I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Bricker]

@BobLibDem

What a silly sentence. The proponents were of course trying to rush it in place for the purpose of stealing this particular election. Now we need to fight the bastards tooth and nail for the next election and the one after that. The Republicans are ruthless bastards who don’t give a flying fuck how they stay in power, only that they stay in power.

:rolleyes:

Yes, yes. And in 2014, what will you say when the “rushing” argument is unavailable to you?

[Bricker]

@Mithras

Now I’m confused. Going only by how the law looks after his injunction, it appears closer to the reports that you’d have to cast a provisional ballot if you don’t present ID.

ETA: Now I’m pretty sure that’s the only way to read it.

Yup.

Heh heh heh.

Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh…

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!!

Oh, I’m sorry. Did I use my out-loud typing voice for that?

[ElvisL1ves]

Yup. “Winning!”

Sad.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Yes, but the requirement that you hustle down to an election board to show your ID in order for your provisional ballot to be counted has been squashed. Previous to this, if you didn’t get there within six days (?), your ballot was tossed.

TG, IANAL but this ruling carries the scent of petulant compliance, it appears to me that Judge Simpson bent every effort to keep the repulsive elements of this law intact, while still meeting the minimal standards so as not to be further spanked by the higher court.

Odd. Seems to be saying that you can be asked for a voter ID, and if you walk away at that point, too bad for you. But you will still be allowed to vote, and vote effectively, if you press the point. Your provisional ballot is not actually “provisional”, you need take no further steps for it to be counted.

Confusion about that is likely to suppress some fraction of undesirable voters, so Judge Simpson has managed to advance the Republican cause, at least to a lesser degree than originally hoped.

No, no – this is good. A person who casts a provisional ballot makes himself memorable. An illegal voter will be deterred. A legal voter will persevere. This isn’t perfect but it’s good. I am happy.

[Lobohan]

All I ask, is that when someone suggests in GD or elsewhere that Bricker is reasonable, someone point them to this thread.

He’s not a good person. He’s a hypocrite and liar. And I take it on good authority that he touches himself with carnal intent.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

No, no – this is good. A person who casts a provisional ballot makes himself memorable. An illegal voter will be deterred. A legal voter will persevere. This isn’t perfect but it’s good. I am happy.

There aren’t any significant number of illegal voters.

You know that of course, you’re just trying to shine a turd here.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

All I ask, is that when someone suggests in GD or elsewhere that Bricker is reasonable, someone point them to this thread.

He’s not a good person. He’s a hypocrite and liar. And I take it on good authority that he touches himself with carnal intent.

Because conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, and liberals think conservatives are bad people.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

There aren’t any significant number of illegal voters.

You know that of course, you’re just trying to shine a turd here.

So what can you possibly complain about here? A person with no ID can cast a provisional ballot. What don’t you like?

I know, of course. You don’t like the process itself, because the illegal voters you depend upon to continue to provide bread and circuses to the Democrats might be afraid to cast provisional ballots – they could be caught. So they won’t vote.

If you truly believed they don’t exist, you’d be calm and unworried – you’d be happy at this outcome. The fact that you’re not speaks volumes about what you believe.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Because conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, and liberals think conservatives are bad people.

No, you literally are a bad person.

You literally want poor people to not be able to vote, because it will help your party electorally. That isn’t a bad idea, that’s an evil idea.

You are a hypocrite, a false-Christian and liar. I’m not painting you as a bad person, you are one.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

So what can you possibly complain about here? A person with no ID can cast a provisional ballot. What don’t you like?

I know, of course. You don’t like the process itself, because the illegal voters you depend upon to continue to provide bread and circuses to the Democrats might be afraid to cast provisional ballots – they could be caught. So they won’t vote.

If you truly believed they don’t exist, you’d be calm and unworried – you’d be happy at this outcome. The fact that you’re not speaks volumes about what you believe.

I think they should be able to cast normal ballots. Provisional ballots that will count without ID is better than not, so this is a partial win for democracy.

I don’t depend on illegal voters, Bricker. You depend on keeping legal voters from voting. That’s the nature of your vile and disgusting partisan ways.

Also, you’re a liar, Bricker, why do you have to *misstate *my beliefs to attack me? All I have to do to attack you is truthfully state yours.

[davidm]

Confusion reigns. This National Review article attempts to spin this as not much of a win for opponents of the law. It states that people without ID will be able to vote a regular ballot.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329099/about-voter-id-defeat-pa-hans-von-spakovsky

Therefore, following the “expressed intent” of the legislature, the court held that voters without an ID will still be able to vote in the November election using a regular ballot. But the court issued no permanent injunction. Today’s preliminary injunction, the judge specified, “is limited to the upcoming election.”

[davidm]

What we need is a copy of the actual ruling, which should be available online in the near future.

[BobLibDem]

@Lobohan

No, you literally are a bad person.

You literally want poor people to not be able to vote, because it will help your party electorally. That isn’t a bad idea, that’s an evil idea.

You are a hypocrite, a false-Christian and liar. I’m not painting you as a bad person, you are one.

