New Wisconsin voter ID Law

[UncleBuck]

Buck..

Not sure I just remember Acorns efforts on getting people registered and helping minorities vote in the cities. So they will be alright. Its that simple.

if there's one thing you hate, it's minorities. especially when they vote.

you even said you don't "see a solution for it anytime soon".

 

[NLXSK1]

no, you are the racist one here.

i am simply presenting facts.

if the election were held tomorrow with voter ID, 25% of blacks would be disenfranchised.

that's 10,000,000 disenfranchised blacks alone to prevent an average of 100 fraudulent votes.

Bucky logic is that 100% of blacks who dont have an id are too stupid to figure out how to get one to vote so all of them will be disenfranchised by the man...

That is the stupidest argument you have made yet and that is really saying something.

You dont want to debate, you just want to troll your talking points out there and see who bites so you feel all the hours you waste sitting on a pot website are justified. I would not be surprised to see framed photos of debates you have had here on RIU in your home.

If you dont know you are full of shit at least everyone else does...

 

[UncleBuck]

Bucky logic is that 100% of blacks who dont have an id are too stupid to figure out how to get one to vote so all of them will be disenfranchised by the man...

i never said that, only you did.

i just pointed out that 10 million blacks would be disenfranchised if elections went forward with voter ID tomorrow.

all that to solve an inconsequential 0.0001151% of fraudulent votes, less than 100 in the whole nation combined every election.

ABALEXCESS logic.

 

[nitro harley]

if there's one thing you hate, it's minorities. especially when they vote.

you even said you don't "see a solution for it anytime soon".

Buck..

I just gave you the solution.=Acorn See how simple that is.

 

[ChesusRice]

so i'm retarded because you are too afraid to answer a simple question?

btw, i went searching and found nitro's link.


633 cases of voter fraud since 2000. that's 4 elections with about 100 million votes cast, and another 3 elections with about 50 million votes cast.

so 633/550,000,000 = 0.0001151%

WOW! we had better disenfrnachise about 10% of voters to fix that 0.0001151% discrepancy!

Break it down further
How many of those were actually felons voting, that were not elgible due to their states laws?

 

[ChesusRice]

And none of these black people are capable of getting an ID? You are worse than racist UB...

You going to pay the expense for them getting a Photo ID?

 

[ChesusRice]

Buck..

I am sure acorn could help them out like they did before.

There is no more ACORN.
And ACORN was never convicted of anything

 

[UncleBuck]

Break it down further
How many of those were actually felons voting, that were not elgible due to their states laws?

i'll give those to them, since it is conceivable that those could have been prevented due to voter ID.

but i bet a ton of them were voter REGISTRATION fraud, not preventable by voter ID.

 

[ChesusRice]

i'll give those to them, since it is conceivable that those could have been prevented due to voter ID.

but i bet a ton of them were voter REGISTRATION fraud, not preventable by voter ID.

Those felons that voted got caught becuase they used their name. A ID would not of prevented them from voting since they didnt know they couldnt vote.

 

[UncleBuck]

Those felons that voted got caught becuase they used their name. A ID would not of prevented them from voting since they didnt know they couldnt vote.

good point. i guess they don't keep a list of ineligible felon voters at the polling station.

 

[SmokeyDan]

how many cases of voter fraud were there in the last election that could have been prevented by voter ID?

There is no way to know.

 

[kelly4]

How easy will it be for someone in a nursing home to replace the drivers license that expired 20 years ago?

We should all have ID numbers tattoo'd on our necks.

 

[greenlikemoney]

they ask for your ID when you use cash?

goddamn, the anecdotes get stupider and stupider.

How does a welfare rat get cash? Did he/she cash a check? Oh, wait.......

 

[Harrekin]

So just to summarise...

The Dems don't want voter ID because they're saying black people are too stupid/poor to get one?

And in the same breath they'd call Republicans racist?

 

[ChesusRice]

So just to summarise...

The Dems don't want voter ID because they're saying black people are too stupid/poor to get one?

And in the same breath they'd call Republicans racist?

It isnt just "the blacks" It's the elderly, college students, working people.
Hey but thanks for commenting Mcdickhead

 

[ChesusRice]

