[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Saint Cad, that actually sounds to me more like error on the part of the poll workers. I would imagine that the proper procedure would be for you to submit a provisional ballot there at the polling place. That, at least, would be procedure here in Ohio.
[/QUOTE]
Even if I did, what assurance would I have that it would be counted?
[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
Even if I did, what assurance would I have that it would be counted?
[/QUOTE]
You don’t but it won’t be counted for sure if you don’t cast it.
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
You don’t but it won’t be counted for sure if you don’t cast it.
[/QUOTE]
Yes it would. Remember, someone else filled it out for me.
[QUOTE=bump]
The question, to me, is “Do we want people who are unwilling to overcome the minor hurdle of having proper identification to have a say in our political process?”
I realize that it’s supposed to be universal suffrage, etc… but really, if someone can’t be bothered (and you can’t honestly tell me that someone can’t afford $13 every 6 years) to get a driver’s license or ID card, then why should I be enthusiastic about their having any say whatsoever in things that might affect me or the ones I love?
It scares the shit out of me that people without the gumption/drive/presence of mind/etc… to get a damn ID card can actually have a say, however small, in important things.
[/QUOTE]
My mother had to renew her Green Card the other day. She is 88 and doesn’t drive, so had to take an expensive cab ride into Boston. They failed to get a proper fingerprint so she had to go back in. The second time they also couldn’t get a legible fingerprint so they sent her to her local police station for finger printing. Finally, a sympathetic person at the police station sent round a car to take her to the station. She then had to get notarized
statements from several people that they knew her. She has been in the country for 63 years!!
Now I know getting a resident alien ID is not the same as a citizen getting a state ID, but imagine some elderly person out in the country who may have their birth certificate in a safe deposit box, or not even know where it is. Many elderly women never learned to dive so they don’t have driver’s licenses. A social security card is useless because it has not picture. This is going to be a major pain in the ass for lot’s of people. Not onlly that, you are going to ask them to pay $13 for the right to cast a ballot or make them admit to a stranger that they are indigent. And how does one prove that anyway? Sshow parstubs from your non-existent job?
The whole thing is a mean-spirited attempt to supress the vote, and the pubs and SC should go to hell for allowing it.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
My mother had to renew her Green Card the other day. She is 88 and doesn’t drive, so had to take an expensive cab ride into Boston. They failed to get a proper fingerprint so she had to go back in. The second time they also couldn’t get a legible fingerprint so they sent her to her local police station for finger printing. Finally, a sympathetic person at the police station sent round a car to take her to the station. She then had to get notarized
statements from several people that they knew her. She has been in the country for 63 years!!
Now I know getting a resident alien ID is not the same as a citizen getting a state ID, but imagine some elderly person out in the country who may have their birth certificate in a safe deposit box, or not even know where it is. Many elderly women never learned to dive so they don’t have driver’s licenses. A social security card is useless because it has not picture. This is going to be a major pain in the ass for lot’s of people. Not onlly that, you are going to ask them to pay $13 for the right to cast a ballot or make them admit to a stranger that they are indigent. And how does one prove that anyway? Sshow parstubs from your non-existent job?
The whole thing is a mean-spirited attempt to supress the vote, and the pubs and SC should go to hell for allowing it.
[/QUOTE]
I feel sorry for your mother. But sheeze, in the greater scope of things, BIG FUCKING DEAL. Don’t get me wrong, your mother was able to get her card. I’m glad. I’m glad she was helped, as well. But we all live in a society, and sometimes that means we have to jump through hoops. My 85-year-old mother had to take the bus to the DMV this week to renew her NY State ID. She’s never driven a car, but she got the ID about 20 years ago after my dad died. She, of course, didn’t bring the right stuff and now has to go back next week, which is somewhat of an ordeal for her. I wish I was near enough to take her. But I’m 3,000 miles away. Maybe someone will be kind enough to help her, as well. I hope so. But I don’t want to throw out a system society has deemed as helpful just not to inconvenience her.
If someone wants to vote, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they jump though some minor hoop. I’m sure organizations will be there to help them. If something were coming down the pike her in SF, I’d mention it to a charity I help out, Little Brothers and Sisters. I really can’t see how some people can so greatly value each vote, then not want to take safeguards that the system is abused. How would you feel if your mother went through what sounds like would be great effort to cast a vote, only to have it nullified by someone else voting twice or voting illegally? Why wouldn’t hat stick in your craw as much as the extra steps one might have to take to cast a vote? She would have gone through all the effort and angst FOR NOTHING. To me, some type of ID verification is long overdue. It is imperative that we preserve the sanctity/integrity of the vote—at least, as much as we can.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Not onlly that, you are going to ask them to pay $13 for the right to cast a ballot or make them admit to a stranger that they are indigent. And how does one prove that anyway? Sshow parstubs from your non-existent job?
