.
The American University also issued a study refuting claims that Voter ID suppresses the vote.
I don’t disagree that it’s a right to vote, and an important one. But the notion that a right cannot be protected by laws in any way is laughable.
A person with a SS-card can get a State ID here in AZ in under 15 minutes with locations conveniently placed all througout the valley. Or do people not get lunch breaks in your world?
A lot of people don’t have cars to get to certain places. And, guess what, a lot of low paying jobs don’t offer lunch breaks. Grocery stores, for example, go out of their way to give 7 hour shifts so they don’t have to offer one hour breaks.
You just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper. But I’ll bite and keep playing your asinine game. In your grocery store example they are only working 7 hours, the DMV is open for 9 hours in most places. So even if (in a worst case example) their 7 hour shift fell exactly in those 9 hours they still have two hours time either before or after work to stop by the DMV for 15 minutes to get an ID.
Next insane example?
Your response to my example isn’t necessarily true. The hours at DMVs and RMVs vary greatly. I mentioned somewhere in this marathon thread that my hometown RMV is only open on weekdays from 9-5 except on Thursdays when it stays open all the way until…7
Even with a seven hour shift (or the dreaded 6.5 hour shift where you only get one 15 minute break), that doesn’t take into account a second or third job. Nor does it account for people who are raising families on limited means. These are exactly the kind of voters who are getting hosed. Other pertinent examples are, as I mentioned earlier, those recovering from homelessness. Or homeless who don’t have ID and don’t know how.
All of these people have the same basic fundamental human rights as you and me. Doesn’t matter whether they have a license or not.
Frankly, the line of thinking being presented to me is awful. “People worse off than me? Then screw ‘em.”
ZAR-6 (This is my sixth request)
Still waiting for an answer to my question: Without some form of identification, how can you determine if a prospective voter is a citizen or not? Take their word for it?
Or do you not have an answer?
Mornin’, Rusty. Well, I guess afternoon for you..
I just can’t help but observe that it seems you’re going out of your way to “prove” why voter ID requirements won’t work.
I was raised in a state requiring ID, and there has never, until the hanging chads, been a problem with “voter suppression.” And that wasn’t ID related.
My question is, if so many states already do it, how can it be that suppressive?
I understand your acedmic arguements about it, but in practicality they don’t seem to prove accurate. Having to show ID doesn’t seem to suppress anyone’s vote.
Now, you’ve challenged folks to show where not having ID requirements has led to voter fraud. A fair enough challenge.
Now I ask for anecdotal evidence of where people have had their vote suppressed due to it. (I read about your relative, but you didn’t say he wasn’t able to vote in the end.)
9 to 5 is eight hours.
So in your hypothetical and fictional work hero working 3 jobs at 100 hours a week who has the SSN card and birth certificate needed to fill out a W-4 and get a legit job (you know… the people allowed to vote in the first place) but doesn’t have time or a car to get to a DMV for 15 minutes once every 4 years? (or in AZ, where I live, once in your lifetime till you hit 60).
Just wanted to clarify that is your position. That this fictional work hero supporting his family with 3 jobs isn’t smart enough to get a State ID or State Drivers License and wouldn’t either request time off from one of those 3 jobs to go get said important documentation needed for a myraid of other things including the RIGHT to bear arms (that you so conveinently diced words with calling it a civil liberty. Read the Constitution, it’s in plain English). And that to you this fictional work hero is more important than making sure elections are fair and that the law is upheld that only American Citizens are allowed to vote? (and before you spew that bullcrap about no voter fraud going on I point you back to California that only requires a utility bill as ID to vote and the state is clearly breaking the law much to the joy of people like you. Also see EQ’s post above).
Torpedoes have landed captain. Direct hit.
Considering there have been no examples of voter fraud at the polls in IN, I’d say we’re doing fine as is. And it’s not like there aren’t plenty of voter fraud laws already on the books that don’t disenfranchise legal Americans.
There’s typical liberal logic for you. A crime hasn’t happened yet so rather than put in one small security measure to prevent the crime we will wait until there is a crime and then go back and change the laws.
I get it. Someone isn’t 100% in lock step with your definition of conservatism, they are liberals. Your brush is a little too broad.
If I wanted to split hairs I’d point out that the 2nd amendment addresses one’s right to keep and bear arms, but is silent on purchasing them.
