Need Photo ID To Vote?

Very well said John.

I have been crowing “no proof†. . . but not in saying no proof is a good thing . . . no proof is a bad thing . . . a very bad thing! . . . unless . . . of course . . . there actually were no voter fraud! Then it would be a good thing. (Almost sounds like Kerrey’s - I voted for it before I voted against it. )

Do I believe electronic voting is a good thing?
Only if verifiable paper ballots are printed and the system is totally transparent . . . including open source software.

Do I believe in Motor Voter?
Only if the strongest security measures are applied. Social Security Number, Date and Location of Birth, fingerprint and photo ID.

Do I believe people should be voting without showing ID?
NO. And so do 91% of those who responded to the poll I mentioned in the first post.

I would also like to see fingerprinting with indelible ink at the polls to prevent multi voting. We could walk around for a few days - like the Iraqis - with a dirty finger as a badge of honor for doing our patriotic duty. But of course the civil libertarians would scream bloody murder. At the very least they would demand that everyone have the civil right to go to the polls to get their fake “badge of honor†least they feel discriminated against and stigmatized by possibly being identified as one who is ineligible to vote . . . or at least be able to demand time off from work and be able to return with proof of voting. :|

 

Truth in advertising time?

If you really were into truth in advertising, you would have mentioned the correct bill! :roll:

The subject bill is SB 226 by Senator Cox, not AB 934 by Assembly Member Wyland.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_...introduced.html

Also should not be confused with AB 1006 by Assembly Member Keene.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_...introduced.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius\";p=\"80717)</div>

So how does it feel to live in a “blue†state where 91% of those polled agree with me? Doesn’t that make you an ultra left wing nutcase?

Maybe to you this is a “none issue†- but to me it is not a non-issue.

Other people seem interested in this topic - hence, they too are posting. I may not agree with everything they say, but that is what discussions are all about . . . learning.

So you now speak for Arnold? Quite presumptuous for someone who despises him.

You’re done? I think “toast†is more fitting inference. You came back, and you went down in flames.

Thank You, I do have a good life . . . but experiencing people like you truly adds to the enjoyment. I enjoy a good laugh.

 

There was no need to post the link because there is nothing onerous there.

That is unless you consider, “This bill permits a voter who is unable to present proof of his or her identity, to vote a provisional ballot†as onerous.

The rest is guessing:
“. . . this bill could arguably, in some instances . . . It may lead to . . .voters may be unwilling . . .it may lead them to . . . may not want . . ."

Just the act of saying “hi†to someone standing in line “could arguably, in some instances, discourage legally qualified people from voting†.

But since you are trying to imply that I am hiding something by not posting that link - like the good conspiracy theorist you are - why don’t YOU point out something in the link which you think I am trying to hide.

As bills go, this one is very narrowly focused on just one aspect of potential voter fraud - it doesn’t even attempt to address or solve any of the other potential avenues of voter fraud.

The “non-partisan Office of Legislative Counsel's analysis†does righteously point out that
“It\'s not clear to what extent voter fraud is a problem in California.â€</span>
To do nothing is as bad as ignoring the problem . . . and the problem is that<span style=\'color:green\'> “It\'s not clear to what extent voter fraud is a problem in California.â€

 

Actually it’s a six year period, not five, “between 1994 and 1999". The math would then tell us that an average of only 15 cases per year were documented.

A right winger would say, “it is pathetic that only 15 cases per year are documented.â€

A left winger would say “the fact that only 15 cases per year are documented shows that the system works.â€

An ultra left wing nutcase conspiracy theorist would say, “There is no credible documentation of election fraud in California. Period. This is a fix for a problem that does not exit.â€
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius\";p=\"79516)</div>

So which is it?
Does 15 show that the system is working at preventing voter fraud?
Does it show a pathetic lack of voter verification at the polls?
Or is 15 meaningless . . . because the Office of Legislative Counsel's analysis is not credible?

If the police in the state of California only wrote 15 tickets for DUI would that then prove we don’t have a problem? Or would reality kick in and tell you that there is lack of enforcement?

(For IsrAmeriPrius: Don’t bother answering. We already know your answer! You would probably also go on to say, “pulling over suspected drunk drivers will create traffic jams on the roads and the enforcement would be racist in that a higher percentage of minorities would be denied their rights to drive.†You can't logically say anything else and not contradict your stand on this bill.)

Stop being so lazy. Reach into your back pocket and pull out some ID . . . or at least protest this “major assault on your liberties and voting rights†and ask for a provisional ballot.