The whole thing is a mean-spirited attempt to supress the vote, and the pubs and SC should go to hell for allowing it.
[/QUOTE]
Um… where did you pull this crazy $13 figure from? There’s no such fee.
As long as we’re making stuff up, I’d like to point out that this scheme will prevent Democrats from doing their bi-annual roundup of all the homeless people in the greater downtown area, handing them five bucks and the name and address of the person they’re supposed to represent, and then busing them from precinct to precinct all day.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Good questions.
I don’t know anything about it, really. Very few people are knowledgeable in this area. It is not a core part of law school–it is a rarely taken elective. It’s pretty much limited to a handful of government lawyers, a few non-profits, and academics. In most constitutional law classes, they focus on cases and few important amendments. I would guess that most of my colleagues couldn’t say what the 24th amendment was about to save their lives. People argue what they know, and lawyers in general are much more familiar with the 14th amendment than the 24th.
In short, it could have just been oversight on the part of the parties framing the litigation. If no one raised a 24th amendment issue, the court may have decided to not to address it.
If the reason for not addressing it isn’t obvious to Bruce Ackerman, perhaps the most foremost constitutional law scholar in America, it probably isn’t going to be made clear by anyone but the justices themselves. It would be interesting to see if any of the amicus briefs cited it.
[/QUOTE]
It certainly wouldn’t have been appropriate for the Court to have addressed it sua sponte without it being briefed or argued below.
[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
Yes it would. Remember, someone else filled it out for me.
[/QUOTE]
Stop being intentionally dense. Your provisional ballot can’t be counted if you don’t fill one out. If you don’t challenge the attempt by someone else to vote in your name, of course their attempt will succeed.
Whenever you vote provisionally, you are allowed to find out the result of the determination on your provisional ballot. If the procedures had been properly followed, you could have voted provisionally, then contacted the county elections board to lodge a complaint of fraudulent vote casting. This would have helped them decide what to do with your provisional ballot. If, as you say, there was a signature on the register for that election that didn’t match your filed signature, it is likely that your provisional ballot would have been counted, and the erroneously accepted ballot would have been removed from the tally.
Indeed, the elections people do all sorts of this stuff every election. That’s why election results aren’t certified until a couple weeks after an election at a minimum.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Cite for the proposition that they KNOWINGLY disenfranchised legal voters?
[/QUOTE]
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast Heres a nice story about the deliberate trimming of potential Democratic voters. This has actually been a huge story in many circles.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast Heres a nice story about the deliberate trimming of potential Democratic voters. This has actually been a huge story in many circles.
[/QUOTE]
Palast’s article offers supposition and conconclusaory allegation by the pants-load, but I don’t find any actual fact that shows that eligible voters were KNOWINGLY disenfranchised; a perfectly plausible alternate explanation is that they carelessly excluded people who appeared to be connected to a felony list without proper care.
Perhaps you could quote the line that you contend unambiguously establishes that claim.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Palast’s article offers supposition and conconclusaory allegation by the pants-load, but I don’t find any actual fact that shows that eligible voters were KNOWINGLY disenfranchised; a perfectly plausible alternate explanation is that they carelessly excluded people who appeared to be connected to a felony list without proper care.
Perhaps you could quote the line that you contend unambiguously establishes that claim.
[/QUOTE]
Do you think carelessness in something so important regarding what you mention about is an okay statndard when it comes to enfranchisement?
Can you provide any cites with conclusory proof that this ever happening? I’m certainly willing to accept it it if it exists (except perhaps somewhere in Chicago), since both Democrats and Replubicans engage in some nefarious shit, but the Republicans have raised it to an art form.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
As long as we’re making stuff up, I’d like to point out that this scheme will prevent Democrats from doing their bi-annual roundup of all the homeless people in the greater downtown area, handing them five bucks and the name and address of the person they’re supposed to represent, and then busing them from precinct to precinct all day.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, he made that part up. Didn’t you get that? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Dude, he made that part up. Didn’t you get that? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Dude, didn’t you get that by issuing a “cite” challenge and mentioning Chicago to Mr. Tenth Supreme, I knew that.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Um… where did you pull this crazy $13 figure from? There’s no such fee.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to assume that $13 is the fee in his state for a photo ID, which the person would otherwise have no need for, but if they choose to vote, they need to pay $13 for the voting purpose only.
That being said, it sucks. It really does, but it isn’t limited to this. Government in this day and time has instituted such draconian controls on the population that the founding fathers would cringe.
For example, if I need to fly back home because (God forbid) a close family member passed away, then I would have to undergo a rigorous search of my person in order to get on an airplane. Some posters would phrase it as “In order to attend his father’s funeral, he has to voluntarily surrender one of his basic rights.”
