Should the U.N. support the NAACP in their

[Heretic]

push against voter ID Laws?

With the NAACP appearing before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva asking for help in the fight against election ID laws enacted by 31 states and 15 states asking for Photo ID.

Should we allow an outside force to regulate and/or observe voting this election?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... ed-nations

[CUDA]

don't usually feel this way. But I have something to say to those that want us to prove they are who they say they are.

PISS OFF that's too damn bad

[Foil]

Huh? Where are you seeing anything about the U.N. "regulating" elections? The U.N. cannot regulate or administrate or handle U.S. elections, period!

What they are asking the U.N. for is political support (i.e. help in pushing the States away from legislation they feel is unjust). I don't know if the U.N. will offer it's support, but there's nothing regulatory or enforceable about it.

----------

Now, if your question is, "Should the U.N. support the NAACP in their push against voter-ID laws?", that's a much more interesting topic.

[Tunnelcat]

Yeah CUDA, if you happened to be poor and born at home (no birth certificate), never drove a car or got an SS card (which, by the way, has no picture on it), like many rural people did in the past, who now tend to be poor, Democrats and seniors now, I'll bet you'd have a hell of a time getting that damn photo ID. Around 18% of seniors now fall into the category of having NO PHOTO ID. My grandmother never drove a car and never had a driver's license. In fact, she never had an ID with a photo on it AT ALL. Yet, she was born in the U.S., a citizen of the U.S. and voted in every election as was her civic duty. So all those Republicans and their essentially poll tax, voter suppression voter ID laws can go PISS OFF and F**K THEMSELVES.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217 ... -wont-vote

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/re ... es_in_2012

You'll notice that maybe 5 million Americans might be affected by these laws, just above the margin of victory in the last several Presidential elections. So Republicans can only win by suppressing those most likely to vote Democratic. Figures, since RepubliCONs can't win on their crazy platform, so they have to steal it.

If I ever needed to prove my own citizenship, I might even have a problem. My birth certificate is only a certified photostat, not an original and there is an adoption in the middle to complicate things. Hospitals back then tended to lose or destroy birth records too. I'd be willing to bet that someone, somewhere, would try and disqualify it as proof of birth and thus a valid reason for supplying me a photo ID if I ever lost my driver's license to age. My husband can no longer see well enough to drive and will now have to pay for a photo ID when his license expires next year, just to vote in the future.

[Heretic]

Yes I guess the question should be "Should the U.N. support the NAACP in their push against voter-ID laws?"

[CUDA]

Yeah CUDA, if you happened to be poor and born at home (no birth certificate), never drove a car or got an SS card (which, by the way, has no picture on it), like many rural people did in the past, who now tend to be poor, Democrats and seniors now, I'll bet you'd have a hell of a time getting that damn photo ID. Around 18% of seniors now fall into the category of having NO PHOTO ID. My grandmother never drove a car and never had a driver's license. In fact, she never had an ID with a photo on it AT ALL. Yet, she was born in the U.S., a citizen of the U.S. and voted in every election as was her civic duty. So all those Republicans and their essentially poll tax, voter suppression voter ID laws can go PISS OFF and F**K THEMSELVES.

ya I call bull★■◆● to that. and all those election rigging Democrats that just want to stuff the Ballot box so they can stay in power can go PISS OFF and F**K THEMSELVES. (see I can be a naive political hack about it too )
My Mother-in-law was born AT HOME in 1936 out side of Spokane Washington in a little town called Deer Park, She has never driven a day in her life, she walks everywhere at the age of 76, she has a Oregon ID card and a Oregon Voters registration card BECAUSE SHE CHOSE TO MAKE THE EFFORT TO GET ONE.
so it is possible to get that identification, stop making excuses for doing what it right.
You cannot buy beer without ID, You cannot fly without ID. You cannot check out a book from the Library without ID, why do these people feel that they should have the right to vote without ID?

[woodchip]

I'm wondering how these identityless seniors worked and now collect social security and medicare? How do they show up on the census? For the younger peeps, if they are male they have to get a social sec. card and thereby register for the draft. In most all cases you can go to a state office and get a free state ID card. There is really no excuse to have no valid I.d. card unless you are a Demoscammer bent on voting in multiple polling stations.

[fliptw]

They might have the case if voting itself was mandatory, but the UN hasn't chided Australia for that.

NAACP should be working to get more people ID, rather than bitching at a sane law.

