The first 16 seasons of Law and Order.
Your argument is nonsense of course. You think bringing a handfull of grannies to the stand and asking them, “did you check every ID?” is going to be open and shut, well I guess you’re free to dream.
Well, the problem is that certain subset of our political spectrum is anxious to find evidence that the monster under their bed is real and planning to eat them. Another subset knows better, but is perfectly willing to exploit those irrational fears in order to gain a partisan advantage at the polls.
Probably, there are Republicans who know this isn’t so and are equally unwilling to use lies and propaganda to advance a sordid and corrupt scheme to gain electoral advantage. Haven’t found any of those, I just assume that one or two of them must exist, somewhere. Nessie, Bigfoot, the honest conservative: can’t prove they don’t exist!
At any rate, I’m only speaking from memory of an article I cited some time back. The gist of it being that the MN Republicans used a list of person convicted of felonies that would negate their voting rights. What they didn’t have was the list of such persons who were subsequently amended to probation, which did not negate their rights. Wa-la, voter fraud!
Also, some of the dumbasses had heard that if you were on probation, your rights were automatically restored. Being released on parole is not the same, but it is frequently referred to as “probation” when it is not quite the same. So, they went to vote. They were not yet legally entitled to do so, hence, more “voter fraud”.
Tempest, teapot, all gone…
The only problem with these types of laws is that they were not already on the books. They are so commonsensical that they only way they appear not to be is by allowing decades of people voting without identifying themselves to pass. Then it opens the door for ridiculous arguments about race and discrimination.
I suspected you were arguing from TV University.
I didn’t say “open and shut.” I said “legally sufficient.”
The proof adduced at trial is legally sufficient if a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the crime. The “grannies” may or may not actually convince the jury. If they don’t, then there is no guilty verdict. If they do, there is.
This is distinguished from the same case with no voter ID, which would not be legally sufficient, absent some other proof.
I get what you’re saying. I just am trying to tell you that if you think poll workers who see thousands of people are going to be great witnesses when the other side of the coin is they didn’t look at the cards really hard, I think you’re reaching.
Which is par for the course, since in order to support a law that makes it harder for many thousands of times as many voters as would cast fraudulent ballots to vote, is a stupid law. And you appear to have a partisan need to champion this stupid law as if it were the best thing ever.
Sorry, I’m an idiot. This should be the appropriate link (liberal site, remember to register appropriate shock).
Does it? Will having appropriate ID automatically supersede absentee ballot fraud? How would a poll worker or a court determine whether they hadn’t just posted an absentee ballot and then realised that Jill Stein didn’t want to dismantle Obamacare because she was a Constitutional Libertarian?
Not to mention Phyllis Stein, who firmly rejects government support for the arts!
If it were a situation where it actually was “harder for many thousands of times as many voters as would cast fraudulent ballots to vote”, why didn’t the plaintiffs produce these people in court when it actually mattered? Saying it on the internet just doesn’t seem to carry the same weight.
You need an ID to vote in Pennsylvania.
The deck was stacked, only cases of flat out prevention of voting was to be considered. Which isn’t the point, skulduggery-wise. The point of the effort is harass and discourage voters, make it more difficult so the marginal voters drop out. The judge himself said he wasn’t going to even consider convenience or difficulty.
So all the state needs is to show that, no matter how difficult or discouraging it may be, it is still possible, and that’s all that counts.
You’ve been reading the cites, and you don’t know this?
If any cases ever end up going to court, it would be hilarious to watch poor old Mrs. Nicholson trying to remember if the 45 year old youngster on the stand, wait… looks a bit like my great grandson. You know, if he parted his hair on the other side. And wore a tie. I sure do with he’d visit more often. Quite the ragamuffin, that boy is. Shame on all of you. I’m sure he’d never do anything wrong!
Of course,the Supreme Court considered the “makes it more difficult” argument in the Indiana case and rejected it.
Why should Pennsylvania reconsider it now?
Not even you believe a single word of that.
Difficult for whom? Discouraging for whom? Specifically. A law was passed. The plaintiff(s) had every opportunity to make their case against that law. The plaintiffs failed to make a convincing case. Apparently the plaintiffs weren’t playing with the full deck?
"Your honor, we know that people will be discouraged from voting but we just can’t prove it. Couldn’t you just take our word for it?"
The answer was, “No”.
Are you suggesting that Obama “needs” a large number of duplicate voters in order to be re-elected?
I’m suggesting that there aren’t any. Whereas this law will cost him a lot of legitimate votes from legitimately eligible voters. Which is its sole intention.
If they’re legtimately eligible voters, then they must have an ID.
Again, this is not correct. What the Supreme Court has considered (the question of the federal right to equal protection as it relates to voting) is not the same as what this law involves or what the PA vote was asked to consider (guarantees of the right to vote under the PA Constitution).
There are lots of reasons why the U.S. Constitution’s treatment of suffrage is different from that of state constitutions in our federal system.
Fine. Shall we table this discussion until.after the Pennsylvania courts have produced a final ruling? Because I have a funny feeling you know how that’s going to look when it comes out.
From the link:
Not if you’re unemployed.
Sure, if you can afford to fly.
Open a bank account for what?
It would be nice if everybody who needed medicine could afford it.
Now there’s a tough one. No problem - uncle Walt will buy it for us! There, problem solved - no ID needed.
So most of these are “problems” that a lot of people wish they had, but don’t. And for those who are underemployed, I think that most big box employers will cash your check for you right in the store, no? Not sure about fast food places.