I would think you were just normal dumb if it weren't for you being so profoundly and uniquely dumb in such a sadly predictable way.
Really sucks when the constitution disagrees with your core prejudices, eh?
same judge that was overruled earlier on a similar ruling.
Same judge that was "a former Democratic state senator, was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...ds-to-cast-ballots-b99764677z1-387501461.html
hack judge is a hack.
Texas went out of it's way to provide free voter ID and special voter birth certificate for those who couldn't afford them. If they can't get to the buses/vans that were sent around to facilitate this process how do they get to the poles for voting? I know the veterans group I belong to helped local retirement home residents get theirs and some even registered to vote by mail which is available to Texas residents over 65.
I don't understand why people are against having a license or some other form of picture identity. I guess I'll never understand it
If you're for no ID - I hope you at least consider some decent form of identification, whatever that might be. Casting a vote or eliminating fraud should be a huge concern for everyone, in both sides. If the poor do not have state ID's (confused how that's possible) well I think everyone would be willing to pay for this person to get a proper ID. I'd much rather pay and uphold the integrity of such a vote than to just say it's a free for all
I don't understand why people are against having a license or some other form of picture identity. I guess I'll never understand it
If you're for no ID - I hope you at least consider some decent form of identification, whatever that might be. Casting a vote or eliminating fraud should be a huge concern for everyone, in both sides. If the poor do not have state ID's (confused how that's possible) well I think everyone would be willing to pay for this person to get a proper ID. I'd much rather pay and uphold the integrity of such a vote than to just say it's a free for all
Because one again voter Fraud is not the problem you claim it to be.
A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
They can't see that all their arguments are based on the falsehood that voter fraud is real & that it's part of the persecution of the right wing.
When anybody says 'Show me the fraud!" they just act like they already did.
There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a States interest in counting only eligible voters votes.
The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indianas cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of personse.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificateis mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerks office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners right to the relief they seek. Pp. 1316. .
Let's review what the SCOTUS said in their 6-3 ruling.
Again though, even if it's constitutional it's still stupid because it's an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. Literally any burden is wasteful when there is no benefit to it.
LOL at a Keynesian talking about being wasteful. Hell, you should be celebrating the multiplier effect of this and unlike 99.999% of the other things you support this one actually has a real benefit.
Let's review what the SCOTUS said in their 6-3 ruling.
You should be happy that this is limiting the government's power to restrict your rights.
You have that exactly backwards.
The judge is limiting my voting rights by effectively permitting vote fraud the sum of which denies me a meaningful right to "one man, one vote".
If I were to propose a "fair" rule it would be that you should have to do the same things to vote as you do to buy a gun.
Both are enumerated rights that are equal in law so it stands to reason that any requirements for them should also be equal.
You apparently don't know shit about the constitution.
I know there isn't jack fucking shit in the Second Amendment that says I have to have an FBI background check before I can buy a rifle. So if you want to argue that anyone can vote without any challenge or any limit then don't bother me with a bunch of limits on my other rights.
Try reading the 24th amendment.
And who's proposing an illegal poll tax? All that's being proposed is that people should identify themselves when they go to vote in order to maintain the integrity of the vote.
And if you can't afford an ID then either one will be secured for you or else there are other ways to establish your identity.
No one is proposing a poll tax.
And who's proposing an illegal poll tax? All that's being proposed is that people should identify themselves when they go to vote in order to maintain the integrity of the vote.
And if you can't afford an ID then either one will be secured for you or else there are other ways to establish your identity.
No one is proposing a poll tax.
You aren't smart enough for a discussion on a forum. That requires following along.
I understand that you live in cartoon Springfield but here in the real world transportation for a 3 hour round trip to get your "free" ID actually costs money. If your documents aren't correct you maybe taking a nice out of state trip to get your birth certificate fixed.
The government does not have a legal obligation to make the purchase of weaponry free.
I'm addressing the direct and indirect cost that government imposes on the purchase of a firearm. This is the same principle as government imposing a cost on voting.
The government has a legal obligation to make voting as free as possible.
The government does not have a legal obligation to make the purchase of weaponry free.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.