I was just watching a video on CBC on how many blacks are upset that the new requirements to present ID at time of voting is racist, and was designed by the republicans to suppress votes from the black community. They claim that as many of them are poor or jobless, a large number do not have any proof of residency, any form of social insurance number, drivers license, or birth certificate (I guess the president is not the only black with this problem!). I am kind of confused. Are you required to produce all of the above in order to vote, or just one valid piece of ID? As a Canadian who has always had to present ID in order to vote, I can't quite understand where the moral outrage is coming from. How else do you regulate fair voting without some sort of ID requirement? Certainly these folks must have some sort of ID, do they not? In regards to poverty being a limiting factor: would these same individuals not have to have a valid residence address in order to collect their welfare cheques and food stamps? Would this not be sufficient to allow them to vote should they want to?

I just don't understand why they are saying requiring ID discriminates against blacks. Do the same rules not apply to poor whites or am I missing something?

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 10-31-2012).]

Good question. Required here too, and ever the poorest of people black and white has some identification, so where is the problem?

I do not consider it racist at all, and I believe it should definitely be a requirement. To be honest I cannot believe we made it this far without requiring ID to vote. It is a simple way to verify the legitimacy of all voters. We have laws prohibiting people under a certain age from voting but then have no way of actually verifying their age when the day comes, its so backwards.

To be honest I do not want anyone that will not/cannot get an ID voting. Regardless of race or any other factor if they are too lazy/ineligable to get an appropriate form of ID they do not need to be making decisions for this country. Its not that hard people.

Course I also think the government should operate according to the constitution and should only spend the money they take in, I also think the country would be a better/safer place if everyone were armed and carried openly.... Lets just say I'm weird so what do I know?

It's the timing that's suspicious. Why is this NOW a major issue? Why THIS election? It just looks really suspicious considering what demographic it affects the most, which party it affects, and which party is pushing for it. Not to mention that it's only coming about at election time, why not during a non-election time?

It does seem a little hypocritical. On one hand politicians say that this administration shouldn't be playing with the constitution, but on the other hand they're trying to force people to prove that they deserve rights guaranteed by the constitution, which does not imply the need to identify themselves in order to be granted this freedom.

This said, I don't think requiring ID to vote is that big of a deal, but again why now, and why so much insistence from one party? It smacks of a politically motivated move.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 10-31-2012).]

quote Originally posted by thedrue: I do not consider it racist at all, and I believe it should definitely be a requirement. To be honest I cannot believe we made it this far without requiring ID to vote. It is a simple way to verify the legitimacy of all voters. We have laws prohibiting people under a certain age from voting but then have no way of actually verifying their age when the day comes, its so backwards. To be honest I do not want anyone that will not/cannot get an ID voting. Regardless of race or any other factor if they are too lazy/ineligable to get an appropriate form of ID they do not need to be making decisions for this country. Its not that hard people. Course I also think the government should operate according to the constitution and should only spend the money they take in, I also think the country would be a better/safer place if everyone were armed and carried openly.... Lets just say I'm weird so what do I know?

Well said.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: It's the timing that's suspicious. Why is this NOW a major issue? Why THIS election? It just looks really suspicious considering what demographic it affects the most, which party it affects, and which party is pushing for it. Not to mention that it's only coming about at election time, why not during a non-election time? ...

It's been an issue during every closely contested election in recent memory. And it's only happening at election time because... that's when people vote.
People are hollering "racist" because it's convenient to do so whenever anyone demands accountability.
It's been the catch-all for every criticism that has been levied against the current administration.

You need to show I D for so many things, it's crazy NOT to show it when you vote. This is pretty obvious which side this favors.

There have already been so many accounts/claims of tampering and fraud for this election, they should start again (but they won't)

quote Originally posted by mptighe: It's the timing that's suspicious. Why is this NOW a major issue? Why THIS election? It just looks really suspicious considering what demographic it affects the most, which party it affects, and which party is pushing for it. Not to mention that it's only coming about at election time, why not during a non-election time? It does seem a little hypocritical. On one hand politicians say that this administration shouldn't be playing with the constitution, but on the other hand they're trying to force people to prove that they deserve rights guaranteed by the constitution, which does not imply the need to identify themselves in order to be granted this freedom. This said, I don't think requiring ID to vote is that big of a deal, but again why now, and why so much insistence from one party? It smacks of a politically motivated move.

