We differ on the significance of the problem. Republicans are perfectly happy to suppress 1000 legitimate votes in order to prevent 50 illegitimate ones, because and only because the legitimate suppressed votes would benefit Democrats. You need to present a case that the cure is not worse than the disease.
Consider Florida- a 91 year old decorated World War II veteran was informed by the state that he was not a citizen and must request a hearing to prove his citizenship if he wants to vote. Hundreds of fully eligible citizens are being purged from the voting rolls. The Miami Herald claims that the purge list targets Democrats and Hispanics. If this does not outrage you, then I dare say you have a problem.
Let me see if I got this: some people got in front of a camera, and said they were illegal aliens protesting for the DREAM act. Naturally, you believe them, despite the daunting consequences. So, this is what, three? Five people? No matter, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that illegal aliens are not scared off from illegal voting, because you saw this!
So then it is but a simple leap to claim that illegal aliens are voting in huge numbers. Not that you have any such numbers, but they would be caught if we had the proper laws in place, and then you could prove it! But you know that they are, of that much you are certain. Because these guys talked in front of the magic TV camera of truth.
So, what happens to your proof if those guys were lying? What if they figured it was OK to lie as a “spokesman” for someone who couldn’t dare take that risk? Then what?
Maybe it isn’t the DREAM act? Maybe its all part of that movement to take back the SW US and give it to Mexico, or start their own country with Zombie Cesar Chavez as President! Maybe that is why this phantom army of illegal immigrants are crowding into our polling places! Which you know they are, because those guys said so! Well, they said they were illegal aliens, same difference!
You know, for guys who claim to represent solid reason and logic, you guys take more leaps of faith than a hyperactive kangaroo.
I disagree. You want the voter ID law, you conduct a study showing that X number of illegitimate votes will be suppressed and Y number of legitimate votes will be suppressed. Unless you can show that X is much larger than Y, then there is no basis for writing the law.
The vet in question is a US citizen, else he would hardly be raising a stink about it.
Oh? Have you seen his long-form birth certificate? OK, so he fought at the Battle of the Bulge, won a medal. Big deal, maybe he just doesn’t like Germans!
*You *want to make a change, *you *have the burden of proof, both factual and moral, 'kay?
Unless you’re trying to assert this remarkable concept of " the controlling principle of law in lawmaking" as real, and something more than “whatever my side can get away with to their advantage”, that is. Is that it?
Except that the first line, “We all want open, honest and fair elections and registration processes”, is patently and sadly untrue. The evidence is that we don’t *all *want that, even if we should.
If you want to change the status quo, the onus is on you to prove the benefits exceed the drawbacks. I don’t see the compelling interest nor do I see care taken to not disenfranchise legitimate citizens.
I should have phrased my question more clearly. What I meant to ask you was, “In light of the evidence in that report of 748 invalid votes being cast in that election, do you now concede that at least 748 invalid votes were cast in that election?”
And they could fix it, if they chose. That’s what gives away the game, more than anything else. They could fix it. How about an outreach program, to identify problem voters and provide them with reliable ID? See anything like that? How about a voter registration program, like the League of Women Voters does!
That would be pretty damning, wouldn’t it? If they follow up on laws to make it more difficult for unsavory voters with laws making it more difficult to register voters, that would sure give it away, wouldn’t it? Good thing they didn’t…oh, wait, they did.
But that isn’t about partisan political advantage, nosir! That’s about the protecting the pristine purity of our voter rolls from ACORN! OK, the League of Women Voters! Same thing!
oooh, the lack of an outreach program is proof of a desire to violate rights!
Lessee here…I can prove a massive conspiracy to disenfranchise criminal defendants of their right to represent themselves pro se because there is no government outreach program to encourage and assist them to/in exercise(ing) their right to do so.
there is no government outreach prgram to assist and encourage people to avoid 4th amendment violations, therefore it is proof the aims of our government are to disenfranchise people of those rights.
there is no government outreach program to encourage and assist those who wish to exercise their right to free religion, speech, etc., thereby proving bad faith on the part of the government.