Clay Bennett for December 28, 2011

They are republicans now.

Why should they have to?

Come on! How rare are people that voted 2 years ago that do not have an ID? What does the National Census say?

What about the Democrats pals…. ACORN. Talk about voter illegalities.

The “small government” party, LOL!

If they can’t get off the couch to obtain a photo ID that won’t be accepted, why would they leave the couch to cast a ballot?

why is voting in america with all these hoops to jump through is harder than voting in iraq where they use purple ink and a thumb print.

Of those people how many would vote if they had the chance. They can afford most everything else,why not an ID. Not every state charges for IDS. If they really wanted to vote they would get an ID.

So far, many of the people who haven’t been able to spend an afternoon in the DMV getting their photo IDs have been frail elderly. I suppose if you’re 90 and only have limited mobility you shouldn’t have the right to vote anyway, amirite?

The Rethugs want voting to be as difficult as possible, on a working day, with hoops to jump through because they do not believe in democracy.

A key to the voting machine is all the Republicans have needed to counter many voter registration drives. Having the majority on the Supreme Court hasn’t hurt either.

I know a lady on welfare who has no problem going all over the city on the bus. Its just an excuse.

Short answer: It isn’t, but two wrongs still don’t make a right. Or is that too sensible for anyone here?

You are dense because you think everyone wants to vote.t

Yes, but over 50% of them were DEMOCRATS!

A question for those who think voter ID won’t suppress voting: Are you willing to provide college students and nursing home residents to receive new ID cards with a current address each time they move?

Do homeless people have a right to vote? How do they get proof of residence? At first thought, I thought it was reasonable to ask people to identify themselves and prove they live in the district — that’s more or less what I do when I vote in Canada — but then I wondered about homeless people. In general I suppose I’m in favor of more or less automatic registration — I’ve never registered where I live, but years ago someone came around the neighborhood with a clipboard and checked everyone, and I’ve been on the voters’ list ever since.

I should mention that I’m also a US citizen and I can vote in US elections, as well.

yeah!!!! lets keep the disenfranchise disenfranchised!!!

Voting in America is harder because conservatives are scared of the people. It’s that simple.

There has been no significant proof of voter fraud in the last four presidential elections. Tampering by vote officials is a different matter. One wag even suggested that GWB be allowed to campaign again , given that he did not actually win the two presidential elections that he was a candidate for.

Dumb argument as always. Cigarettes require one photo id not several. And store clerks don’t care if all your information matches the gubbermint data base or if you moved from your current residence within a year. They also don’t cut the days required to buy cigarettes. Your biggest fallacy is assuming that all poor people smoke and drink. Plus the ID check is only mandatory when a person looks or acts like a minor.

Fewer than 330 cases of voteer fraud have actually been prosecuted in the last 10 years out of millions and millions of votes cast , and the vast majority of those were mistakes in registration. Someone has clearly invented a cure for which there’s no disease.

I don’t understand why people complain about showing an ID to vote. You have to have one to register so what is the problem with showing it to vote. It may get rid of all the dead people voting some of them more than once in different areas.

There is no constitutional basis for requiring a photo i.d. for voting. Regressives want this law, because they know that they can’t get another Florida of 2000 or Ohio of 2004 anytime soon.All progressives and other Americans who love our nation must mobilize everyone to attend to the proposals of the Republican candidates and then, in November, vote for President Obama to keep America moving forward. When more Americans vote, the better candidate usually wins.

@Grandpa’saracist

“Can you show me a state that is requiring more than one photo ID when voting?”

You’re obviously taking my quotes out of context so let me elaborate. A license or a state id will get you a restricted product that should not be sold to minors. Voting is a right. Georgia is requiring one of six different types of ids (formerly 17), out of which one of them, a $20 id (the cheapest), is available in 56 out of the 150 DMV’s in the state. Exactly what does a product that deals with commerce (not guaranteed) have to do with voting rights (guaranteed)?

“There are laws on the books (in most States) against felons voting. Should we disregard them? And what does this have to do with the argument that the price and inconvenience of an ID disenfranchises the poor.”

No one is saying that we should disregard the law concerning people who have forfeited their right to vote. The problem, as illustrated with Georgia, is that it is forcing people who registered to vote to go out and spend money to buy something that might be out of their price range. You might think that $25 bucks for an id is nothing, but consider the time you have to take off of work to stand in line and then the hassle of proving to the state who you are via birth certificate, s.s. number, or other pieces of information they might not have on their person. It then becomes a hassle to go look for these pieces of information and the time lost from their jobs (especially those living from paycheck to paycheck) begins to become expensive for them and thus no votes. Its like a poll tax on the voters. As for the matching gubbermint data bases people who tend to move every year are automatically disenfranchised as well as college students who may have their residence at their mom’s house on their id or license while living in a dorm at college. It also messes up people with a Jr. and Sr. title associated with their names or someone who put 6"2 in one id and 6"3 on another.

“It’s his RIGHT to go into a store and buy a legal product, and he’s being discriminated against by a law that makes this impossible unless he has an ID. Why aren’t you upset about this?”

Simple answer is because cigarettes are not a right guaranteed under the constitution (you know, that piece of paper that you guys don’t like that says everyone who’s a citizen can vote). Purchasing a product is not a right. Protection from discrimination based on sex, race, or religion is a right (i.e. can’t purchase cigarettes because you’re a man/woman). Big difference.

“Some ridiculous argument about OTC counters and how they discriminate by being behind the counter for ephedrine and meth”

Same thing with regard to cigarettes: Not protected by the constitution. I will agree that its ridiculous to ask for ID for over the counter medicine (Tim McVeigh made a bomb out of fertilizer and motor oil). Plus there are lots (and lots) of alternatives that don’t have ephedrine in them (like Nyquil). Quit with the shell games.

Edit: Further research from the FDA website says you’re full of it. The law requires retailers to “examine a photographic identification bearing the person’s birth date to verify that any person purchasing cigarettes or smokeless tobacco is at least 18 years old. Verification is not required for purchasers who are over the age of 26”. It means they choose who they get to ID. BTW no where in the entire site does it say that purchasers have to “sign a log book”. Quit lying.

I’ll concede the point about the law. You were truthful for once (yeah go ahead, frame this). So it was the War Shrub who made it a pain in the a(word) to buy cold medicine. Never knew that. Another reason onto how he expanded gubbermint. But I digress.

The fifth amendment says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

You sure we’re reading the same law? Cause to me this has to do with due process and self incrimination. It also says that the gubbermint can’t take away your stuff without compensating you for it. No where does it say that you have the right to buy property. But anyway looks like we’re drifting from the main point of regulating a right vs. regulating a product.

Regulating property and products is well within the gubbermint’s power, but setting laws that go against the guaranteed laws of the constitution isn’t (hence the phrase unconstitutional). That’s why we don’t have poll taxes or exams before you vote. Its voter suppression plain and simple.