It is true. That, to me, is worth more than 13 bucks.
Another example: I am taking college classes this summer. I had to prove that I was vaccinated against the measles. I was vaccinated against the measles…when I was a baby and they etched a record of it on a stone tablet. I can’t prove it, so I had to get a blood test to prove I had the antibodies in my system. Cost: $40. To go back to school and provide a better life for my family.
But I have no constitutional right to college some of you will say. Sure, but don’t I have a right to liberty? The pursuit of happiness? And I have to pay 40 bucks for nonsense.
My point is that DanBlather, while I disagree with most of what he posts, is right on this one. It is outrageous to make an 88 year old woman go through all of that. But we have all surrendered our freedoms in the name of safety or government efficiency a long time ago.
Taking a stand on this voting issue because a small fraction of the population might have to pay a couple of bucks is almost laughable. Where were the libs on every other freedom issue?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
It certainly wouldn’t have been appropriate for the Court to have addressed it sua sponte without it being briefed or argued below.
[/QUOTE]
While that may be true, the court does it from time to time. I don’t think it is safe to assume that they didn’t bring it up because the parties didn’t raise it.
In any case, the parties did raise Harman (the leading 24th Amendment case), and the court seems to have ignored it.
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Do you think carelessness in something so important regarding what you mention about is an okay statndard when it comes to enfranchisement?
[/quote]
Do you think it was right for Buffy to conceal the fact that Angel had returned in Season 3 of BtVS?
I ask because it seems to be time for unrelated questions.
Who cares if I think it’s an okay standard? That’s not what I was asking, nor what I was defending. I was responding to the claim that there was KNOWING action – that’s a different standard than simple negligence or carelessness. I concede they were careless – but that doesn’t give anyone the license to proclaim their actions KNOWING.
I can recommend several good eye doctors in the DC area, if you’re close by.
Until you get there, perhaps this will help. Look closely:
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I’m going to assume that $13 is the fee in his state for a photo ID, which the person would otherwise have no need for, but if they choose to vote, they need to pay $13 for the voting purpose only.
[/quote]
And what are you basing that assumption on, in light of my several citations in this thread showing that the report about the $13 fee is in error, and there is NO FEE for a photo ID.
Not really relevant, and you don’t have a basic right to fly unsearched.
Sure. And I have a right to liberty and pursuit of happiness also. And my happiness will be best satisfied if Helen Hunt comes over and gives me a nice back massage, with oil, and my wife doesn’t kill me immediately after. I assume you’ll be in favor of laws compelling Ms. Hunt to arrive forthwith?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
And what are you basing that assumption on, in light of my several citations in this thread showing that the report about the $13 fee is in error, and there is NO FEE for a photo ID.
[/quote]
I stand corrected. Florida still charges a fee and has the same law as IN.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not really relevant, and you don’t have a basic right to fly unsearched.
[/quote]
But I do have a right to travel. Just not to drive, fly, ride a bus, or walk along the expressway, or anything else without permission or a revocation of my rights. I guess that still counts since they don’t ban a specific method; only all methods.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure. And I have a right to liberty and pursuit of happiness also. And my happiness will be best satisfied if Helen Hunt comes over and gives me a nice back massage, with oil, and my wife doesn’t kill me immediately after. I assume you’ll be in favor of laws compelling Ms. Hunt to arrive forthwith?
[/QUOTE]
You have a right to pursue happiness. You can try to convince Ms. Hunt to provide you with those services. Post a thread on here; maybe she will respond. You can’t stalk her or harass her to the point where you infringe on her liberties.
You can pursue the objective of making your wife okay with Helen Hunt coming over. You can ask her. Hell, she might join in!
But, if she’s like my wife, she will still kill you, but you can pursue that happiness.
You don’t have the right to happiness. Only the pursuit thereof..
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Palast’s article offers supposition and conconclusaory allegation by the pants-load, but I don’t find any actual fact that shows that eligible voters were KNOWINGLY disenfranchised; a perfectly plausible alternate explanation is that they carelessly excluded people who appeared to be connected to a felony list without proper care.
Perhaps you could quote the line that you contend unambiguously establishes that claim.
[/QUOTE]
If its hard for you ,Ill try to get it on audio this time.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
If its hard for you ,Ill try to get it on audio this time.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not quoting a line. That’s a link to an entire article.
Here are some quotes from the article:
(emphasis added)
A MISTAKE. Not a deliberate act. A mistake.
(emphasis added)
An ERROR. Not a deliberate act. An ERROR.
Now, that’s an example of providing quotes from the article. Again I ask: perhaps YOU can quote from the lines of the article that unambiguously establish this as a KNOWING act, instead of the MISTAKE, the ERROR, that I’m reading about.