This timing isn't suspicious just states are getting fed up with dead people, illegal etc trying to vote. Some states have had the law that ID was required for years. Other states see this and have tried to implement it and have been held up in the court system.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki..._State_Voter_ID_Laws
The link above will give some of the info of when the states passed the laws.

Earl

The only part that is actually 'Racist' is that which is coming from those who are saying it is racist.

Think about it.

They are saying that requiring ID to vote is somehow beyond the capabilities of certain demographics of people.

That's about as racist a thing as I can come up with. It is a complete slam on their intelligence.

I really don't get why the Democrats and those calling 'racist' about ID aren't taken to the mat on this.

I agree completely. Let's require voter ID. Let's do it in a timely manner so that the voters who were not previously required to have it will be able to conform without losing their vote.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: It's the timing that's suspicious. Why is this NOW a major issue? Why THIS election? It just looks really suspicious considering what demographic it affects the most, which party it affects, and which party is pushing for it. Not to mention that it's only coming about at election time, why not during a non-election time? It does seem a little hypocritical. On one hand politicians say that this administration shouldn't be playing with the constitution, but on the other hand they're trying to force people to prove that they deserve rights guaranteed by the constitution, which does not imply the need to identify themselves in order to be granted this freedom. This said, I don't think requiring ID to vote is that big of a deal, but again why now, and why so much insistence from one party? It smacks of a politically motivated move.

I dont see anything wrong with proving you are a citizen. It would be different if we didn't let non citizens in the country at all. It makes sense.

not racist - but - innocent until proven guilty comes to mind - it is unconstitutional. but, I am sure we can all let that slide.
I can see with banks & transactions, where you are dealing with private entities, who do not actually need to follow the constitution, you can insinuate guilt all day long.

here in MI - you needed ID all along. noone tried to just pop that little thing out just before elections. so, all the negros who want to vote, are already all set to go. I am trying to picture what kind of backward system is in place in places which do NOT require ID. anyways - any voting change requirements should be done way clear of an election. trying to make a paperwork requirement which can take more time to aquire than the time left to the election is just blatant with what the intent of the requirement actually is.

and, why is it racist? it is not. tho, I can certainly see how it can smell that way. it also affects the elderly.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: not racist - but - innocent until proven guilty comes to mind - it is unconstitutional. but, I am sure we can all let that slide.

Specifically what part of the Constitution conflict with state voter ID laws (wording within the Constitution? Why do you assert that it is illegal? You make what appears to be an infinitive assertion when it it not backed by facts or an argument.

Because everything is "racist"...as soon as ya dont like something, scream "racism" to get your own way. Its a free ticket and free ride to feel superior because of your race, and ya dont have to follow any standards or rules, and anybody that gets in your way is either a racist or an anti-

No wonder I dont like people.

If EVERYONE has to have their ID, why is that racist (selective for specific races). At least here in Ohio, its the law that you MUST carry some kind of ID whether its a drivers license, state ID card or a student card. You can be arrested for not having an ID on you. Sure, you can get out pretty easily, but you still spent the time at the jail. There is no logical reason I can think of for not wanting to show your ID when its required by any authority other than your a criminal.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: If EVERYONE has to have their ID, why is that racist (selective for specific races). At least here in Ohio, its the law that you MUST carry some kind of ID whether its a drivers license, state ID card or a student card. You can be arrested for not having an ID on you. Sure, you can get out pretty easily, but you still spent the time at the jail. There is no logical reason I can think of for not wanting to show your ID when its required by any authority other than your a criminal.

yes, must carry your papers......

I do not carry my papers when I ride my bicycle. not because I am a criminal, but because I dont want to carry anything at all.

yes, that would not have worked very very in 1940 germany - but - I'd really hope that is not where we want to be....
random checkpoints, anyone?

