Republicans attempting to disenfranchise voters?

[Selena_Kitt]

Interesting proposed solution in the comment section on the original article:

The Republicans pushed through and then defended in court the requirement that all voters have a photo ID to receive a ballot. What we should do now is to do away with the formal 30 day registration deadline and allow any one with a valid driver's license or state ID to register the day of the election using the address on the ID, which must be within the precinct. Then the only challenge that the vote suppressing Republicans can use is that the address is not in the precinct. Thus the drive of the elitists who make up and are represented by the pro-Amway, pro-Chamber of Commerce, Right-to-life but pro-death penalty, Vote Suppessing Republican Party would actually bring the voter registration system into the 21st Century. All we would need to complete the process is to computerize the registration system and connect it live to the county clerks' offices and the Secretary of State's office to be able to check that data base. Then all interested citizens who wish to vote would be able to vote.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Interesting proposed solution in the comment section on the original article:

There is one provision that the proposal wouldn't meet, citizenship. Don't forget you must be a citizen of these United States in order to vote. Just having a drivers license is not proof of citizenship, as any Tom, Dick or Jorge can get a drivers license in most states.

 

[sr71plt]

That's not what I said. I just said there is no right for citizens to vote in federal elections guaranteed by the constitution. It is left up to the states as to whom will be able to vote so long and they don't violate the provisions of race, religion, creed, or sex in limiting that vote.

The states have the power to expand or contract the voter pool within their state. Not the republican or the democrat parties.

Sorry. There are a whole bunch of federal laws controlling the federal part of any election. This is not controlled by state law and the federal laws, not any state laws set forth who can vote--and how--in a federal election. When you go to the polls you are voting in either a state-only balloting or you are voting in a combined federal and state balloting. It's all transparent, but there are two sets of election laws in play. And for the federal part of the election, it is the federal law that prevails.

It's nonsense to think that everything we do is controlled either in the wording of the U.S. Constitution or it flips down to the state level. There have been two hundred years worth of federal law building up since the U.S. Constitution was inked, and its all just as binding as the Constitution is (until/unless the U.S. Supreme Court abrogates it as not compatible with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution).

Bottom line: You are absolutely wrong that state law controls voting in a federal election.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, no offense, but you formulated your opinions some thirty years and haven't changed a thought since.

That's not true. I used to be opposed to the death penalty but now I'm for it. I have changed my registration betwen Dem and Rep several times over the years and it's Dem right now. In the coming election, I expect to vote for more Dems than Reps, although I also expect to vote for McCain.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
If the Huffington Post told me it was going to be a bright, sunny day tomorrow, I would be sure to have my raincoat and umbrella handy.

If you pay even the slightest bit of attnetion, you will see that the Huff is just recapping.

It's the Michigan Messenger that's telling you stuff.

(Whoever they are, some local rag?)

I saw that, although I don't know how accurately they recapped what was said.

Who or what is the "Michigan Messenger." According to their masthead, they publish quarterly, which doesn't give me much confidence in them either. I remember quite well a rag named "the Berkeley Barb" when I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area. I read the Barb sometimes, but more for amusement than for edification. The writers and editors were such frothing-at-the-mouth radicals that I couldn't take them serously. I did enjoy reading their sex classified ads, though. Maybe the MM is a lot lke the BB.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what the flap is about. Some people are talking about enforcing the voting laws. What's wrong with that? Over the last five years, I have read plenty of carping about violations of the voting laws. Besides that, it's over six weeks until the election, and those who have moved from one place to another, whether because of foreclosure or other reasons, have plenty of time to register at the current address, if they choose to do so. If they are actually interested in voting, they pretty much have to, if they expect to receive their sample ballots and other info.

As for why it makes a difference: The election is not just about the presidency, you know. There are congressional elections, maybe a senatorial election, and probably local and state elections. People are supposed to vote in the precinct in which they live. Somebody who lives in the first congressional district should not be voting in an election in the second congressional district, etc.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The Michigan Messenger is a liberal blog (just found that out).

The Detroit Free Press says the GOP denies saying they were/are going to use this tactic. The original source is sticking to their guns, saying they did say it. So it's he said/she said.

