Another Brilliant Plan Out of WI

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because, compared to current voter registration poll ID laws, it amounts to narrower requirements that are essentially a poll tax and screening process.

It requires, for example of students, a school picture photo ID - and not one college in Wisconsin issues one of those, and the Republicans know it (which is why they chose it)It changes the dates you have to live in an area before voting (again, eliminating students).

It forces more people to vote a provisional ballot, which are normally not counted (unless an election goes to recount)



Not everybody has a car, especially elderly. It costs money to get a DMV photo ID (that's a poll tax)

Your ability to vote is not tied to your ability to drive a car, get to the DVM and be able to afford a non-driver ID, the ability to have a bank account, etc. The Republicans are trying to do that, to eliminate people that generally vote Democratic.



No, the Republicans want to disinfranchise students, young new first time voters, etc - those that tend to vote Democratic.

The cases of voter fraud are few and far between, and most have been felons voting when they should not. That's a false reason for changing voting laws.

This isn't a secret Dell - the RGA targeted this action for it's governors before the 2012 election as a necessary Republican goal, and they are doing it in multiple states.

Actually I believe most universities in the state do have photo ID's. I still have one from UWM and that was over 15 yrs ago. I would be surprised that they do not have photo ID's in the state universities. You usually need it to get into many of the different facilities on campus (ie- health center, gym, library, etc)

If the an elderly person doesn't have a car and can't drive how would they vote? If they can find a way to vote, don't you think they can find a way to get an ID. Actually the state is willing with this bill I believe to pay for the photo ID's for those who supposidely can't afford to pay the $10-25 it would cost to get a state issued ID.

It amazes me that the people that can't seem to afford the ID's or would be disenfranchised by this can find a way to get thru all the red tape and obtain food stamps and other governement entitlement programs, which are much harder to obtain then simply getting a photo ID.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Actually I believe most universities in the state do have photo ID's.

The news is saying they do not, and it would cost millions to change them over. So? Don't know. I was surprised about the no photo thing.

If the an elderly person doesn't have a car and can't drive how would they vote?

Absentee. They have changed the time frame on being able to do that, to make that more restrictive. And I know that around here, there are buses that bring the elderly to the polls to vote.

If they can find a way to vote, don't you think they can find a way to get an ID. Actually the state is willing with this bill I believe to pay for the photo ID's for those who supposidely can't afford to pay the $10-25 it would cost to get a state issued ID.

It amazes me that the people that can't seem to afford the ID's or would be disenfranchised by this can find a way to get thru all the red tape and obtain food stamps and other governement entitlement programs, which are much harder to obtain then simply getting a photo ID.

This is a blatent attempt to disinfranchise and make voting rights more restrictive. They've been trying to do so for years without success. I would think every American would be against that. Especially the most conservative folks. It's been proven that "voter fraud" isn't a big problem anywhere. So why should any of this be changed in the first place? Why is it justified to change the law in the face of ... not a problem currently? The RGA admits that this will make it harder for voters that tend to lean Democratic to vote. That is the whole point of doing it, and everyone knows it. It's a political ploy.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

The news is saying they do not, and it would cost millions to change them over. So? Don't know. I was surprised about the no photo thing.



Absentee. They have changed the time frame on being able to do that, to make that more restrictive. And I know that around here, there are buses that bring the elderly to the polls to vote.



This is a blatent attempt to disinfranchise and make voting rights more restrictive. They've been trying to do so for years without success. I would think every American would be against that. Especially the most conservative folks. It's been proven that "voter fraud" isn't a big problem anywhere. So why should any of this be changed in the first place? Why is it justified to change the law in the face of ... not a problem currently? The RGA admits that this will make it harder for voters that tend to lean Democratic to vote. That is the whole point of doing it, and everyone knows it. It's a political ploy.

Because voter fraud is very hard to prove. There have been many stories of political groups going around and giving smokes or cash to people if they go and vote. There is nothing restrictive about showing a photo ID. If the government is willing to pay for everyone to have a photo ID what is the issue? You need a photo ID to buy cough syrup. How else can you prove that the person that actually voted is the same person recorded in voting records? How would you know there is fraud if there is no way to prove the fraud? Is your real name Lena Taylor?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Because voter fraud is very hard to prove. There have been many stories of political groups going around and giving smokes or cash to people if they go and vote.

That wouldn't be corrected by showing a photo ID, would it?

If those people are registered voters, that's electioneering. Not voter fraud. They are absolutely entitled to vote.

And if they are not registered to vote, they can't vote - can they? - unless they follow the current voter law for provisional voting.

Face it - voter fraud is a red herring for this change.

There is nothing restrictive about showing a photo ID.

When the current ID types available to enable one to vote are arbitrarily changed so that only one or two types of ID are now required, and it's markedly more restrictive, that take a particular effort or cost (poll tax) obtain, that's absolutely a restriction of voting rights with the purposeful attempt to disinfranchise particular groups of voters.

Not to mention the changing of dates to register, the residence requirements, etc.

This is a blatent attack on the voting rights of American citizens, certain demographics deliberately targeted by the RGA, and everyone knows it - it is no secret.

If the government is willing to pay for everyone to have a photo ID what is the issue? You need a photo ID to buy cough syrup. How else can you prove that the person that actually voted is the same person recorded in voting records?

Gee - the very way we do it now?

How would you know there is fraud if there is no way to prove the fraud? Is your real name Lena Taylor?

How would you know there is fraud when you don't see it? Imaginary boogeymen?

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

That wouldn't be corrected by showing a photo ID, would it?

If those people are registered voters, that's electioneering. Not voter fraud. They are absolutely entitled to vote.

And if they are not registered to vote, they can't vote - can they? - unless they follow the current voter law for provisional voting.

Face it - voter fraud is a red herring for this change.



When the current ID types available to enable one to vote are arbitrarily changed so that only one or two types of ID are now required, and it's markedly more restrictive, that take a particular effort or cost (poll tax) obtain, that's absolutely a restriction of voting rights with the purposeful attempt to disinfranchise particular groups of voters.

Not to mention the changing of dates to register, the residence requirements, etc. This is a blatent attack on voting rights of American citizens, certain demographics deliberately targeted by the RGA, and everyone knows it - it is no secret.



Gee - the very way we do it now?



How would you know there is fraud when you don't see it? Imaginary boogeymen?

In WI you can register to vote day of the election at the polling place.
So bribing people to go vote is electioneering, but requiring them to show a photo id is disenfranchising. I get it now. Thanks

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

In WI you can register to vote day of the election at the polling place.

And what happens to that vote? Depends on what the election is for, right? You might check out your own election laws. They are on the internet, just google "voting requirement Wisconsin".

So bribing people to go vote is electioneering, but requiring them to show a photo id is disenfranchising. I get it now. Thanks

They have to show ID now. Maybe you should go read your current voting laws before you change them.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

And what happens to that vote? Depends on what the election is for, right? You might check out your own election laws. They are on the internet, just google "voting requirement Wisconsin".



They have to show ID now. Maybe you should go read your current voting laws before you change them.

No you do not have to show ID to vote. You don't have to show an ID to register to vote either. You do have to show something with your address on it to register to vote, but once registered you do not have to show anything to vote. That person could have moved, etc and could be voting twice