[Tunnelcat]

The problem is that these types of laws disproportionately disenfranchise the poor and seniors, who by the way, are more likely to be Democratic voters. How do people like these afford or obtain a photo ID when it may cost money, require travel and absolute proof of identity, that many do not have access to? And CUDA, my one grandmother, who never drove, NEVER had a photo ID in her entire lifetime, and yet she had no problems voting or registering at her precinct either.

Having a photo ID is also approaching that murky point at which everyone is required to have a national ID, something that starts smelling an awful lot like Fascism. I agree that the Dems have gone overboard with lax voter registration policies, but why shift so far the other way in response and disenfranchise a whole chunk of our society that is the least able to comply? And why essentially start down the road to a national ID program in a free country?

[Heretic]

It may be a moot point if voter ID laws disenfranchise anyone with the Supreme Court upholding Indiana's strict photo ID requirement in 2008

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns ... 4oCe6vgh8E

[CUDA]

The problem is that these types of laws disproportionately disenfranchise the poor and seniors, who by the way, are more likely to be Democratic voters. How do people like these afford or obtain a photo ID when it may cost money, require travel and absolute proof of identity, that many do not have access to? And CUDA, my one grandmother, who never drove, NEVER had a photo ID in her entire lifetime, and yet she had no problems voting or registering at her precinct either.

Having a photo ID is also approaching that murky point at which everyone is required to have a national ID, something that starts smelling an awful lot like Fascism. I agree that the Dems have gone overboard with lax voter registration policies, but why shift so far the other way in response and disenfranchise a whole chunk of our society that is the least able to comply? And why essentially start down the road to a national ID program in a free country?

I'm calling BS on the disenfranchisement again, only about 50% of the population currently votes. do you not think that if that 50% is going to make the effort to vote then that same 50% will make the effort to get a ID card to do so.

Trust me, if something is THAT important to a person they will make the effort to get that ID. I dont hear the disenfranchised argument against drivers licenses or any other type of ID card WHY?? maybe because they don't bus people from a different state for a single day to influence a drivers test.
IMHO the legitimacy of the election is more important than the "Possibility" of someone getting disenfranchised.
hell you cant even get a job in this country with out an ID card

[Jeff250]

Why not just start putting photos on voter registration cards? I'm hesitant to overload social security numbers, driver's licenses, or, worse, "Insert Company Name Here" photo id's for the purpose of voter authentication.

[Jeff250]

It doesn't even seem like we're all talking about the same thing here. Heretic opened the thread talking about photo id's, whereas there has been a lot of talk about how people should use social security cards, but these don't have photo id's. What do we think is a fair and reasonable way to authenticate voter identities?

[CUDA]

in Oregon you need a birth certificate (no photo copies) and a piece of mail sent to you with your address on it to get your drivers license. I think that's a good start

[woodchip]

It doesn't even seem like we're all talking about the same thing here. Heretic opened the thread talking about photo id's, whereas there has been a lot of talk about how people should use social security cards, but these don't have photo id's. What do we think is a fair and reasonable way to authenticate voter identities?

Photo's via a State ID card at the very least. They are usually free and at the very least someone needing one who doesn't drive can get a friend or relative to take them to get one. After all, if they are so poor and disabled that they can't go to get a ID, how would they get to the polling station to vote?

[Heretic]

It doesn't even seem like we're all talking about the same thing here. Heretic opened the thread talking about photo id's, whereas there has been a lot of talk about how people should use social security cards, but these don't have photo id's. What do we think is a fair and reasonable way to authenticate voter identities?

It's more like should the UN get involved in our Voter ID laws.

http://www.my9tv.com/dpp/news/U.N.-Righ ... s_20120314

[callmeslick]

in Oregon you need a birth certificate (no photo copies) and a piece of mail sent to you with your address on it to get your drivers license. I think that's a good start

Thereby, most black people born in the South before around 1958 couldn't get a license. No hospital birth, no state birth certificate.

[callmeslick]

It doesn't even seem like we're all talking about the same thing here. Heretic opened the thread talking about photo id's, whereas there has been a lot of talk about how people should use social security cards, but these don't have photo id's. What do we think is a fair and reasonable way to authenticate voter identities?