Some people would have you beleive America is (or should be) an open society rather than a free society. And they tend to blur the line between the definition by usurping words and phrases that sound reasonable. But once that tactic fails to take hold with the majority they ramp up the rhetoric and fear.

The hallmark of the Liberal movement is to take over America and its wealth for power's sake. Since they can not sell their product they are forced to steal it. By getting rid of the electoral college as well and checks and balances on the fairness of the election process you have a greater ability to rig the results. As Stalin once said, {those who vote do not decide elections, those who count the votes do}. It is easier to count fraudulent votes if you can not prove they are fraudulent.

Fortunately, the "racist" finger pointing has become so omnipresent that it has lost its impact.

The ACLU says the laws have a "disproportionate impact" on poor, minorities and elderly

Federal Court Blocks Texas Voter ID Law

quote A federal court today struck Texas’s discriminatory voter ID law, which would have prevented many eligible citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote. The ACLU had intervened in the case in order to represent individuals and organizations who would be negatively impacted, and protect the right to vote. Today’s decision by a three-judge Washington, D.C. panel comes at a time when the right to vote is under attack nationwide. “By blocking this law, the court reaffirmed the right of all people in this country to participate in our democracy,” said Nancy Abudu, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project, which intervened in the case along with the ACLU of Texas. The court pointed out that “racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty” and because the law will more heavily impact the poor, they will be more affected. The ACLU and its affiliates have also intervened in a case over South Carolina’s voter ID law, which is on trial this week in Washington, D.C., and filed lawsuits against discriminatory voter ID laws in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The laws’ disproportionate impact on minorities, the elderly and other groups only help illustrate the need for the Voting Rights Act, a crucial civil rights-era law that helps protect the minority vote. “The ACLU remains committed to helping enforce the Voting Rights Act, and we will continue to challenge any law that threatens the fairness of the voting process for any U.S. citizen,” Abudu added.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Some people would have you beleive America is (or should be) an open society rather than a free society. And they tend to blur the line between the definition by usurping words and phrases that sound reasonable. But once that tactic fails to take hold with the majority they ramp up the rhetoric and fear. The hallmark of the Liberal movement is to take over America and its wealth for power's sake. Since they can not sell their product they are forced to steal it. By getting rid of the electoral college as well and checks and balances on the fairness of the election process you have a greater ability to rig the results. As Stalin once said, {those who vote do not decide elections, those who count the votes do}. It is easier to count fraudulent votes if you can not prove they are fraudulent. Fortunately, the "racist" finger pointing has become so omnipresent that it has lost its impact.

lol - funny stuff. you know you are describing you very own post.
take over wealth & power? lol - that by default means someone already HAS taken over the wealth & power. and that would be who...? and, yes, lsiten to stalin, as the supreme court appoints a president....
the funniest thing is when liears like this go and cry about the exact thing they just got done doing.....

feel free to makes changes to elections - just dont do it just before an election. only cheaters try to change the rules just before the game.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 10-31-2012).]

quote Originally posted by spark1: The court pointed out that “racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty” and because the law will more heavily impact the poor, they will be more affected.

How and why? Does an Id to vote cost something?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, must carry your papers...... I do not carry my papers when I ride my bicycle. not because I am a criminal, but because I dont want to carry anything at all. yes, that would not have worked very very in 1940 germany - but - I'd really hope that is not where we want to be.... random checkpoints, anyone?

Because showing an ID once every 2-4 years to vote is totally the same thing as being stopped at random checkpoints.
Be careful your logic doesn't slap you in the face when you stretch it past the breaking point.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Because showing an ID once every 2-4 years to vote is totally the same thing as being stopped at random checkpoints. Be careful your logic doesn't slap you in the face when you stretch it past the breaking point.