Since 2011, Republican lawmakers in swing states have pushed hard for new restrictions on voting, from voter identification to new rules on early voting and ballot access. “Nine states have passed measures making it harder to vote since the beginning of 2013,” notes the New York Times, and other states “are considering mandating proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or passport, after a federal judge recently upheld such laws passed in Arizona and Kansas.”
Jamelle Bouie
Jamelle Bouie is a Slate staff writer covering politics, policy, and race.
Voting rights advocates have attacked these laws as blatant attempts to suppress the votes of low-income and minority voters, but Republicans defend their actions as justified to protect “voter integrity” and ensure “fairness” and “uniformity” in the system. Here’s Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman on a bill—signed last week by Gov. Scott Walker—to end early voting on weekends. “Every city on election day has voting from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The idea that some communities should have weekend or night voting is obviously unfair,” he said. “It’s a matter of uniformity. I don’t know what all the hoopla is over,” he told Reuters.
The fact that some communities have a greater demand for voting than others reduces Grothman’s logic to obvious nonsense. To wit, under the constraints established by the new law, voters in the cities and large suburbs of Wisconsin are at a disadvantage compared to their rural counterparts. For example, Republicans have limited total early voting time to 45 hours during the week. In order to accommodate the number of early voters in 2012 under that time limit, explained Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, you’d have to have a voter cast a ballot every nine seconds. Areas with fewer voters, of course, would have an easier time.
a recent paper from Keith G. Bentele and Erin E. O’Brien, there’s a clear pattern to the incidence of voter restrictions. States that elected Republican governors, increased their share of Republican lawmakers, or became more electorally competitive under Republicans were more likely to pass voter identification and other limits on the franchise. The same was true for states with “unencumbered Republican majorities” and large black populations—they were especially likely to pass restrictive measures. Not out of racial animus, but because African-Americans are a reliable Democratic constituency.
It’s clear that these laws are driven by partisanship—an effort to manipulate the rules of elections to blunt the impact of demographic change on Republican prospects. It explains why North Carolina Republicans coupled their push for voter ID with an assault on student voting (closing precincts near colleges and universities and blocking students from running for office) which leans Democratic. Indeed, partisan voter suppression is Texas Attorney General Greg Abott’s defense against allegations of racial discrimination with its new voting law. “The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations,” wrote Abott in a brief, “and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary.”
Republican voter suppression might not be an explicit attempt to target low-income and minority voters, but as far as effects go, it doesn’t matter either way. The outcome is still one where minorities and low-income Americans have a harder time at the polls.
It should be said that none of this is new. Most Americans are familiar with race-based voter suppression—the poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses of Jim Crow—but those are part of a larger history of partisan voter suppression that stretches back to the early 19th century. After a flood of Irish immigrants tipped the electoral scales and threatened Whig electoral prospects in New York, observes Alexander Keyssar in his book The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, Whig lawmakers rushed to pass tough new registration rules for New York City, which contained the largest concentration of Irish voters. What’s more, in states like Missouri, Maryland, and Indiana, Know-Nothing and Whig lawmakers sought to delay voting rights for naturalized citizens, fearing the political consequences of large-scale immigrant enfranchisement.
This fear wouldn’t go away, and would become a preoccupation of Republican lawmakers in the Northeast. In the late 1880s, for instance, New Jersey Republicans pushed a measure that would have required naturalized citizens to have their naturalization papers when voting—a precursor, of sorts, to voter ID. “A sad feature” of New Jersey’s requirement, noted the New York Herald, “was that many persons will be deprived of their vote, as their papers are either worn out, lost, or mislaid.” It’s a worry that should sound familiar to anyone concerned about the impact of a strict ID requirement for voting.
Today’s voter suppression is the clear echo of a familiar past, where an earlier generation of American politicians worked to adjust to immigration, racial change, and newly competitive elections.

 

[Doer]

Had the same shit when I lived in GA. I also had to show proof of residency and proof of citizenship to renew my medical license that I had renewed with no issues the last 10 years. I couldn't believe the amount of hoops I had to jump through.

Same with the length of time for the ID but you get a temporary one while standing that there is good for 30 days.

I travel so I am licensed in a few different states. Arizona needed two letters of colleagues proving I am who I say I am, Kentucky makes me take the same 4 hr Aids class every 2 years. Kansas pretty much said welcome aboard can we get you coffee with that?

It's not very uniform, that's for sure.

A 4 hour AIDS test. WTF a duck? ??????? How can that be legal?

 

[Doer]

If they are in a NH they have ID unless they are paying cash for their stay. If they can afford to pay cash to stay in a NH then they can afford to get an ID if they wanted to. Most NH drive their residents to the DMV.

Not saying requiring ID isn't a hindrance. I had to go online to have a copy of my birth certificate mailed to me within 30 days of getting my temp ID. It was easily worth it to me so I could vote though. I'm OK with it not being easy peazy, I just think the burden of the cost of the first required ID should be on the state. It cost me more than a lot of people have to spend.

Think this through. If there was voter IDs, then anyone could have a fake. It would be easier to get a fake one than the real one.

What is very hard to fake? Residency. Proof of residency is all that is needed for all voting. What about the homeless? Who cares? We don't have to.
The homeless are mobile by definition and they vote with a letterhead from a social services agency to whom they attest their residency.

And 1/2 of people NEVER vote. Not a problem. Just politics.