 

[Belegon]

The Michigan Messenger is a liberal blog (just found that out).

The Detroit Free Press says the GOP denies saying they were/are going to use this tactic. The original source is sticking to their guns, saying they did say it. So it's he said/she said.

Personal opinion. If no one had called them on it, they would have used it. Now that people are watching they won't.

*sigh* It's like they are little children testing Mommy and Daddy's limits. The entire last two months I've felt that way about the GOP.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Personal opinion. If no one had called them on it, they would have used it. Now that people are watching they won't.

*sigh* It's like they are little children testing Mommy and Daddy's limits. The entire last two months I've felt that way about the GOP.

That's my speculation as well... but that's all it is. Looks like no one can "prove" anything, either way.

 

[neonlyte]

Personal opinion. If no one had called them on it, they would have used it. Now that people are watching they won't.

*sigh* It's like they are little children testing Mommy and Daddy's limits. The entire last two months I've felt that way about the GOP.

Can't we send them to their room?

 

[fieryjen]

There is one provision that the proposal wouldn't meet, citizenship. Don't forget you must be a citizen of these United States in order to vote. Just having a drivers license is not proof of citizenship, as any Tom, Dick or Jorge can get a drivers license in most states.

True. I've got a driver's license and I definitely shouldn't be able to vote. And I can't think of anything similarly obvious that a citizen could use as proof he/she's a citizen that I don't have.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

True. I've got a driver's license and I definitely shouldn't be able to vote.

damn Jen... that AV! Whew!

 

[Boxlicker101]

There is one provision that the proposal wouldn't meet, citizenship. Don't forget you must be a citizen of these United States in order to vote. Just having a drivers license is not proof of citizenship, as any Tom, Dick or Jorge can get a drivers license in most states.

That's not entirely true. See the attached:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

 

[fieryjen]

That's not entirely true. See the attached:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

Yes, there are some elections where you only have to be a permanent resident, not a citizen, to vote. That doesn't change the fact that having a driver's license says absolutely nothing about whether you're a citizen, a permanent resident, or neither though.

 

[fieryjen]

damn Jen... that AV! Whew!

I like your too, though obviously for entirely different reasons.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yes, there are some elections where you only have to be a permanent resident, not a citizen, to vote. That doesn't change the fact that having a driver's license says absolutely nothing about whether you're a citizen, a permanent resident, or neither though.

I know. Green card holders are routinely issued dirvers' licenses. I don't remember now what is required to get ne, outside of being old enough and passing the driving test. I also don't know what is equired to get a state ID, but there has to be more than just asking for one.

ETA: I ind your AV to be exceptionally hot also.

 

[Belegon]

It is wrong — deadly wrong — to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.

- Lyndon B. Johnson

 

[Boxlicker101]

It is wrong — deadly wrong — to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.

- Lyndon B. Johnson

Nobody would ever disagree with that sentiment. At the same time, there s nothing wrong in seeing to it that only eligible voters vote, and only once apiece.

 

[sr71plt]

Nobody would ever disagree with that sentiment. At the same time, there s nothing wrong in seeing to it that only eligible voters vote, and only once apiece.

Yep, wouldn't disagree with that either.

 

[Belegon]

Nobody would ever disagree with that sentiment. At the same time, there s nothing wrong in seeing to it that only eligible voters vote, and only once apiece.

Box... YOU are disagreeing with that sentiment. IF you turn away a voter that is registered in one municipality in MI on election day because his/her home was foreclosed on... he can't go elsewhere and vote. You have to be registered by Oct. 20th. Nov. 4th is too late.

Therefore, the tactic being discussed would indeed prevent votes. And it is worth noting that the areas being focused on are approx. 60% African-American in a battleground state.

A person who is registered to vote in a town and is in foreclosure is not dead, nor are they trying to vote more than once.

To equate foreclosure lists with voter fraud is transparently false. It is far harder to obtain a home loan than a fake ID, even after deregulation.

 

[sr71plt]

Box... YOU are disagreeing with that sentiment. IF you turn away a voter that is registered in one municipality in MI on election day because his/her home was foreclosed on... he can't go elsewhere and vote. You have to be registered by Oct. 20th. Nov. 4th is too late.