Photo's via a State ID card at the very least. They are usually free and at the very least someone needing one who doesn't drive can get a friend or relative to take them to get one. After all, if they are so poor and disabled that they can't go to get a ID, how would they get to the polling station to vote?

in many states, after much government cutback, there are few DMV centers to get licensure. On the other hand, most folks are within a very close distance, often walking distance of their polling place. One thing I wonder about is how this law would apply to registered voters voting by absentee or other mail ballots? Given that has always been the GOP choice for voting shenanagins, it seems to be an option not looked at, that I've seen.

[Tunnelcat]

in Oregon you need a birth certificate (no photo copies) and a piece of mail sent to you with your address on it to get your drivers license. I think that's a good start

Well, mine is a copy from an old microfilm, that probably doesn't exist anymore either. At least I got a driver's license years ago and established my identity well before the new modern age of paranoia with immigrants and birth certificate birther craziness.

CUDA, if you're that ONE senior or poor person that doesn't have a driver's license or photo ID and can't get out to obtain that ID because of the lack of a birth certificate or the ability to travel or have money problems, that's not democracy for you is it? If you want people to have a photo ID, it must be at least made free to obtain by the government that requires it, or else it's a poll tax.

[Heretic]

No one reads.

But supporters of photo ID requirements argue that states provide such identifications for free, and in some cases, voters can cast provisional or absentee ballots that do not even require a photo ID.

[Zuruck]

IDs aren't free in Illinois.

I love the argument that Democrats stuff boxes. The occurrences of actual voter fraud are so slim it's ridiculous to even worry about. You guys like to think what some of the voter registration people did was actual voter fraud, but it's not. I could sign any name on a registration ballot, but it only becomes a crime when I show up to vote under that name.

This is only to make it as difficult as possible for a certain segment of society to vote...and I don't think I need to remind everyone which party that segment usually votes for. It's no wonder why it's always the GOP that wants to have ID laws.

[CUDA]

IDs aren't free in Illinois.

I love the argument that Democrats stuff boxes. The occurrences of actual voter fraud are so slim it's ridiculous to even worry about. You guys like to think what some of the voter registration people did was actual voter fraud, but it's not. I could sign any name on a registration ballot, but it only becomes a crime when I show up to vote under that name.

This is only to make it as difficult as possible for a certain segment of society to vote...and I don't think I need to remind everyone which party that segment usually votes for. It's no wonder why it's always the GOP that wants to have ID laws.

and your argument against the ID law is??????

because you don't seem to have one.

[Zuruck]

The argument is that voter fraud is an extremely small occurrence--no legislation is needed.

The only reason it is being proposed is to keep a segment of population that usually votes Democratic from voting at all. The states that dont have voter ID laws don't suffer from some massive amount of voter fraud...it's all bull★■◆● designed to keep as few voters from the boxes as possible.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think we all owe Zuruck an apology. Zuruck, had we known that you had your finger on the pulse of all voter fraud, not just the unsuccessful voter fraud, we would have come to you for your opinion instead of muddling around in the dark. We are truly sorry.

[Zuruck]

No apology necessary Thorne. You guys always bash the tremendous amount of legislation that is passed everyday...this is another example of that. It's just unnecessary...no reason to do it. Each election we hear stories of voter fraud this and that, but it's actually a miniscule amount. Why so much focus on this? It's truly not a big deal.

[woodchip]

in many states, after much government cutback, there are few DMV centers to get licensure. On the other hand, most folks are within a very close distance, often walking distance of their polling place. One thing I wonder about is how this law would apply to registered voters voting by absentee or other mail ballots? Given that has always been the GOP choice for voting shenanagins, it seems to be an option not looked at, that I've seen.

Well if the Dems can go out and round up the local wino's and take them to the polling stations, Or bus protestors to bank executives homes, I should think they could get out and take people out to the DMV office to get a voter ID.

[Heretic]

He's right no voter problems going on.

Attorney General: 900 Dead People Voted In SC

[Sergeant Thorne]

The whole point is that there could be more or less voter fraud taking place in the country, on a grand or local scale, and Z wouldn't necessarily know any more about it than anyone else. His assumption may be right, or he could be ignorant of the 10% that decides the next election. Where there's a possibility there's a problem, in my mind. But as always I'm sure there's another agenda if this is going to become a big issue. It's a problem that needs to be addressed, but IMO odds are if it is addressed in this political climate it will result in an encroachment on privacy. Not many people in our government seem to having a clue (or a care) when it comes to handling problems constitutionally.

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, that pails to the voter suppression, ie., voter ID laws, that will disenfranchise anywhere between 3 to 5 million Americans. No contest.