Funny. I’m still waiting for proof of “Republican shenanigans in the last two presidential election cycles, travesties experienced in Ohio and Florida", and my favorite - “illegal not so random police check points that were set up to intimidate citizens in poor neighborhoods from exercising their constitutional right to vote.â€

 

How utterly orthodox of you!
Throw up drivel as proof and then blame the other person for your own shortcomings.

Your link did not answer a single one of my questions . . . not one item of concrete proof, it is all ALLEGATIONS and GENERALIZATIONS!!! (as I had earlier stated in my rebuttal)

You call that PROOF?

Please provide just one link which states something along the lines of: “Today in Federal Court, Judge Uncle Sam sentenced Officer Joe Blow to a 15 year term in federal prison for involvement in a [2000-2004] civil rights violation by conducting a racially targeted, illegal police check point, outside an Umpty Squat, Florida polling place.â€

You can call your Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law nonpartisan all you want - it just doesn’t make it so. (I’m surprise YOU didn’t accuse THEM of being right of center!)

A look at their Action Alert Archives gives the true story of their “nonpartisanship.â€

<span style=\'color:green\'>
URGENT!!! – Urge Senators Not to Confirm Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General

Urgent!! – Call Your U.S. Senator to Express Opposition to the Proposed Federal Marriage Amendment

CALL SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO OPPOSE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT

Call Your Senator to Support Election Reform and Urge Changes to Discriminatory Provisions

National Call in Day to Urge Election Reform on Decemeber 12!!!

URGENT!!! - Call Members of Senate to Oppose John Ashcroft as Attorney General

Urgent!! - National Hate Crimes Prevention Call In Day September 7

URGENT!!! Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1082) Before House of Representatives.

Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Judicial Nominations

URGENT!!! - Hate Crimes Prevention Act Vote on June 8, 2000

Just one link with PROOF . . . that’s all I ask.
You have already given the proof of voter fraud in California . . . even though you said, “There is no credible documentation of election fraud in California. Period.â€

Come on man . . . Prove the police check points ever happened! I DARE YOU!!!!!
Either that or just SHUT UP! . . . AGAIN! . . . because your arguments ONLY consist of ALLEGATIONS, GENERALIZATIONS and CONSPIRACY THEORY.

 

Ooooh . . . Christmas tree colors . . . :roll:

I’m so sorry to upset your esthetic sensitivities. I used red in “Action Alert†when they used blue.. . my mistake! I used green in the copy of the body of their post - they again used blue, but I almost always use green to connote a copy of another web page or post. If you were just seeing colors, I’m sorry you couldn’t comprehend their significance.

So once again, sorry if the combination is contrary to your delicate sense of artistic correctness. If it is the fact that they are “Christmas†colors, get over yourself. That too is a conspiracy theory that won’t stick.

If size really is an issue for you, blame Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law . . . they are the ones who used even larger fonts on their page. My sensibilities told me not to make it quite so grandiose.

Nice double speak there IsrAmeriPrius. (You must be an ACLU lawyer . . . wrong a majority of the time, but crafty.)

Lets break down your sentence in its two parts:
“No election outcome in California has ever been affected . . .â€
“ . . . by the isolated problems that were cited by the California Office of Legislative Counsel.â€

Nobody ever said an election outcome in California was affected by the cited problems, but that is a far cry from your connotation of:

“No election outcome in California was ever affected by voter fraud.â€

If THAT is your contention, I would so love you to try to prove that one . . . just like you tried to prove “police check points.†(I’m still waiting . . . and will be waiting just as long for this one too.)

The problem is the unknown scope of voter fraud, not the lack of election outcome problems caused by these few discovered cases.

If you believe voter fraud could never affect the outcome of an election, you need look no further back than the 1997 Miami mayoral race. The outcome was overturned because votes were cast by felons and non-residents. It was none other than this 1997 Miami race which provided the impetus behind the Florida voter roll purge.

MIAMI (AllPolitics, March 4) -- A judge has overturned last fall's election of Xavier Suarez as Miami's mayor because of evidence of absentee ballot fraud.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/04/miami.mayor/

(Ooh, sorry . . .“oversized fonts†)

So if you are content with your “proof†and your new indefensible “No election outcome . . .†- Go away proud! For you really are a case. :silly:

 

Of course, and I agree.
But that’s apparently not what some state Senators think when they used the narrowness of the bill as an argument against passage of the bill . . . because it doesn’t do something else!

"Because this focuses on what you do at the precinct, it doesn't go to the problem of whether people are registering to vote who shouldn't have registered to vote," said Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey.

The bill is very narrow in scope and only addresses fraud at polling booths.

That’s like arguing against a bill to curb illegal immigration because it does nothing to raise the minimum wage.