Therefore, the tactic being discussed would indeed prevent votes. And it is worth noting that the areas being focused on are approx. 60% African-American in a battleground state.

A person who is registered to vote in a town and is in foreclosure is not dead, nor are they trying to vote more than once.

To equate foreclosure lists with voter fraud is transparently false. It is far harder to obtain a home loan than a fake ID, even after deregulation.

Again, there are two levels here. If the voter successfully registered ANYWHERE in the United States--or by mail from overseas, they can vote in the federal election--which is really what is being put at stake here, isn't it? They just have to vote where their registration assigned them. They possibly could be caught up in the residence problem for state and local elections, but not for the federal part. Two separate levels of law. If they are registered and as long as they either get to the poll where their name is on the books or to the registration district office of where they registered--or send in an absentee ballot, they can vote for the electors who vote for the president and vice president.

And if they are confused or don't think they can get it done, they can go at this very minute to any campaign office of the party they want to vote for in the presidential election, and they will get help to get it done--they could even go to the party they aren't going to vote for; whoever helps them won't see how they actually voted. (They just have to allow enough time for the helpers to get clear what to do and to have time to get the voter there before the poll closes.)

Someone up the line put their thumb on the real issue here. If you can throw up flak in the air about false assumptions being operable, you can convince a lot of folks just not to make the attempt. This thread shows that you certainly can throw the flak up there.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Someone up the line put their thumb on the real issue here. If you can throw up flak in the air about false assumptions being operable, you can convince a lot of folks just not to make the attempt. This thread shows that you certainly can throw the flak up there.

The former is what I'm afraid of. And I guess, depending on how long this remains in the media between now and then, we shall see about the latter.

 

[fieryjen]

I know. Green card holders are routinely issued dirvers' licenses. I don't remember now what is required to get ne, outside of being old enough and passing the driving test. I also don't know what is equired to get a state ID, but there has to be more than just asking for one.

ETA: I ind your AV to be exceptionally hot also.

I don't have a green card and I've had a driver's license for years. I just needed a visa.

And thank you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I hear the MI state GOP is going to sue the Soros-funded website that created this for libel.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box... YOU are disagreeing with that sentiment. IF you turn away a voter that is registered in one municipality in MI on election day because his/her home was foreclosed on... he can't go elsewhere and vote. You have to be registered by Oct. 20th. Nov. 4th is too late.

Therefore, the tactic being discussed would indeed prevent votes. And it is worth noting that the areas being focused on are approx. 60% African-American in a battleground state.

A person who is registered to vote in a town and is in foreclosure is not dead, nor are they trying to vote more than once.

To equate foreclosure lists with voter fraud is transparently false. It is far harder to obtain a home loan than a fake ID, even after deregulation.

Having a house foreclosed does not disqualify anybody from voting. Not living in the place where you are registered might. And it would be voter fraud if a person happened to be registered in several different districts under seversal different addresses.

You know, foreclosure is not a bolt of lightning. The persons to be evicted know about it months in advance, and they can re-register in their new residence, if they have one, during the course of moving there.

I doubt that a potential voter would actually be turned away. They might have to vote provisionally and, if it turns out there is no fraud, their vote would count. Even if this is intended to be a way of dis-enfranchising some voters, it will more likely expose some actual voter fraud.

 

[Belegon]

I doubt that a potential voter would actually be turned away.

..and here is our fundamental difference. Because I have, reluctantly, come to the conclusion that the GOP would gladly do this.

You have said that you rely on TV news and newspapers, yet you post here and obviously know your way around the 'net. Use that knowledge to seek out the deeper truths.

Box, I am certain in the rightness of my convictions. I will not seek to prevent any vote. I do not intend to force anyone to change their opinion.

No, I seek only to educate them about the choice they have to make and about the people they are relying on to fulfill their obligations.

I am confident that, if the truth is known, my choice will be revealed as wise. I have an agenda. Let the truth come out. If I achieve in even one American that they look beyond soundbites and talking points and develop a hunger for truth, then I have accomplished my goal and made the world, not just America but the world, a better place.

I am hopeful. I am optimistic. But I am NOT blind, nor will I ever be again. I can not be blinded by right or left, black or white, male or female. My eyes are open.