Even if 900 dead people voted in all 50 states, it still doesn't come close to the numbers of those who would be denied the privilege of voting under these new laws. Republicans are just fixing the vote in their favor, just like their voter caging activities, and are plain un-American.

[Zuruck]

Heretic, this is from the South Carolina Election Commission. It's the investigation done after people talked about those "900" people.

While the SEC has not yet been provided with all the information on which the claims are being made, the Attorney General's office has provided a small sample - six names from Abbeville County. A review of the voter registration lists and signatures on the poll lists from the elections in question revealed that of these six:

One was an absentee ballot cast by a voter who then died before election day;
Another was the result of an error by a poll worker who mistakenly marked the voter as Samuel Ferguson, Jr. when the voter was in fact Samuel Ferguson, III;
Two were the result of stray marks on the voter registration list detected by the scanner - again, a clerical error;
The final two were the result of poll managers incorrectly marking the name of the voter in question instead of the voter listed either above or below on the list.

With the presidential primary looming on January 21, the SEC was compelled to find out if any of the 37,000 voters identified by DMV as deceased had requested absentee ballots for the primary. This research found 10 voters in 8 different counties applied for absentee ballots. The SEC immediately asked local election officials to provide us with copies of the voter registration and absentee applications signed by these voters. In every case, the signatures on these forms were matched, and each of these ten voters was confirmed to be alive.

A small sample size? Yes, But if you can't see past the 900 dead being more or less errors, then you believe in one too many conspiracies. By the way, 900 out of a voting population of 2.5 million, do you know what that percentage is? .0036%

[Heretic]

Still you see no problems

Approximately 24 million—one of
every eight—voter registrations in the
United States are no longer valid or
are significantly inaccurate.
More than 1.8 million deceased
individuals are listed as voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people
have registrations in more than one
state.
Meanwhile, researchers estimate at least
51 million eligible U.S. citizens are
unregistered, or more than 24 percent of
the eligible population
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/upl ... ration.pdf

New York
A study by the Poughkeepsie Journal in October 2006 of the state's then-new statewide database found that the list contained as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and that as many as 2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave.

[Heretic]

Still you see no problems

Approximately 24 million—one of
every eight—voter registrations in the
United States are no longer valid or
are significantly inaccurate.
More than 1.8 million deceased
individuals are listed as voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people
have registrations in more than one
state.
Meanwhile, researchers estimate at least
51 million eligible U.S. citizens are
unregistered, or more than 24 percent of
the eligible population
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/upl ... ration.pdf

New York
A study by the Poughkeepsie Journal in October 2006 of the state's then-new statewide database found that the list contained as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and that as many as 2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave.

[Zuruck]

Heretic, you should look to see if what you're posting has been debunked before you claim it to be true.

A 2007 investigation of approximately 100 "dead voters" in Missouri, for example, revealed that every single purported case was properly attributed either to a matching error, a problem in the underlying data, or a clerical error by elections officials or voters.[29] Likewise, after compiling a list of potential "dead voters" in New York state, a Poughkeepsie journalist investigated seven local cases - and found that seven out of seven reflected clerical errors or other mistakes, not fraud.[30] An investigation in Hawaii in 1999, after reviewing precinct pollbooks and calling allegedly deceased citizens, similarly found that not one of 170 potential "dead voters" actually reflected fraud.[31]

From
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/re ... committee/

That's actually a pretty good article. I suggest you read it. Specifically the part where they talk about how "dead" people actually vote (which they don't but the names / d.o.b. match up with a citizen that is still alive). I know you won't read it and I know that you'll still think dead people are voting for Democrats. But at least think about it.

[CUDA]

but you still fail to make an argument against a Voter ID card

as was stated before, you need a photo ID for the following

Driver's license
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Apply for welfare
Apply for food stamps
Cash a check
Purchase a firearm
Make any large credit card purchase
Open a bank account
Rent an apartment
Be admitted to a hospital
Get a marriage license
Go to the movies (if you're underage)
Fly
Check out a book at the Library


So why is it that I need a Photo ID to be allowed to participate in these most basic things. but when it comes to electing into office the most powerful man in the world people don't seem to think it's necessary to have photo ID. there is no good argument against it, the Myth of the disenfranchised voter is as unprovable as the busing in of people from Mexico or out of state to vote

it's called integrity, to insure the integrity of the election prove that you are who you claim you are.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Heretic, this is from the South Carolina Election Commission. It's the investigation done after people talked about those "900" people.