 

[desert dude]

you were spamming your stormfront stuff though. completely off topic spam.

i guess you were just yearning for the days of old when you would spam rawn pawl shit endlessly.

I posted about the epidemic of rape in the musselman community in the UK and Sweden. The topic of the thread was rape. The UK is burdened with even thicker PC blinders than the US so they turned a blind eye to the rape of thousands of young girls by Musselmen for fear of insulting Islam.

You lefties need to decide what you want to talk about and then allow freedom of speech. I just got to the root of the problem, "freedom for me, but not for thee".

 

[Harrekin]

Since 2011, Republican lawmakers in swing states have pushed hard for new restrictions on voting, from voter identification to new rules on early voting and ballot access. “Nine states have passed measures making it harder to vote since the beginning of 2013,” notes the New York Times, and other states “are considering mandating proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or passport, after a federal judge recently upheld such laws passed in Arizona and Kansas.”
Jamelle Bouie
Jamelle Bouie is a Slate staff writer covering politics, policy, and race.
Voting rights advocates have attacked these laws as blatant attempts to suppress the votes of low-income and minority voters, but Republicans defend their actions as justified to protect “voter integrity” and ensure “fairness” and “uniformity” in the system. Here’s Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman on a bill—signed last week by Gov. Scott Walker—to end early voting on weekends. “Every city on election day has voting from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The idea that some communities should have weekend or night voting is obviously unfair,” he said. “It’s a matter of uniformity. I don’t know what all the hoopla is over,” he told Reuters.
The fact that some communities have a greater demand for voting than others reduces Grothman’s logic to obvious nonsense. To wit, under the constraints established by the new law, voters in the cities and large suburbs of Wisconsin are at a disadvantage compared to their rural counterparts. For example, Republicans have limited total early voting time to 45 hours during the week. In order to accommodate the number of early voters in 2012 under that time limit, explained Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, you’d have to have a voter cast a ballot every nine seconds. Areas with fewer voters, of course, would have an easier time.
a recent paper from Keith G. Bentele and Erin E. O’Brien, there’s a clear pattern to the incidence of voter restrictions. States that elected Republican governors, increased their share of Republican lawmakers, or became more electorally competitive under Republicans were more likely to pass voter identification and other limits on the franchise. The same was true for states with “unencumbered Republican majorities” and large black populations—they were especially likely to pass restrictive measures. Not out of racial animus, but because African-Americans are a reliable Democratic constituency.
It’s clear that these laws are driven by partisanship—an effort to manipulate the rules of elections to blunt the impact of demographic change on Republican prospects. It explains why North Carolina Republicans coupled their push for voter ID with an assault on student voting (closing precincts near colleges and universities and blocking students from running for office) which leans Democratic. Indeed, partisan voter suppression is Texas Attorney General Greg Abott’s defense against allegations of racial discrimination with its new voting law. “The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations,” wrote Abott in a brief, “and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary.”
Republican voter suppression might not be an explicit attempt to target low-income and minority voters, but as far as effects go, it doesn’t matter either way. The outcome is still one where minorities and low-income Americans have a harder time at the polls.
It should be said that none of this is new. Most Americans are familiar with race-based voter suppression—the poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses of Jim Crow—but those are part of a larger history of partisan voter suppression that stretches back to the early 19th century. After a flood of Irish immigrants tipped the electoral scales and threatened Whig electoral prospects in New York, observes Alexander Keyssar in his book The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, Whig lawmakers rushed to pass tough new registration rules for New York City, which contained the largest concentration of Irish voters. What’s more, in states like Missouri, Maryland, and Indiana, Know-Nothing and Whig lawmakers sought to delay voting rights for naturalized citizens, fearing the political consequences of large-scale immigrant enfranchisement.
This fear wouldn’t go away, and would become a preoccupation of Republican lawmakers in the Northeast. In the late 1880s, for instance, New Jersey Republicans pushed a measure that would have required naturalized citizens to have their naturalization papers when voting—a precursor, of sorts, to voter ID. “A sad feature” of New Jersey’s requirement, noted the New York Herald, “was that many persons will be deprived of their vote, as their papers are either worn out, lost, or mislaid.” It’s a worry that should sound familiar to anyone concerned about the impact of a strict ID requirement for voting.
Today’s voter suppression is the clear echo of a familiar past, where an earlier generation of American politicians worked to adjust to immigration, racial change, and newly competitive elections.

You think I'd sympathise because some of them are Irish?

Going from the political knowledge of the general public here, I wouldn't let most Irish people run an egg and spoon race, let alone a nation.

It's not gonna change my mind on voter ID tho, it's the standard pretty much everywhere except parts of the US.

Don't elderly people/students need ID to drive? For visiting the bank? For going to a bar?

So a person can't have a beer without ID but you'd let them vote...

Thattotallymakessense.com