Voter ID laws: Everyone has an ID, right? Nope

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Huh, you keep asserting that the framers made sure that all votes counted the same when the exact opposite is true.
I assumed you must have read this somewhere so I was curious if you interpreted the Bill of Rights differently than I did.

lol, exactly. Not that it is right, but werent only male, white, land owners allowed to vote by our founding father's standards?

and then of course black people were only counted as 3/5 of a vote.

and women never voted until 1920. Poor people could NOT even vote in the 1960's until the poll tax was removed!!

Even in 2012... American citizens who have committed a felony are not allowed to vote.


now none of that stuff above is okay (except maybe not allowing felons).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

lol, exactly. Not that it is right, but werent only male, white, land owners allowed to vote by our founding father's standards?

and then of course black people were only counted as 3/5 of a vote.

and women never voted until 1920. Poor people could NOT even vote in the 1960's until the poll tax was removed!!

Even in 2012... American citizens who have committed a felony are not allowed to vote.


now none of that stuff above is okay (except maybe not allowing felons).

blacks weren't counted as 3/5 of a vote.
originally, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in deciding population of a state. it was something the southern states forced thru, or else they wouldn't ratify the constitution, as that was the only way to keep an even keel in the house of representatives. they knew that northern populations were much higher, which would put them in a position of less say in congress. and of course that would affect the number of electoral votes as well.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

blacks weren't counted as 3/5 of a vote.
originally, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in deciding population of a state. it was something the southern states forced thru, or else they wouldn't ratify the constitution, as that was the only way to keep an even keel in the house of representatives. they knew that northern populations were much higher, which would put them in a position of less say in congress. and of course that would affect the number of electoral votes as well.

thats correct.. my bad

it was just male property owners.. people who had a financial interest in where the country was heading.

not that is is morally correct, but I understand where they were coming from, and its a big reason why I believe in term limits for Congress today.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

thats correct.. my bad

it was just male property owners.. people who had a financial interest in where the country was heading.

not that is is morally correct, but I understand where they were coming from, and its a big reason why I believe in term limits for Congress today.

yeah, voting varied from state to state back then. there were states that had allowed women's suffrage, and free blacks to vote. all that changed more than one over the first decades of the us's existence.
and absolutely, term limits should be instituted in congress! it exists for the executive, it should for the legislative as well. would certainly keep members from politicking from election to election, with no much actual work in between!!!

[Danzig]

here lori:

Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they come of voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their commander in chief. Congress has sweeping power to govern the District of Columbia, yet more than a half million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.


as for felons, loss of rights isn't necessarily permanent. again, depends on the state. that's why it says above that several deny it for life-it's not all of them.

[Riot]

What justifies blocking the vote of legal American citizens? Nothing.

Voter ID Laws Risk Half-Million Voters' Access To Ballot Box: Report
Posted: 07/18/2012 5:01 pm Updated: 07/18/2012 5:43 pm

WASHINGTON -- A half-million Americans in 10 states with voter identification laws face serious challenges to obtaining the necessary photo documentation, according to a report released Wednesday by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

The report found that while legal precedent requires states to provide free voter IDs to eligible residents who don't have them, even free IDs are not always easy to obtain.

Structural barriers such as lack of transportation, restricted access to ID-issuing offices, the cost of necessary documentation, and bureaucratic red tape could prevent many Americans from voting in November.

About 11 percent of eligible voters lack current government-issued photo IDs, and "seniors, low-income individuals [and] minority voters are particularly overrepresented within that group," the report's co-author Keesha Gaskins told reporters in a conference call Wednesday afternoon.

"The response of proponents of these laws has been, well, just get an ID," said Lawrence Norton, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "Unfortunately, for many people, this is not going to be such a simple solution."

Among the report's findings: In the 10 states with restrictive voter ID laws -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin -- nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office that is open more than two days a week.

More than 10 million eligible voters in those states live more than 10 miles from such offices, a number that includes 1.2 million eligible black voters and 500,000 eligible Hispanic voters.

"The idea that we're forcing certain people to go through these very difficult, extra hoops, I think, is antithetical to some of the founding principles of this country," Norton said.

Gaskins noted that these laws could have some significant political ramifications come November. In Pennsylvania, for instance, where the number of voters lacking state-issued photo ID is greater than President Barack Obama's margin of victory there in 2008, "we're really talking about a population of individuals that can influence the outcome," she said.

Indeed, the new laws, passed in a mix of GOP strongholds and swing states, are widely seen to favor the Republican Party. In Pennsylvania, it seems possible the photo ID requirement could tip the balance to Mitt Romney in November.

Last month, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, admitted as much when he included the passing of a voter ID law in a list of other GOP achievements. He said the new law "is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

A study released on Wednesday by the Philadelphia Inquirer found that the law could have major effects in the strongly Democratic city of Philadelphia.

In the city alone, more than one in four active voters over the age of 80 -- roughly 12,000 individuals -- do not have the necessary photo ID.

Among Philadelphia voters who have participated in at least one election over the last four years, the state found roughly 136,000 individuals whose names and birth dates did not match any ID issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, possibly barring them from voting.

The new voter ID laws are facing legal opposition. In Wisconsin, a judge blocked implementation of the state's voter ID law on Tuesday, citing concerns that eligible voters may have difficulty obtaining the necessary identification. It's the second time the state's law has been blocked, and it means the law likely won't be in effect for the November elections.

Appearing at the NAACP convention in Houston last week, Attorney General Eric Holder said of the laws, "We call those poll taxes." He vowed that "the Justice Department's efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive."

Read the entire Brennan Center report:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...elections-2012