Hallelujah!

Source:
ASSOCIATED PRESS 4.28.08
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -
"States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court's 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana's strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures. Oklahoma legislators said the decision should help them get a version approved..."

This has been fought and stopped here in Missouri by the Democrats among others. It's a shame IMO. This will not disenfranchise voters, since the state must produce the IDs, and there being no cost to citizens, there isn't a monetary loss here either. That didn't matter to those who hold those myths to be true and gave that message.

I hope this will come about again sometime in the future. I think it's a good thing.

I haven't read the ruling yet so I am not going to comment on it now but many of you know my thoughts. Any voter ID law that requires voters to spend money to vote should be unconstitutional. One thing is for sure, and local Republican lawmakers need to listen up, this will not change anything in MO because the MO high court ruled on the law as it applies to our state Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:
... Any voter ID law that requires voters to spend money to vote should be unconstitutional.

Very interesting mischaracterization...

A person needs to spend money (a tiny bit) NOT to "vote", but rather to identify themselves as an non-felon American citizen of legal voting age.. We must also "spend money" to hunt, fish, cash a check, drive, sell real estate, practise law, repair plumbing, be a builder, run a business and a number of other Constitutional things.

Most people, by far, have already done this in a variety of ways. What we are after is the ones who haven't, or are not eligible to vote, or whose names are identical with other people's, or who have already voted.

That be okay with you? Please?

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:
I haven't read the ruling yet so I am not going to comment on it now but many of you know my thoughts. Any voter ID law that requires voters to spend money to vote should be unconstitutional. One thing is for sure, and local Republican lawmakers need to listen up, this will not change anything in MO because the MO high court ruled on the law as it applies to our state Constitution.

I think you just did comment.

Seth and I have argued over this before. He is of the opinion that any requirement to provide an ID for the purpose of voting is unfair to poor people. The States have been wrangling over this for some time now, and Homeland Security has gotten involved. It is just too easy to obtain a fake birth certificate--and that is the way illegal immigrants often obtain driver's licenses and SS cards. The concern is that a terrorist would find it easy to get a fake id as well. But I see nothing wrong with requiring voters to prove they are who they say they are--and that they are in fact registered and eligible to vote. Otherwise, we might as well save the taxpayers money and let everybody phone in their votes like American Idol.

Voting is a privilege, not a right. You can lose your right to vote if you become a felon or if you don't meet the requirements such as registering, or if you try to vote in the wrong district, etc. If ID requirements create a hardship for individuals, they can lobby their representatives for assistance. But we should not drop the requirement just because a few individuals will be inconvenienced.

What? Asking voters to show identification before they VOTE?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The nerve of our government!

Next thing you know they may require identification or some type of paperwork before people get government assistance... wait. They do that already.

Of course liberals don't want people identified before they vote.

GO FIGURE.

quote:

I think you just did comment.

I am not commenting on the ruling until I read it because I don't know the specifics of the Indiana law at bar. My comments pertain to how various photo ID laws can offend state and federal Constitutions.

quote:

Of course liberals don't want people identified before they vote.

I thought you would jump in to offer your distortion. I don't mind at all state's mandating that citizens identify themselves before they vote, so long as they do not have to pay money in order to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:

quote:

Of course liberals don't want people identified before they vote.

I thought you would jump in to offer your distortion. I don't mind at all state's mandating that voters identify themselves so long as they do not have to pay money in order to do so.

Didn't Missouri law offer government money for ID to those that said they couldn't afford it?
I'd have to check but I thought you liberals complained that would be "embarrassing."

Bottom line Seth, should people have to identify themselves before they vote????

quote:

Bottom line Seth, should people have to identify themselves before they vote????

Yes they should as long as they do not have to pay money in order to be able to vote.

quote:

Voting is a privilege, not a right.

§ 1971. Voting rights

(a) Race, color, or previous condition not to affect right to vote; uniform standards for voting qualifications; errors or omissions from papers; literacy tests; agreements between Attorney General and State or local authorities; definitions
(1) All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.
(2) No person acting under color of law shall—
(A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;
(B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election; or
(C) employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any election unless

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001971----000-.html

The cry of "disenfranchisement" is being made, but can be handled with a bit of careful legislative drafting and some reasonable provisions for the truly needy who cannot afford $10 or so for a State ID card, or need a ride to the DMV. We could even, presumably, make it possible for County Clerks to issue the ID cards, or special ones for those in need... free of charge if they will come in with their birth certificate.

The benefits far outweigh the inconvenience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

ASSOCIATED PRESS 4.28.08
"...Those states that worry election advocates because of ongoing efforts to pass strict photo ID laws include Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. But it appeared unlikely Monday that legislators in those states would be able to push any such measures through before November's general election.

In Missouri, where the state supreme court overruled a previous photo-ID law, Republican Rep. Stanley Cox earlier this year proposed a constitutional amendment requiring such identification. He'd been waiting on the Supreme Courts decision before aggressively lobbying for it, but with Missouri's legislative session due to end May 16, Cox said Monday that the high court's ruling came too late.

"As a practical matter, the voters probably won't have this choice until 2010," Cox said.

Across the country, as many as 20 million people lack such identification, most of them minorities and the elderly who don't have drivers' licenses or passports and are unable to afford the cost of obtaining documentation to apply for such identification, advocacy groups say.

In Indiana, more than 20 percent of black voters do not have access to a valid photo ID, according to an October 2007 study by the University of Washington.

In Marion County, 34 Indiana voters without the proper identification were forced to file provisional ballots in an offseason local election. According to Indiana's photo law, voters have 10 days to return to the county courthouse with the proper identification. They can also file an affidavit claiming poverty."

quote:

We must also "spend money" to hunt, fish, cash a check, drive, sell real estate, practise law, repair plumbing, be a builder, run a business and a number of other Constitutional things.

Voting is protected in rather different ways by the law than fishing.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:
...who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote;

Key passage...