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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get identification for himself and then experiences the consequences of that decision.

The courts have said that the requirement for the photo ID in the first place, is indeed discriminatory. That's why these laws are being throw out and overturned. Sorry: judicial system says you are wrong.

BTW, Joey, what do you think about this statement? "It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get health insurance for himself then experiences the consequences of that decision".

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

The courts have said that the requirement for the photo ID in the first place, is indeed discriminatory. That's why these laws are being throw out and overturned. Sorry: judicial system says you are wrong.

BTW, Joey, what do you think about this statement? "It is not discrimination when an individual chooses not to get health insurance for himself then experiences the consequences of that decision".

Fortunately I can think for myself.

Should ALL ID requirements be thrown out then? No identification to drive, fly in a plane, get a credit card, should we get rid of passports? The thing about judicial findings is that they set precedent, so we'll see where this goes. It is unlikely, that over the long term, that the polling place will be the only place where ID is not required.

What does it matter what I think? You'll cite a judicial finding when it goes your way, or try to hang me with my own opinion - whatever suits your goal, just like the liberals and Democrats in power, and the press. Just like when gay marriage is banned after a referendum, the court throws out the law. But when that vote goes in the direction the liberals like, "Hey, the people have spoken! Hooray for democracy!" Their playbook is so obvious that it is laughable.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Fortunately I can think for myself.

But you refuse to extend that legal right to your fellow citizens. Especially pregnant women.

Should ALL ID requirements be thrown out then? No identification to drive, fly in a plane, get a credit card, should we get rid of passports? The thing about judicial findings is that they set precedent, so we'll see where this goes. It is unlikely, that over the long term, that the polling place will be the only place where ID is not required.

Hello? It appears you - and Danzig - don't understand the subject.

There already exists, in 100% of our states, laws set by the states where various forms of ID is required to register and vote.

That already exists. Okay? Nobody is trying to throw that requirement for Voter ID out. Okay?

These laws regarding Voter ID we are discussing are specifically making it more restrictive, making only certain types of ID acceptable. These new laws are throwing out what some states now currently find acceptable for voter ID.

That - increased, narrowed requirements to vote with only certain and specific types of Voter ID - is what is being found as discriminatory.

[Danzig]

i thought i'd do some digging, to see if any voter id laws had reached scotus. i know individual states have been working, or not working, on such laws, so i wanted to see if any had a ruling at the fed court level. i figured i better do some checking, for myself, as nothing was ringing a bell on the subject, but that may just mean i didn't see it.
so, this is one of the very first things i found:

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/..._voter_id_law/

scotus voted 6-3 in favor of indiana's voting law, which required id. an excerpt from the above linked article:


'Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, found no showing of an undue burden on various voters who challenged the voter ID law on its face. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito would have upheld the law on the broader ground that it imposed the same requirements equally on all voters. Both opinions give great weight to the state interest in ensuring that only eligible voters cast ballots. Justice Souter, joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, dissented.

This is a major defeat for the Democrats' efforts to prevent states from requiring valid identification to vote. The lawsuit was brought by the Indiana Democratic Party.'

.......i think that the part about imposing the same requirement on all voters is absolutely the key! regardless of who needs an id, the steps are the same for all-not just for some. therefore, id requirements are absolutely not a form of discrimination.

[Danzig]

my question now is, why does the DOJ continue to attack individual states voter id laws, when the supreme court ruled that way back on '08?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my question now is, why does the DOJ continue to attack individual states voter id laws, when the supreme court ruled that way back on '08?

Hint: you've completely misunderstood the subject, that is not what the DOJ is currently "attacking".

[Riot]

Why is the GOP/ALEC instituting newly restrictive voter ID laws? As other Republicans have already admitted publicly, it's because they will do anything to cheat and win an election. Disgusting.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_...d_black_votes/

Florida's disgraced former GOP chairman Jim Greer says in legal deposition that the party had meetings about "keeping blacks from voting" and "suppressing black votes"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i thought i'd do some digging, to see if any voter id laws had reached scotus.

Why don't you read some recent newspapers, and see the lower federal courts throw outs of current ALEC-GOP voter ID laws? Like the ones previously posted in this thread?

Nobody is trying to throw out any requirement for voter ID.

The ALEC-GOP laws in discussion are deliberately trying to narrow what type of Voter ID is permitted, and that narrowing has already been found, by federal courts, as discriminatory.