I was responding to this:

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: If EVERYONE has to have their ID, why is that racist (selective for specific races). At least here in Ohio, its the law that you MUST carry some kind of ID whether its a drivers license, state ID card or a student card. You can be arrested for not having an ID on you. Sure, you can get out pretty easily, but you still spent the time at the jail. There is no logical reason I can think of for not wanting to show your ID when its required by any authority other than your a criminal.

big difference between must carry all the time & every few years.

There are many reasons to carry an ID at all times. You can be identified in an accident and you can prove who you are. Im strongly against any government intervention where its not required, but I have absolutely no problem showing my ID to anyone except a random person on the street. Thats nothing like 30's Germany. To me, anyone afraid to show an ID is up to no good. I carry my ID on my bike, hiking or going anywhere outside my yard. I dont necessarily carry it when Im working in the yard. If you have a CCP, you BETTER have your ID/permit on you or your going to jail in cuffs. You can carry it in your waistband, sock, neck strap, etc, even if your swimming really. If your riding your bike you have to be riding nude, without any keys or wallet to not have it with you. You can even just stick it on the bike. Here its also a $1000 possible fine if you drive without your license on you. You may get let go, but you get the ticket that requires a court appearance. So you lose a day at the court house to get it dropped when you do produce it. The judge can still fine you anyway. Is it really worth a day at court to prove a dumb point ?

It isn't, but the bigger question for me is, loafer, you project that others yell racist in almost every post I see of yours. Are you upset at the "blacks" because of this?

I'm starting to think you're racist yourself with how much you talk about it.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Is your point we should not have any form of voter id? Spell it out. Or is your only point that we should have done it 3 years ago, and the hints at stalin and nazis pointless?

here in MI, we have the ID requirement. It has been in place well before the election, and all who want to vote know what they need to do, and have plenty of time to make any arrangements they need to make.

I was responding to others who brought up Stalin, and "must carry your paperwork at all times" statements. ask them WTF Stalin & Nazis have to do with paperwork & ID checks. I am sure they know much more about such things.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: It isn't, but the bigger question for me is, loafer, you project that others yell racist in almost every post I see of yours. Are you upset at the "blacks" because of this? I'm starting to think you're racist yourself with how much you talk about it.

LOL you must be new here...

You cant get car tags without 2 recognized IDs here, and one HAS to be a photo ID. Why shouldnt you have to show it to vote ?

I've carried ID since I was fourteen years old. Back in 1955. I have no problem with authority asking me for it. I don't know why people have been allowed to vote all these years without it. Time for a rule change though is not just before an election.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I've carried ID since I was fourteen years old. Back in 1955. I have no problem with authority asking me for it. I don't know why people have been allowed to vote all these years without it. Time for a rule change though is not just before an election.

Wouldn't want all the pandering to be wasted?

quote Originally posted by spark1: Wouldn't want all the pandering to be wasted?

not sure what that is supposed to mean?
why was this not a problem in 2009? 2005? 2001? and so on.

actually - it was a problem then as well. waiting until just before a known tight election to do this, when the speculated impact will be one sided is tampering.

I've needed ID every time I voted. why havent these states? likely because they were doing some other forms of fraud.

fix it in December. have it take effect in January.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: not sure what that is supposed to mean? why was this not a problem in 2009? 2005? 2001? and so on. actually - it was a problem then as well. waiting until just before a known tight election to do this, when the speculated impact will be one sided is tampering. I've needed ID every time I voted. why havent these states? likely because they were doing some other forms of fraud. fix it in December. have it take effect in January.

