Comment by 230Gr JHP

We voted for prop 200 and it passed w/ flying colors. Brewer,Goddard and our useless whore governor deserve to be tossed down an abandoned mineshaft along w/ the useless robes from the 9th.If the fall don’t kill em the rattlesnakes will!

Comment by 230Gr JHP

The majority of Arizonans want all U.S. CITIZENS to vote for whomever they want. This is not some sort of poll tax which would fall under the XXIV amendment.For fucks sake all the politicians and lawyers watered it down so all you need is a f’ing utility bill and something w/ picture on it. We live in a society if identification-drive a car-open a bank acct-buy booze-a gun-Tell a cop you got no ID and see where you end up.Why don’t we send all our illegal aliens to your st. Mrs.dutoit so that they can elect every damn lefty Dem who promises them easy street on your dime!!

Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

Don’t look for logic in the courts. It hasn’t lived there in a very long time. Sorry.

Comment by CiSSnarl5.7

Nice cherry picking…interesting that you neglected to not put any emphasis on those first 8 words…

So in order to exercise your right to vote you are required to pay for a government ID?

Uh Yeah…same way the DMV and every other governmental agency charges for things like Drivers permits and liscences…and gee MrsDuoit…after the Dem’s howling non stop about “stolen elections” and “rigged Diebold machines” for the past 6 years you would think that they would be the first in line to demand some sort of accountability at the polls…but nope…Know why? Because it will end up costing them votes …and they know it.

And no…I don’t want to hear the hornswaggle of “the poor people can’t afford it”..they got a f’ing ID to go cash those well-fare checks at the bank or local store now dont they?…can’t use those food stamps with out one either now can you?..hhhhhhhmmmmmmm…in fact now that I think about it..when you apply for public assitance…they GIVE you a government ID so you can use your benifits….so no one is paying for anything, least of all the “poor”.

Funny that only the Demo’s try to fight this very simple premise of showing an valid ID to vote…hmmmm I wonder why..maybe because they keep getting thier asses handed to them in a majority of the elections across the U.S. and need to cook up some votes … Naaaaaaaa…not the party of the “little guy”.

Shall we allow Arizona to require literacy tests to vote, too, simply because a majority Arizona voters want it that way?

I’m all for it if it keeps freaking idiotic liberal asshats at home on election day. DOH!

Comment by CiSSnarl5.7

Critics said that the law would disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities and the elderly, and that requiring voters to acquire and produce identification would be burdensome in time, money and effort.

Pulled that little gem from the article…

Okay Scientific study here: let’s test the critics “burdensome in time money and effort” theroy…

We’ll asuuuuume I’m already in the line waiting to vote…

Reaching for my wallet 1.5 seconds.
Pulling wallet from my back pocket and moving my arm to the front of my body .8 seconds
Opening wallet to obtain ID .5 seconds
retriveing ID from wallet…8 seconds…(hey it’s a freaking mess in there… so sue me!!)

Presenting ID to pollster… 1 second

Pollster looks at picture ID looks at me…looks back at ID …looks at me…(this freaking guy takes his job seriously) …4 seconds.

Total time = 15 seconds…Burdensome in time…Ummm only if your a gnat with the life cycle of 24 hours…then 15 seconds..that’s burdensome!

Okay so we move to Cost….Ummm…didn’t cost me a thing to perform the above..so that goes down in flames…

Effort…Ummm by effort Im assuming they mean physical effort? So we’ll measure that in calories…calories burned in the above act…2 if I’m lucky…a few more walking to the car or maybe the bus stop to travel to the polls.
Of course if your a welfare queen living off the public dole…well hell thats probabaly more f’n effort then you expended all year other then going to mail box to get your government check….

PFFFFT….the “critics” should try selling snake oil..they might fare a tad bit better in thier results.

Trackback by Stop The ACLU

ACLU and 9th Circus Strikes Down Arizona Voter ID Law…

Via AP
A federal appellate court has blocked the enforcement of an Arizona law that requires voters to show identification before casting a ballot and submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
The ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court …

Comment by mrsdutoit

And the Drivers license thing is specious. Driving on public roads is not a right (as voting is). It is a privilege.

You don’t need a drivers’ license to drive on your own property (you don’t have to register a car that stays on your own property either). You only need a drivers’ license if you intend to use PUBLIC roads.

