PDA

View Full Version : the Right to Vote



road kill
10-27-2010, 07:25 AM
Is this a special privilege for US citizens?

Or should anyone be able to vote??


In AZ, the voters say prove you are a citizen, but an activist progressive judge says no!!

http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/pueblo-politics/article_3bbf4f4e-e12c-11df-b57f-001cc4c002e0.html


"The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibilty.

The court determined Arizona’s polling place photo identification requirement, however, is a minimal burden and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office is still reviewing the decision and was unavailable for comment.

Secretary of State Ken Bennett said he does not anticipate that the ruling will make any difference in voting next week, since it wasn’t in place when registration closed Oct. 4.

Bennett said the state plans to appeal the ruling, adding he disagrees the documentation sets up a barrier for registration. “I think it’s an outrage and a slap in the face of Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of elections,” he said."


RK:D

YardleyLabs
10-27-2010, 08:10 AM
Is this a special privilege for US citizens?

Or should anyone be able to vote??


In AZ, the voters say prove you are a citizen, but an activist progressive judge says no!!

http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/pueblo-politics/article_3bbf4f4e-e12c-11df-b57f-001cc4c002e0.html


"The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The majority noted that Congress was well aware of the problem of voter fraud when it passed the voter act, and built in sufficient protections, including applying perjury penalties to applicants who lie about their eligibilty.

The court determined Arizona’s polling place photo identification requirement, however, is a minimal burden and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office is still reviewing the decision and was unavailable for comment.

Secretary of State Ken Bennett said he does not anticipate that the ruling will make any difference in voting next week, since it wasn’t in place when registration closed Oct. 4.

Bennett said the state plans to appeal the ruling, adding he disagrees the documentation sets up a barrier for registration. “I think it’s an outrage and a slap in the face of Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of elections,” he said."


RK:D
The issue actually has nothing to do with the right to vote per se, but with the administrative obstacles that may be used to prevent someone from voting.

Under PA law, a voter may be required to provide proof of identity and residency. A photo ID (e.g. drivers license) can theoretically be used to prove identity, and failing such proof, the voter is permitted to complete a provisional ballot that will be accepted following administrative review. To prove residency, the user may provide things like utility bills, voter registration cards, etc.

The reality is that in over 40 years of voting, I have never been asked to identify myself. However, if I were asked to provide proof of citizenship, my only options would be my passport or my birth certificate, since citizenship is not required to obtain a drivers license. I happen to have both, but most people have neither.

If such a requirement were implemented and enforced rigorously and uniformly across all voters -- whether known to precinct workers or not -- I suspect that the number of people voting would be cut by more than 50%. This would not happen because non-citizens were being excluded, but because valid citizen voters were being excluded bureaucratically. Of course, the reality is that the requirement would not be enforced rigorously and uniformly; it would be enforced when poll watchers chose to use it to exclude people they did not want to vote. That is exactly the reason why courts have consistently held such activities to be a violation of voter rights since passage of the voter rights.

A more interesting situation is brewing in Maine, where Portland is considering whether or not to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Apparently, non-citizen voting has a long history in the US and is probably legal in Maine.

ducknwork
10-27-2010, 09:21 AM
OK, Yardley...Simple solution. You must be a citizen to obtain a driver's license. That'll cut down on the 4 hr wait at the DMV also! It's a win win situation.

Nor_Cal_Angler
10-27-2010, 09:31 AM
The issue actually has nothing to do with the right to vote per se, but with the administrative obstacles that may be used to prevent someone from voting.

Under PA law, a voter may be required to provide proof of identity and residency. A photo ID (e.g. drivers license) can theoretically be used to prove identity, and failing such proof, the voter is permitted to complete a provisional ballot that will be accepted following administrative review. To prove residency, the user may provide things like utility bills, voter registration cards, etc.

The reality is that in over 40 years of voting, I have never been asked to identify myself. However, if I were asked to provide proof of citizenship, my only options would be my passport or my birth certificate, since citizenship is not required to obtain a drivers license. I happen to have both, but most people have neither.

If such a requirement were implemented and enforced rigorously and uniformly across all voters -- whether known to precinct workers or not -- I suspect that the number of people voting would be cut by more than 50%. This would not happen because non-citizens were being excluded, but because valid citizen voters were being excluded bureaucratically. Of course, the reality is that the requirement would not be enforced rigorously and uniformly; it would be enforced when poll watchers chose to use it to exclude people they did not want to vote. That is exactly the reason why courts have consistently held such activities to be a violation of voter rights since passage of the voter rights.