How about the states that have had voter ID laws for years?
Alabama 2003 Photo ID [36] Law tightened in 2011 to require photo ID as of 2014[37][38]
Colorado 2003
Georgia Photo ID Existing law tightened in 2005 to require a photo ID; In 2006, passed a law providing for the issuance of voter ID cards at no cost to registered voters who do not have a driver's license or state-issued ID card.
Idaho 2010
Indiana 2005
Kansas 2011
Michigan 2007 Passed in 1996, but ruled invalid until a State Supreme Court ruling in 2007. Voters are requested to show photo ID or sign a statment saying they do not have valid ID in their possession at the time. Either way, the voter will not be turned away.[39]
Missouri Photo ID In 2006, the existing law was tightened to require photo ID.
Montana 2003
New Mexico 2005 Law Repealed In 2008, the existing voter ID law was relaxed, and now allows a voter to satisfy the ID requirement by stating his/her name, address as registered, and year of birth.
North Dakota 2003
Oklahoma 2010 Oklahoma voters approved a voter ID proposal placed on the ballot by the Legislature
Ohio 2006
Pennsylvania 2012 Law blocked by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson.[40]
Rhode Island 2011
South Carolina Photo ID Law tightened in 2011.[37] Justice Department rejected South Carolina's law as placing an undue burden disproportionately on minority voters.[15] On October 10, 2012 the US District Court uphold South Carolina Voter ID law though the law won't take effect till 2013. [41][42]
South Dakota 2003 [43]
Tennessee Photo ID Law tightened in 2011.[37]
Texas Photo ID Law tightened in 2011.[37] Justice Department rejected the Texas law as placing an undue burden disproportionately on minority voters.[44]
Utah 2009
Washington 2005
Wisconsin 2011 Two state circuit judges in Dane County, Wisconsin block the ID requirement provisions of that state's law, with the first judge issuing a temporary injunction, followed by the second judge a week later ruling the requirement in violation of the Wisconsin Constitution.[45] The fate of the law is uncertain, as the Republican-led State Department of Justice fights the ruling in court.[46]

The only state on this list with a law change due to take effect this year was Pennsylvania. What about all the others?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-31-2012).]

Time for a Federal ID....

and, just for general clarification - mr. opening post - what are the rules in the state you vote in?

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Time for a Federal ID....

Nah, just imbed every citizen with a microchip in their forarm.

(J/K)

quote Originally posted by Fformula88: Nah, just imbed every citizen with a microchip in their forarm. (J/K)

You mean you don't have one? hmmm, how did you escape?

In short, everything is considered racist now because people see that our president has dark colored skin.
Because they are racist. lol

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: and, just for general clarification - mr. opening post - what are the rules in the state you vote in?

Here in Saskatchewan we have to be registered to be on a voting list, and then at time of voting we have three options to provide proof of identity:

Option 1

Show one piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.

Example: driver's licence.

Option 2

Show two valid original documents. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Example: health card and electric bill.


Option 3

Swear an oath and have an eligible voter vouch for your identity and place of ordinary residence.
The person vouching for you must be an eligable voter who has valid authorized identification. This person can only vouch for one person.

No one here complains about such policies being racist because the same rules apply to everyone.

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 10-31-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - funny stuff. you know you are describing you very own post. take over wealth & power? lol - that by default means someone already HAS taken over the wealth & power. and that would be who...? and, yes, lsiten to stalin, as the supreme court appoints a president.... the funniest thing is when liears like this go and cry about the exact thing they just got done doing..... feel free to makes changes to elections - just dont do it just before an election. only cheaters try to change the rules just before the game.

You're dense. Obama has been slowly trying to take over America one step at a time. He promised Immigration reform as one of his top priorities. He did nothing because keeping illegals out and from voting conflicts with his power ambitions. He never mentioned health care reform but immediately set to work socilizing medicine. He has deliberately run up the China credit card to push America to the brink of bankruptcy in order to justify a take over of the financial sector. He nationalized the auto industry and it is doing worse now than ever as a result with NO ability to pay back the money they owe and he gave full pensions to all union employees and took away non union employee pensions.

Romney plans to turn the power back over to the states, not the fed (AS THE FOUDNING FATHERS INTENDED!), He plans to decentralize the fed, deregulate the EPA, reduce taxes, and make the country healthy again by cutting the fat. I'm sorry you don't like working out but it doesn't change the fact that is is good for you.

Crying racism has become a joke, and that is really too bad because when it is for real it is serious and heinous. Thing of it is, when you got nothing cry racist. The people against voter ID laws should be looked into, to me it looks as though they are trying to protect their voter fraud plans.

Really, shouldn’t voter fraud be looked at as treason? I look at it that way.