I don’t see ones identity as a cntral issue regarding gun purchases, so I’m somewhat on the fence about id requirements to purchase guns being allowed at all, whereas the identity of a voter is very much in question.
Fair enough StandardDeviation, at least you are willing to have a rational conversation. My apologies for letting the brush go too far.
If you really want to have a go at it with semantics, I can go all day and win. “Civil rights” are different than “the right” to do or have something. We have the right to free expression. However, free expression is a civil liberty, not a civil right. Since civil rights are inherent, I value them over civil liberties. Thus, voting > Bill of Rights.
And, AKGrizz, people are very, very busy. If they don’t need a license, they won’t get one. You’re asking people to sacrifice pay to wait in line at a DMV or lose the right to vote. That is madness. And that’s only assuming it’s that easy to get a license. For many, it isn’t.
What about the extremely infirm? What use would they have for a license? Yet you want to make them wait for a document they do not need in order to have a right inherent with their humanity.
All for a law that doesn’t have one example of working properly.
And EQ is right that the ACLU couldn’t come up with an example of someone in Indiana prevented from voting by the law. So, with all things equal, I don’t see how anyone can take a position that doesn’t err on the side of civil rights. Instead we’re erring on the side of paranoia.
You are truly insane my friend. I pity you. I wash my hands of your insanity and leave you to your delusions (and possible hidden agenda to allow voter fraud to occur).
I assume Rusty is working in a state run by Democrats, right? Who else would violate basic work rights (which have been in existence for decades) that require 10 minute breaks every two hours, and at least a 30 minute lunch break? And I’ll bet the minimum wage is not a “living wage,” right?
Those caring leftists in his state are apparently more interested in giving away wholesale voting rights, without proof of US citizenship, to the point that they neglect their own constituency.
Wouldn’t it be nice if they used the money they spend attacking conservatives, on helping the people they claim they so dearly care about?
These are news to me. In America, I believe you are required a 15 minute break for every four hours of work. So a 7.5 hour shift = one 15 minute break.
Thankfully, my union had cut an hour off of that.
You are only entitled to a 30 minute lunch (not enough time to get to a DMV and back for most) if you work at least an eight hour shift. Smart companies will avoid this and offer seven hour shifts instead.
Rusty:
I still don’t get that argument. Most employers not only require an ID to work there, most would be glad to give their employees time to go and get one. If an employee doesn’t ask, well, that’s his/her fault.
I’d be satisfied with this “everyone works impossible hours” argument if you could provide me the name and telephone number of an employer who adamantly refuses to allow his/her employees time off to get an ID.
Still don’t understand how just being human automatically confers on you the “right” to vote. That right is granted by the state, it is not an inalienable right granted by God. Unless Adam and Eve didn’t get the memo.
All employers need ID. But remember the ID requirements are stricter for voting than they are for working. My student ID, SS card, and birth certificate were enough to get me into a job at a grocery store. Not enough to vote though.
Most would be glad to give their employees time off? Really? Either those jobs are paid by the hour or by tips (so the hypothetical poor unlicensed worker loses badly needed money) or they tell that person to do it on their own time (which for some isn’t that easy).
cpo, just because people in a tyranny are not able to vote doesn’t mean that they don’t have that right.
That’s just it, Rusty.
You’re *really* speaking in hypotheticals. Meanwhile, while no proof of fraud has been proffered in Indiana, I have loads of it here in Milwaukee. what Indiana is doing is stopping this fraud before it becomes a problem.
I still cannot believe there people who work at jobs where it’s completely and totally impossible for them to get to the DMV. It’s not that they can’t, they make excuses for doing so.
So the argument that we cannot possibly do anything to protect the polls because a few might have tyrants for bosses is a straw man.
Let’s say I go to the polls. I say I’m “John Doe from 1234 Main Street”, but I’m really “Jim Smith” from another city. I vote, and when the REAL John Doe shows up, his vote is lost - cast by someone else. His right to vote has been denied.
True, there are laws in place that make what Jim’s doing illegal, but how do you enforce them? How do you know if Jim is John, if Jim isn’t a felon, if Jim’s even an American citizen or resident of that particular district?
You don’t. And good luck trying to ID Jim based on the eye-witness testimony of poll workers who’ve seen hundreds of faces.
Or what if I walk into several polling places with bad addresses? Present the names of deceased individuals?
There is really nothing to stop me from doing that. The laws are such that it’s virtually impossible to trace a criminal, let alone prosecute.