While the SEC has not yet been provided with all the information on which the claims are being made, the Attorney General's office has provided a small sample - six names from Abbeville County. A review of the voter registration lists and signatures on the poll lists from the elections in question revealed that of these six:

One was an absentee ballot cast by a voter who then died before election day;
Another was the result of an error by a poll worker who mistakenly marked the voter as Samuel Ferguson, Jr. when the voter was in fact Samuel Ferguson, III;
Two were the result of stray marks on the voter registration list detected by the scanner - again, a clerical error;
The final two were the result of poll managers incorrectly marking the name of the voter in question instead of the voter listed either above or below on the list.

With the presidential primary looming on January 21, the SEC was compelled to find out if any of the 37,000 voters identified by DMV as deceased had requested absentee ballots for the primary. This research found 10 voters in 8 different counties applied for absentee ballots. The SEC immediately asked local election officials to provide us with copies of the voter registration and absentee applications signed by these voters. In every case, the signatures on these forms were matched, and each of these ten voters was confirmed to be alive.

A small sample size? Yes, But if you can't see past the 900 dead being more or less errors, then you believe in one too many conspiracies. By the way, 900 out of a voting population of 2.5 million, do you know what that percentage is? .0036%

6 out of 900 and someone who doesn't accept that as convincing is a conspiracy nut? If 6 out of 900 doesn't impress you, it just means you weren't the sucker born that minute, if you ask me.

[Zuruck]

Thorne, the point of the investigation is that, of the six they randomly pulled, each was verified as an error and not fraud. I'm sure if they investigated all 900 it would end with similar results.

[Tunnelcat]

it's called integrity, to insure the integrity of the election prove that you are who you claim you are.

If you're so concerned with integrity, what about potential election rigging occurring with the new electronic voting machines? How easy would it be to rig an election through virtual votes? Most of these machines have no checks and balances for verification and are controlled by the very companies that make them. Republicans are going after the actual voters in so many ways, but yet putting a blind eye to those who control the ballot boxes that can just as easily be stuffed. Probably because it benefits them. Bush's win in 2004 comes to mind.

[CUDA]

it's called integrity, to insure the integrity of the election prove that you are who you claim you are.

If you're so concerned with integrity, what about potential election rigging occurring with the new electronic voting machines? How easy would it be to rig an election through virtual votes? Most of these machines have no checks and balances for verification and are controlled by the very companies that make them. Republicans are going after the actual voters in so many ways, but yet putting a blind eye to those who control the ballot boxes that can just as easily be stuffed. Probably because it benefits them. Bush's win in 2004 comes to mind.

you're worried about checks and balances on a voting machine but you care nothing about checks and balances on those casting the votes???

HRM so to use your logic, probably because it benefits the Democrats

I'm not against more checks on the voter machines, but lets start with the easy and logical solution first. ID cards

I'll re-ask my question since no one opposed to the ID law has had the courage to answer it

Driver's license
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Apply for welfare
Apply for food stamps
Cash a check
Purchase a firearm
Make any large credit card purchase
Open a bank account
Rent an apartment
Be admitted to a hospital
Get a marriage license
Go to the movies (if you're underage)
Fly
Check out a book at the Library

So why is it that I need a Photo ID to be allowed to participate in these most basic things. but when it comes to electing into office the most powerful man in the world people don't seem to think it's necessary to have photo ID.

[Spidey]

If you don’t have ID you are pretty much disenfranchised from life, not just the political arena…so voting is the least of your worries.

[Foil]

I'll re-ask my question since no one opposed to the ID law has had the courage to answer it

Driver's license
Buy alcohol
Buy cigarettes
Apply for welfare
Apply for food stamps
Cash a check
Purchase a firearm
Make any large credit card purchase
Open a bank account
Rent an apartment
Be admitted to a hospital
Get a marriage license
Go to the movies (if you're underage)
Fly
Check out a book at the Library

So why is it that I need a Photo ID to be allowed to participate in these most basic things...

Is that list specific to your home state? I count at least seven of those I've personally done (some in Oklahoma, some in Colorado) without providing a photo ID.

I support photo-ID checking in principle, but only in states where such an ID is established and obtainable by all citizens of all kinds. Otherwise, I put the photo-id bills in the same category as other legal partisan wrangling (redistricting, caging, busing voters, etc.).