High court allows Arizona to enact new voter id law

[ted]

No ID is needed to vote.

We could simply use purple dye on the fingers to ensure that people who have voted already do not try to cheat the system.

t.

What about illegal immigrants?

Just kidding, actually.

I think that some form of ID is porper in these times to prove oneself is who they say they are.

t.

[buckthesystem]

I heard a guy tell the following story from his home state. In front of him were several men who were speaking Spanish. When he tried to ask one to hold his place in line while he went to the bathroom, all he got was a blank stare. Clearly none of the men spoke English. Yet one by one they were led to the voting booths.

Right behind one man, he was able to see and hear what was going on. The man SIMPLY POINTED a name on the register without a signature next to it! Even the election worker seemed stunned. She looked at him and said: "YOU are 'Roger Wilson'?"

"Jes...."

"OK, sign here," she said turning the book around for him.

He watched as the man put one finger under the printed name, then slooooowly signed in cursive. And then he went and voted.

This man's turn came next, and he said to the poll worker: "There is no way in hell his name is Roger Wilson." She sadly replied, "I know, but we're not allowed to ask anyone for proof of identitity."

METHINKS THERE'S A PROBLEM!

Leonard, "..I heard a guy tell the following story" Now that sounds a bit third or fourth hand, or maybe just "hearsay" or maybe it was a case of "Chinese wispers" or maybe it was just an "urban legend" or maybe it was a story made up by someone with an "axe to grind". Either way, not terribly reliable.

Even assuming that something like this DID happen, you (and others) are doing a lot of assuming by claiming that the man was not "Roger Wilson".

Remember the buzzwords Leonard: "scepticism", "ask questions", "check up on 'factoids"

[buckthesystem]

This is already an exsisting problem here. I agree with others who said; ..." these rules are needed to combat fraudulent voting".

Having been a judge at elections time; I can tell you that yes , it is sorely needed. People voting in California without proving who they are is a serious problem.

There have been democrats at their booths even bragging how they send frauds in to vote to gain edge here!

I have seen that people do not enforce seeing ID a good deal of the time.

It is all too easy for anyone to look at the books in the hall, see whom has not shown, as time gets clsoe , send in a false person to steal that vote!

I personally strongly reccomend that people insist at voting polls to see everyones photo ID ! and stop using excuses like it will take too much time. I was fast enough at it and the others could of bothered a WHOLE lot more to do it also.

my 2 cents on how it is here.

God bless ya,

elkie

So what to do if people don't have any "photo id"? Does that mean that they are disenfranchised?

Or should they go to the expense (and possibly compromising their principles) just so as they can exercise their democratic right to vote?

The question still remains: Are people without "photo ID" to be disenfranchised? Or are they expected to go to the expense and possibly compromise their principles by "getting photo ID" to exercise their basic rights?

[Leonard]

Anyone either too stupid or too lazy to get a photo ID when they are so readily available should NOT be voting! And probably couldn't anyway, because they would be to lazy or too stupid to dress or feed themselves.

NO ONE will be 'disenfranchized.' This is "Liberal-speak" for "We want to continue our massive fraud. Please let us!"

[JustinM]

quote buck: "Are people without "photo ID" to be disenfranchised? Or are they expected to go to the expense and possibly compromise their principles by "getting photo ID" to exercise their basic rights?"

So, what's your plan to limit voter fraud and to allow only legal American Citizens to vote?

B-T-W: The ID's cost 6 dollars and they only have to be purchased once. Just ask these same "poor disenfranchised" people if they have a driver's license, when they say they do, just remember driver's ed costs over $100.00 to take and in many states, DL #'s cost over 20 bucks to renew. Anyone can afford a voter id card. And for those that a truly desperate, the voter ID cards are free, courtesy of you and me and they only have to buy them once in a lifetime. 6 bucks ain't too bad a price to pay to make sure those that are elected were truly elected by real, living, breathing, legal American citizens. Some elections have beend decided by the dead. How rediculous is that? The dead don't speak, let alone crawl out of their graves and walk to the nearest voting station.

I think we should remove people from the voter verification process anyway and use the voter id's to validate a person's identity in a voting database and once that person votes, with that ID, that person's name is removed from elegibility status for that election.

The only people that are against the voter ID's are people that depend on the flaws of our election process to gain an adavantage over their opponents. Instead of letting the Americans decide who their government should be, these opposers don't care. Now, why would someone encourage a system to remain flawed, when it effects so many people's lives? Because, they would rather use that to justify their claims of an illegitimate election when they lose. So they can stonewall, filibuster and feel completely justified in doing so.

They want to cast doubt on an election when they lose. (funny, how their policies of letting just anyone vote without verification, are the true reasons why there's any doubt in the first place)

[JustinM]

you need to look up the term disenfranchised anyway.

It means to withdraw certification or franchisement.

disfranchise is the proper term to use, when talking about withdrawing a privilege that comes with a citizenship, such as the right to vote, but it can also be applied to people who cannot get a handgun, because they do not have the proper ID card to get one. They are being disfranchised.

But, you can jump on the "disenfranchisement" bandwagon and look ignorant if you're comfortable with that.

[JustinM]

disenfranchisement:

n : the act of withdrawing certification or terminating a franchise [ant: certification]

WordNet

[other one]

This is already an exsisting problem here. I agree with others who said; ..." these rules are needed to combat fraudulent voting".

Having been a judge at elections time; I can tell you that yes , it is sorely needed. People voting in California without proving who they are is a serious problem.

There have been democrats at their booths even bragging how they send frauds in to vote to gain edge here!

I have seen that people do not enforce seeing ID a good deal of the time.

It is all too easy for anyone to look at the books in the hall, see whom has not shown, as time gets clsoe , send in a false person to steal that vote!

I personally strongly reccomend that people insist at voting polls to see everyones photo ID ! and stop using excuses like it will take too much time. I was fast enough at it and the others could of bothered a WHOLE lot more to do it also.

my 2 cents on how it is here.

God bless ya,

elkie

So what to do if people don't have any "photo id"? Does that mean that they are disenfranchised?

Or should they go to the expense (and possibly compromising their principles) just so as they can exercise their democratic right to vote?

Ahhhhhhh.....simply put..... Yes. If you are not willing to prove who you are you should not be voting.

s

[other one]

Or should they go to the expense (and possibly compromising their principles) just so as they can exercise their democratic right to vote?

What kind of principles keep one from having proof of who he is?

[JustinM]

Principles of ulterior motives. (Such as voting more than once per election or being ineligible to vote since they do not posess US citizen status)