Pretty much this. When conservatives talk about how wonderful it would be to cut taxes for the wealthy, they aren’t being evil, they’re simply on a different side of the issue. When they talk about how global warming is a hoax, they aren’t being evil, just factually incorrect. When they gleefully gloat at the prospect of denying people the right to vote because it would help the red team, that’s when they become evil assholes.

[Mithras]

@davidm

What we need is a copy of the actual ruling, which should be available online in the near future.

I’ve been using the full ruling when I’ve been confusing myself. I don’t think it will help all that much. Just go to http://www.post-gazette.com and it’s the last link in the big box in the top left hand corner about the ruling. The actual injunction (the last two pages) refers to the two sections of Act 18 that the injunction applies to. If you go to the Act 18 text which I linked to previously you can see that those two sections deal only with whether an ID is needed for a provisional ballot counting. The opinion (the previous pages) seem to contradict that interpretation. As I’ve quoted previously, he specifically says that he intends for the system to function the same as it did during the transition period/the primaries.

I believe that’s the reason there isn’t agreement in the articles on it, though I haven’t found anyone else who has the same interpretation that I do yet (that the judge said in his opinion that he meant the injunction to do one thing but in the injunction itself has it doing another).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

:rolleyes:

Yes, yes. And in 2014, what will you say when the “rushing” argument is unavailable to you?

Voter suppression. Article 2 of the voting rights act.

@Bricker

No, no – this is good. A person who casts a provisional ballot makes himself memorable. An illegal voter will be deterred. A legal voter will persevere. This isn’t perfect but it’s good. I am happy.

How many illegal voters will be deterred? How many illegal voters were there?

Virginia passed a voter ID law this year and DOJ didn’t even challenge it. The balance of poor urban blacks to elderly and poor rural voters is different than ion these other states. So, the Virginia ID law lets you use a voter registration card, a bank statement, a utility bill, a phone bill, etc. No photo required. Of course all the “examples” of acceptable ID that they mention in the voter packet I got last week are forms of voter ID (and the voter ID card).

@Bricker

Because conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, and liberals think conservatives are bad people.

Pffft. :rolleyes:

These people don’t think you’re bad because you are conservative. In fact several of the posters have said that before this thread, they thought you were a righteous dude.

Its closer to the truth to say that conservatives think they have a MONOPOLY on good ideas. That noone else’s ideas are worth a damn and therefore the most important thing in the world is getting in power so they can replace all those horrible ideas with their good ones. Even if it means hurting the country in the short term because over the long term, a few bad years and a credit downgrade is nothing compared to the utopia we will have when we implement conservative ideas. THIS is why conservatives put party before country because they think that they’re doing it for our own good.

[Mithras]

Missed the edit window. But to be more specific, the following is part of what was NOT injoined that still requires you to cast a provisional ballot if you do not have ID:

(a.4) (1) At all elections an individual who claims to be properly registered and eligible to vote at the election district but whose name does not appear on the district register and whose registration cannot be determined by the inspectors of election or the county election board shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. Individuals who [are voting for the first time at the election district] appear to vote shall be required to produce proof of identification pursuant to subsection (a) [or (a.1)] and if unable to do so shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. An individual presenting a judicial order to vote shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot.

It’s basically a diff. Take the original law before the Voter ID law. The part in brackets is deleted and the bold part is added in its place.

This is section 1210(a.4)(1). The injunction is only for the changes to Section 1210(a.2) and 1210(a.4)(5)(ii).

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Damuri_Ajashi

THIS is why conservatives put party before country because they think that they’re doing it for our own good.

Well, some of them perhaps.

Others put party before country because they know that this way they will personally benefit, and they don’t really give a shit about anyone other than themselves. For them, it’s “Me”, then party, then country.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

I think they should be able to cast normal ballots. Provisional ballots that will count without ID is better than not, so this is a partial win for democracy.

I don’t depend on illegal voters, Bricker. You depend on keeping legal voters from voting. That’s the nature of your vile and disgusting partisan ways.

Also, you’re a liar, Bricker, why do you have to *misstate *my beliefs to attack me? All I have to do to attack you is truthfully state yours.

Well, you get your wish, at least for the moment. Having read the actual decision, it looks like voters without ID will be able to cast ordinary – not provisional – ballots.

[Sinaptics]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Its closer to the truth to say that conservatives think they have a MONOPOLY on good ideas. That noone else’s ideas are worth a damn and therefore the most important thing in the world is getting in power so they can replace all those horrible ideas with their good ones. Even if it means hurting the country in the short term because over the long term, a few bad years and a credit downgrade is nothing compared to the utopia we will have when we implement conservative ideas. THIS is why conservatives put party before country because they think that they’re doing it for our own good.

I learned a new word today, mumpsimus:

1.adherence to or persistence in an erroneous use of language, memorization, practice, belief, etc., out of habit or obstinacy ( opposed to sumpsimus).
2.a person who persists in a mistaken expression or practice ( opposed to sumpsimus).

In other words, someone who persists in a belief or practice even after their shown it’s wrong. I think I’m gonna get a lot of use out of this one.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Because conservatives think liberals have bad ideas, and liberals think conservatives are bad people.

Starving Artist is fond of saying this as well.

Let me add whiny to my description of you, you whiny bitch. Pathetic and gutless. You can eat the peanuts out of my shit.