A more interesting situation is brewing in Maine, where Portland is considering whether or not to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Apparently, non-citizen voting has a long history in the US and is probably legal in Maine.

What is it about the left that says "the glass is always half empty"

NCA

Cody Covey
10-27-2010, 09:33 AM
The issue actually has nothing to do with the right to vote per se, but with the administrative obstacles that may be used to prevent someone from voting.

Under PA law, a voter may be required to provide proof of identity and residency. A photo ID (e.g. drivers license) can theoretically be used to prove identity, and failing such proof, the voter is permitted to complete a provisional ballot that will be accepted following administrative review. To prove residency, the user may provide things like utility bills, voter registration cards, etc.

The reality is that in over 40 years of voting, I have never been asked to identify myself. However, if I were asked to provide proof of citizenship, my only options would be my passport or my birth certificate, since citizenship is not required to obtain a drivers license. I happen to have both, but most people have neither.

If such a requirement were implemented and enforced rigorously and uniformly across all voters -- whether known to precinct workers or not -- I suspect that the number of people voting would be cut by more than 50%. This would not happen because non-citizens were being excluded, but because valid citizen voters were being excluded bureaucratically. Of course, the reality is that the requirement would not be enforced rigorously and uniformly; it would be enforced when poll watchers chose to use it to exclude people they did not want to vote. That is exactly the reason why courts have consistently held such activities to be a violation of voter rights since passage of the voter rights.

A more interesting situation is brewing in Maine, where Portland is considering whether or not to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Apparently, non-citizen voting has a long history in the US and is probably legal in Maine.If you can't be bothered to even show photo ID how the hell could you have done due diligence in who you are voting for? It takes all of 10 minutes in my town to get a birth certificate so way shorter than getting a drivers license.

Allowing non-citizens to vote can be legal how?

Buzz
10-27-2010, 09:38 AM
If you can't be bothered to even show photo ID how the hell could you have done due diligence in who you are voting for? It takes all of 10 minutes in my town to get a birth certificate so way shorter than getting a drivers license.

Allowing non-citizens to vote can be legal how?

I live about 1000 miles from the city where I was born. Last time I needed to get a birth certificate so I could get a passport, I had about a 4 week wait.

luvmylabs23139
10-27-2010, 10:12 AM
OK, Yardley...Simple solution. You must be a citizen to obtain a driver's license. That'll cut down on the 4 hr wait at the DMV also! It's a win win situation.

YOu don't even have to do that. As of a few years ago in NC you must prove that you are a legal resident of both the US and the state of NC to obtain a NC driver's license. NC driver's licenses state whether you are or are not a citizen. It's in the restriction box. If it says I-9 in the box it means you are here legally but are not a citizen. Driver's licenses also expire for non citizens on dates that corespond to visa staus rather than DOB.

ducknwork
10-27-2010, 10:40 AM
I live about 1000 miles from the city where I was born. Last time I needed to get a birth certificate so I could get a passport, I had about a 4 week wait.

You have more than a 4 week advanced notice of upcoming elections...

I would think that US citizens that are concerned with the well being and future of our country and the integrity of our elections wouldn't mind a small inconvenience to ensure that only legal residents are allowed to vote. Hmm. That's what I get for thinking, I guess.:rolleyes:

Cody Covey
10-27-2010, 10:46 AM
I live about 1000 miles from the city where I was born. Last time I needed to get a birth certificate so I could get a passport, I had about a 4 week wait.
And now you have a birth certificate and passport. Do elections spring up on us in two weeks? I'm fairly certain we know the exact day of the elections every single year. Do it once don't lose it...is it that big of a deal?

Roger Perry
10-27-2010, 10:48 AM
And now you have a birth certificate and passport. Do elections spring up on us in two weeks? I'm fairly certain we know the exact day of the elections every single year. Do it once don't lose it...is it that big of a deal?

This year we have to dip our forefinger in a bottle of ink to show we voted.

Franco
10-27-2010, 10:50 AM
Where I vote here in Louisiana, I need to provide a Voter Registration card as well as a Driver's License.

I think that the two should be mandatory to lessen voting fraud.

Also, every place I've voted in the south, there are whites and blacks looking over the shoulders of the folks that look up your name on the rolls.