The government cannot demand of you any form of identification unless you want privileges, and voting is NOT a privilege.

Comment by B.C.

The government cannot demand of you any form of identification unless you want privileges, and voting is NOT a privilege.

I guess I can throw out my voter registration card then, eh?

Comment by maxxdog

Then we may as well set up voting booths on the border so the illegals can hit the ballot box on the way in!
How many people are homeless due to the choices they have made in life? There are responsibilities that go with rights! Should the rest of us suffer the effects of other’s choices in life? How many stories have we seen of the homeless driven to the polls and given
cigarrettes or a couple bucks to vote? Milwaukee anyone?

Comment by B.C.

You cannot demand that someone show identification to vote.

Complete and utter bullshit.

I’m done trying to argue against a dead strawman. I’ve got better things to do with my Saturday morning. (Like trim my toenails with wire cutters or comb my back hair with a garden rake.) Buh-bye.

Comment by SoCalOilMan

All persons born or naturalized in the United States,

Seems to me that this is all that’s required to be proven. I have a copy of my birth certificate, always have, and I’m third generation. If I were natrualized, I think I would have a copy handy to show how much I want to participate in my adopted country, being I put in the effort to become a member of the greatest nation on G-ds green earth.

Every election the votes are constested more and more. I do not see any infringment of rights with the simple action of proving you are who you say you are.

Government is willing to drive up to your house and deliver the damn ID, no charge, so I don’t see any “disfranchisement” of the poor and I’m sure the parties most fearful of this happening will advertise adequately to let the people know, so if they don’t get the voter ID, it’s their own lazy ass fault.

Comment by mrsdutoit

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act

In 1975, the Act’s special provisions were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of “language minority groups,” which were defined as persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” As before, Congress expanded the coverage formula, based on the presence of tests or devices and levels of voter registration and participation as of November 1972. In addition, the 1965 definition of “test or device” was expanded to include the practice of providing any election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age. This third prong of the coverage formula had the effect of covering Alaska, Arizona, and Texas in their entirety, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

In 1982, the coverage formula was extended again, this time for 25 years, but no changes were made to it. Section 4, along with those other sections that are dependent upon it, such as Section 5, 6, and 8, will expire on August 6, 2007.

The formula for coverage under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act

As enacted in 1965, the first element in the formula was whether, on November 1, 1964, the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a “test or device” restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The Act’s definition of a “test or device” included such requirements as the applicant being able to pass a literacy test, establish that he or she had good moral character, or have another registered voter vouch for his or her qualifications.

Terminating coverage under the Act’s special provisions

Section 4 also provides that a jurisdiction may terminate or “bailout” from coverage under the Act’s special provisions. Originally enacted as a means to remedy any possible over inclusiveness resulting from application of the trigger formula, Congress amended this procedure in 1982 so jurisdictions that meet the statutory standards can obtain relief. The amendment, which took effect on August 5, 1984, establishes an “objective” measure to determine whether the jurisdiction is entitled to bailout.

A state or political subdivision seeking to bail out must seek a declaratory judgment from a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that it merits the requested relief. The Voting Rights Act defines a “political subdivision” as any county or parish except where there is another entity, such as independent cities in Virginia, that conducts voter registration. In those circumstances, such a municipality is the functional equivalent of a county, and possesses the same authority over voter registration and elections. Unlike the original statutory design, which did not allow individual counties in those states covered in their entirety to obtain bailout, the new procedure allows counties to do so. In Virginia, several counties have successfully terminated their coverage under Section 4.

The successful bailout applicant must demonstrate that during the past ten years:

No test or device has been used within the state or political subdivision;
All changes affecting voting have been reviewed under Section 5 prior to their implementation;
No change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a Section 5 declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia district court;
There have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination;
There have been no consent decrees or agreements that resulted in the abandonment of a discriminatory voting practice;
There are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and

Federal examiners have not been assigned.

Comment by B.C.

Okay, I’ll play once more… Where the fuck does “valid ID to show you are who you say you are” equal a discriminatory “device“?

Asking someone to prove, via valid, FREE, state-issued ID, that they’re a registered voter with US citizenship, ISN’T a “device“.