Which is why we need to put laws in place that ensure the integrity of voting.
Which is what I’m arguing for. I’m also in favor of a marking system a la the “purple finger” - an indellible mark that stays with you long enough to make it evidently clear you’ve voted and won’t get a second vote.
Because when I go to the polls, I want my vote to count. Once. Just as yours should count. Once. There is no “right” to usurp my right to a legal vote.
Our politicians are supposed to be elected by the people…vote by vote…not by fraud. We do not get a representative government when elections are tainted by fraud.
Oh, and I forgot my big suggestion:
Petition the governments to open DMVs on one weekend/month.
That should give everyone time to get to the DMV.
englishqueen-
you’re my heroine!
BTW-How did the Milwaukee Wave do this year? I had season tickets when I was living in Kenosha!
GSP
EQ, they do what you suggest already with a signature. It’s a much easier way to prevent fraud without having those without ID to jump through hoops.
Furthermore, I doubt that these ID laws would have had little effect on Milwaukee voting. If going through that much trouble to tamper with elections, it’s not like an ID requirement would be that much of an obstacle. It’s easier to fake an ID than it is to fake a signature anyways.
GSP:
Thanks.
I’ll admit (with a little shame) that I know of the Wave, but do not follow them. They lost 14-13 in Game 2 of the Semifinals to Baltimore. Howes won MVP and Tozer was awarded Coach of the Year. (From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)
Speaking of the Journal-Sentinel, they issued their editorial on the Voter ID ruling. Given what I posted above, this comes as no surprise:
Such a poor excuse for an editorial, an argument as weak as the paper it’s printed on…
Yes, because nothing is stopping me from signing someone else’s name, right?
Nope. Our governor loathes voter ID. So each and every time I vote, it doesn’t count.
Guess my rights really don’t count, do they?
EQ - we’ve given away our rights as citizens by allowing all these libtards to have their own way and not standing up to them. We’ve all sort of giggled nervously whenever they encroached on our individual liberties.
The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness …” I don’t see anything in there that says one of the unalienable rights is the right to vote.
All our other liberties have been granted to us by our government, starting with those enshrined in the Constitution. It’s THOSE rights that we’ve given away by our inaction.
It’s getting time to take them back. Freedom isn’t cheap. The price is blood. I’ve paid my dues, and NOBODY has the right to take that freedom away from me. Something Rusty and some of our other resident trolls don’t seem to understand.
Little late to this party, but anyway…
Shockingly, I think I find myself on the side of EQ et al.
That is all, please continue.
**blink**
I know I’m due for an eye exam, but I didn’t think my vision was that bad, because I can’t believe what I’m reading.
chapoutier, it’s not shocking at all - it’s just an exercise in common sense. But thank you for your support, anyhow.
There might be hope for you yet
Just want to share a couple of things:
I lived in Chicago for 5 years before moving (back) to Indiana. After I moved back to IN, I received from the Chicago Board of Elections, a notice with my current Indiana address reminding me to vote on election day. Of course, this is Chicago, so I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
On a different note, since IN has had Mitch Daniels, a fantastic governor in office, plenty of things have changed - notably, the time one waits at the BMV. I have had to go 2x in the last year (once for new license, once for plate renewal) and I was in and out in 8 minutes and less than 4 minutes, respectively. Your wait time is listed on your receipt. So the “people don’t have time to get an i.d” argument doesn’t really work here.
When GA’s law went into effect, the left was up in arms despite the fact that the gov’t goes to the voter at their convenience to provide an ID free of charge. Their argument was that these are people who are distrustful of the gov’t so they would be disenfranchised anyway.
No matter how many solutions you come up with to their objections, they’ll come up with more and more unreasonable objections because the voter fraud always falls in their favor.
I had honestly believed that Rusty was going to come into the light on this one because he was making reasonable objections and accepting the answers.
VALID is an operative word here…I know of several cases, and have no reason to believe that these are not typical, that Mexican nationals working in the US have multiple ID’s. Drivers licenses and matching Soc. Sec. These fake ID’s look as good as real ones. Complete with photos. So most of the illegal voters have ID, more than one, they are now allowed to vote with each ID….5 ID’s 5 votes. So while I think the showing of ID at the poles would slow down illegal voting, it is not going to stop it. And if the American citizens do not insist on keeping illegal voters out. The Democrats will keep them voting.