BonMallari
10-27-2010, 10:53 AM
I live about 1000 miles from the city where I was born. Last time I needed to get a birth certificate so I could get a passport, I had about a 4 week wait.


try one year of correspondence with the State Dept.and countless lawyer fees trying to get an FS-240 form (consular report of birth)...well worth every penny spent..if mom hadnt kept all of my dad's military records the wait and cost might have been more

Cody Covey
10-27-2010, 10:54 AM
Where I vote here in Louisiana, I need to provide a Voter Registration card as well as a Driver's License.

I think that the two should be mandatory to lessen voting fraud.

What do you do about places like where I live where almost the whole state is mail-in ballots?

Franco
10-27-2010, 10:57 AM
What do you do about places like where I live where almost the whole state is mail-in ballots?

A photo copy of the driver's license(or official state ID) and voter registration should accompany the mail in vote. Anyone opposed to this is looking to allow illegal voting.

YardleyLabs
10-27-2010, 11:04 AM
Almost any requirement can sound reasonable. That doesn't mean it is. I live in a town that is less 1/2 mile from end to end. A state road passes through it. When you cross the town limits, the speed limit goes down to 25 and returns to 40 shortly after. A cop is almost always stationed at the mid-point. For years, the town derived a lot of money from tickets issued. Only non-residents were ticketed unless you were driving over 50. After various threatened law suits, the policy was finally changed. There was nothing unreasonable about the law; the problem was the enforcement.

Even with the laws that exist now, poll watchers can almost guarantee that valid voters will be excluded from voting simply by challenging their right to vote. If such a challenge is issued, the voter can still complete a provisional ballot, but to protect his right to vote will need to go to the county seat, which is 45 minutes away by car and cannot be reached by public transportation. Only about 10% of challenged voters ever show up. What a surprise. Instead of looking for ways to keep people from voting, we should be looking at ways to get more people to vote every time. In many countries, you face fines if you fail to vote, and you might not be able to obtain essential documents such as drivers licenses and passports. Our entire system is designed to discourage voting so that incumbents can continue to hold office with the support of only a small percentage of eligible voters.

Ken Bora
10-27-2010, 11:28 AM
I disagree with this Jeff.
I feel there is equal responsibly between person running and voter. Maybe more on the voter.
While the runner runs and makes positions clear or not and slings mud or not.
The voter sits back and absorbs it all. During this Looooooong campaign the voter has plenty of time.
To ready themselves to vote. It is a privilege, one that can be lost by the voter.
I want informed, willing voters who have taken the extra step choosing the government officials who work for me.
The lazy, uninformed, uncaring voter is far worse than not voting at all.
And I find it quite pathetic by the way.





.

Ken Bora
10-27-2010, 11:41 AM
This year we have to dip our forefinger in a bottle of ink to show we voted.



O.K. that was a creeper:cool:
a good one, but it needed to fester a bit;-)

huntinman
10-28-2010, 07:52 AM
I live about 1000 miles from the city where I was born. Last time I needed to get a birth certificate so I could get a passport, I had about a 4 week wait.

You can get it on something called the internet these days

Cody Covey
10-28-2010, 11:06 AM
Almost any requirement can sound reasonable. That doesn't mean it is. I live in a town that is less 1/2 mile from end to end. A state road passes through it. When you cross the town limits, the speed limit goes down to 25 and returns to 40 shortly after. A cop is almost always stationed at the mid-point. For years, the town derived a lot of money from tickets issued. Only non-residents were ticketed unless you were driving over 50. After various threatened law suits, the policy was finally changed. There was nothing unreasonable about the law; the problem was the enforcement.

Even with the laws that exist now, poll watchers can almost guarantee that valid voters will be excluded from voting simply by challenging their right to vote. If such a challenge is issued, the voter can still complete a provisional ballot, but to protect his right to vote will need to go to the county seat, which is 45 minutes away by car and cannot be reached by public transportation. Only about 10% of challenged voters ever show up. What a surprise. Instead of looking for ways to keep people from voting, we should be looking at ways to get more people to vote every time. In many countries, you face fines if you fail to vote, and you might not be able to obtain essential documents such as drivers licenses and passports. Our entire system is designed to discourage voting so that incumbents can continue to hold office with the support of only a small percentage of eligible voters.So you completely get rid of that arguement by having to show birth certificate and ID or passport. Again if they can't be bothered to get those items they shouldn't be voting. They have a year between elections and its always the same time so it does not creep up on them. You're okay with forcing people to vote but not with have to prove who the hell you are.