Not at all. A person who feels he or she is legally entitled to vote but lacks a photo ID can cast a provisional ballot. And a person who feels the DMV has denied them an ID for improper reasons can seek judicial relief.
What an absurd suggestion.
I’m sure a few thousand extra court cases will simply flow through the system like a springtime zephyr. :rolleyes:
No, it isn’t.
Brayman Construction Corp v. Department of Transportation, 608 Pa 584 (2011) lays out the standard of proof required.
Or is this one of those, “I didn’t mean legally wrong, I meant ‘wrong’ as only I understand it, as revealed to me by the Great Spirit Manitou,” moments?
Yours is the absurd suggestion, since right now you can’t identify even a single person who might be wrongly denied ID, and yet to want me to believe there will be a few thousand.
But I’ll give you this: if, in fact, there are a few thousand court cases with these facts, I will absolutely acknowledge I was wrong.
Will you, if there aren’t?
No, it’s my, only a stupid person would think a solution to a problem that doesn’t have any evidence of existing but makes it harder for millions of Americans to vote moments.
Voter ID laws:
[ul]
[li]Fight something that hasn’t been demonstrated to exist. [/li][li]Factually makes it more difficult for millions of Americans to vote.[/li][li]Lowers voter confidence because it makes it more difficult for millions of Americans to vote, while not stopping any significant amount of voter fraud.[/li][/ul]
As I said, to establish if this is an intelligent law you need to see if it serves some public good. I don’t deny that it appears to be a legal law. Although if the DOJ suits overturn them, I guess we’ll see.
I do deny that they are good laws. Slavery was legal at one point. It wasn’t a good law, ever. Interracial marriage was legally banned at one point. It wasn’t a good law. Voter ID laws that target likely Democrat voters may be technically legal, but it isn’t a good law.
It is odd that you are unable to understand this. PM me and I’ll go over it with you a few times.
As I understand it, with a provisional ballot, you then have 7 days to prove that you are eligible. That’s 7 days, probably involving some time off from work, to somehow prove what you couldn’t prove at the polling place.
If I were to put a five hour poll tax on rich people, maybe you’d understand it.
It is possible to get an ID (although it is certain to be functionally impossible for individual cases), but it is harder. And by making it harder you are going to cut the number of voters. And lo, as it happens, those voters are likely Dems.
As I said, you’re using the wrong standard, and it is obvious that you’re obfuscating.
No, because people who are disincentivzed to vote aren’t likely to file a court case. That’s part of why your comment was absurd and likely in bad faith.
You can argue that anybody, with enough time and resources, can get the needed ID, but that misses the point.
The question isn’t whether or not it’s totally impossible to get the ID. The question is how difficult will it be to do so, and does it pose an additional burden, and how much of a burden, on some demographics more than on others.
Court case? Why is that the bar that must be reached? Is it the will of Mintou? Or would that be Bricker? People who have a hard time getting id, they are going to lawyer up and file cases? Can you recommend them a lawyer, goes for about $10 a billable hour?
Republican Poker, as played by Amarillo Bricker: all your cards are dealt face up, he gets seven, you get five, and he gets to draw twice.
And just one more time, for the record. The issue is not “denying ID”, it’s not “disenfranchisement”, it is more insidious for being more subtle. It is hindrance, harassment, and discouragement. It isn’t about forbidding someone to vote, simply making it more difficult, to achieve a reduction in undesirable voters by making it an uphill struggle.
This is a far more clever strategy than a naked effort at disenfranchisement. Much less likely to be overturned in court. And, just as you tirelessly point out, the essential fact of voter id is popular, it can be used to shield and protect all manner of partisan maneuvers.
Not about “disenfranchisement”, not about “denying ID”. About making it more difficult. Yet, somehow, no matter how many times this is repeated to you, you keep trying to drag the argument to your own preferred standard.
Do try and keep up, won’t you? There’s a good fellow…
So are the 74% of voters that favor these laws stupid? And is that an official Democratic position?
It appears you want lots of people to vote, but also want to be able to veto anything they decid that you personally don’t like.
What good is it to get all these votes, anyway? Why aren’t we just asking The Great Lobohan to tell us poor Schultz what’s good for us?
No, because many people are misinformed based on right-wing lies and misinformation. Like ACORN, for instance. In fact, you’ve said some things about ACORN that ended up giving a misleading impression that they were responsible for voter fraud. If you can be confused about the issue, I don’t see why someone who doesn’t follow politics so closely would be held to a higher standard.
If you don’t have proper information, you aren’t stupid for coming up with an incorrect conclusion.
Not at all. I want legislatures to make good law. This is a stupid law. And if all you can do is bleat an appeal to popularity to support it, well that speaks volumes.
If I were emperor I guarantee you, the world would be slightly better off. 
Good policy isn’t a popularity contest. Banning interracial marriage was popular. Slavery was popular.
74% of voters have been mislead.
If you ask people if people should be required to prove who they are in order to vote; who’s going to say no? It’s a simple straightforward question that ignores most of reality; including the fact that I already have to prove who I am when I vote. In PA, up till now, when I voted, I had to sign the book and they compared signatures. That’s good enough for cashing checks. It’s good enough for legally binding contracts. Hell, it’s good enough for the affidavit you have to sign at the DMV if you don’t have a birth certificate, and they don’t even have a signature on file to compare it to. Come to think of it, it was good enough for me to get a copy of my birth certificate for my passport.
It’s a very clever ruse. There’s no question. Very few, if any, can claim that it’s impossible to vote. It’s just more difficult. It ends up reducing the number of votes, disproportionately in favor of Republicans, but hey, it’s their own fault if they don’t take off from work and spend hours in the DMV.
It’s very clever. It’s very simple to say, “hey of course people should have to prove who they are to vote”, but more complicated and time consuming to explain the subtleties. And if we say that people don’t understand what’s involved, people like you tell them we think they’re stupid.
Very clever. Diabolical.
nm oops
Have you guys considered taking this argument to the Pit? I’m certain you could reach a consensus there.
You included a smiley, but I think there’s a lot of truth in what you say: you absolutely believe that your reign as Emperor would be best for the world.
You suffer as a result, I think, from the liberal atheist version of antinomianism.
Either hearsay or heresy. Maybe both…
And this just in…
Pa. drops plans for 2 online initiatives to boost voting
Are these the plans that the judge took “at face value”, because the lawyers for the state said so?
FYI - ACORN has pleaded guilty to election law violations in Las Vegas, voter registration fraud in Washington state, forging signatures on absentee ballots in Troy, N.Y., submitting false voter registration forms in Colorado Springs, Kansas City, MO, King County, WA, and Lake County, IN.
They were just doing their civic doody, I suppose.
Not best. Slightly better.
For a man of your years, I am very impressed with how spry you are as you dodge from topic to topic.
Good $2 word by the way. Hard to work into everyday conversation. I’m not sure how my strong devotion to a moral code, specifically that cheating and deceiving people is wrong, puts me in with the Antinomians. But I’m no theologist.
Question: Are you aware of what the words voter fraud mean?
Second Question: Are you aware of what crimes they were convicted of?
Third Question: Are you at all embarrassed that you posted what you did without understanding the issues at hand?