It doesn’t ask them to “pass a literacy test or prove their moral character“. It simply asks them to prove that they’re who they say they are (registered voter who is a US citizen). Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, unless you’re ready and willing to allow every human being on the face of the Earth to have a vote in our elections (since they don’t have to prove US citizenship by YOUR & the LefTards’ standards) your “argument” doesn’t hold even a thimble’s worth of water.

Now, this time it’s “Buh-bye” for real.

Comment by Emperor Misha I

Actually, there seems to be some missing the point going on here. It’s not the intentions that are in question, I don’t think that any of us would ever argue that there’s anything wrong in trying to ensure that those who vote actually have the right to do so, it’s the implementation that’s open to debate.

Obviously, I don’t know enough about the Arizona law and how it’s implemented to say for sure, but it seems to me that there might, actually, be a Constitutional issue, no matter how much I agree with the intent of it. Allow me to be the Devil’s Advocate for a sec:

You see, if Arizona places a “burden” on its citizens in order for them to vote, then you might end up with the situation where the same citizen could vote in any of the 49 States but not in Arizona, and then we quite obviously have an Equal Protection problem, since voting is a right guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

So it’s obviously not a matter to any of us whether it’s desirable and correct to safeguard the right to vote against abuse, nobody (other than the ACLU and their opinions don’t count) is against that, it’s a matter of whether this particular way of doing it is Constitutional or not and, if it isn’t, how do we do it in a way that is?

I don’t personally think that we’d have to amend the Constitution, however. The Constitution is pretty clear that only citizens are allowed to vote, so it would seem disingenuous to suggest that the Founders would have a problem with subsequent generations wanting to make sure that voters actually were citizens.

Again, the only requirement would seem to be that there’s no undue burden and that it’s universal across the States since voting is a Constitutional right.

The former, I think, could be accomplished by making sure that obtaining a voter ID would be free if you didn’t already have one, free and as easy as you can make it without making it wide open to fraud, and the latter would be accomplished simply by making Congress pass the law. That would make it federal and uniform across the various States.

The ID requirement in itself I certainly don’t see as unConstitutional, unless I missed the part where the Constitution says that, whereas voting is only a right of citizens, no individual must ever be asked to verify that he or she is one.

So there’s a “burden” issue and there’s an Equal Protections issue here, as far as I can see. I don’t know if the Arizona law violates the former, as far as I can tell from tweell’s comment there doesn’t seem to be one, but I can easily see an Equal Protection argument.

EVEN THOUGH I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE INTENT.

Er, just had to throw that one in there again, lest anybody gets the idea that I support illegal aliens’, dead people’s and farm animals’ right to vote.

It’s easy to get misunderstood at times :wink_wp:

Comment by B.C.

Emperor, I don’t hear ‘em screaming about the “burden” of having to show a valid ID to sign up for welfare… Ooops.

Then again, in many cases they don’t have to show a valid ID for that, either. Hence the 25 MILLION or so illegals who can suck our tax dollars right out of our wallets and send back to their families South of the border.

What about the “burden” of me having to sign my FREE voter registration card every couple of years? It’s OUTRAGEOUS, I tell you, having to bear that “burden”.It’s also an OUTRAGEOUS “burden” to have to hand the poll workers MY picture ID at the polling place, when the illegal and dead fucks across the nation are protected from having to do so…

Anyhow, y’all have a good Saturday. It’s time to get productive around here and earn my keep.

Adios, amigos!

Comment by Lady Heather

And I thought the Constitution, along with its rights, applied to US citizens.

Should you not have to prove you’re a US citizen first, and then worry about one’s “rights” ?

But as we’ve seen, the courts have muddied that too.

Comment by B.C.

I still don’t see ANY “legal grounds” against having to show a valid US ID, whatsoever. Perhaps there’s some sort of hole in the Idiotarian Parallel Universal Divide™ that I’m failing to see here… :wallbash_tb:

Y’all have a fun Saturday. I’m off to the races for pit crew duty!

:jittery_tb:

Comment by JannyMae

I just skimmed through the comments, so this may have already been addressed, but my point is that you register to vote in the district in which you live. If you cannot prove that you are a citizen of that district, you should not be able to register, and you should not be allowed to vote.

The ID requirements are quite liberal, IMHO. The idea that they put a, “burden,” on anyone is utterly ludicrous.

Comment by Emperor Misha I

Me too. Along with my CHL, because that’s an infringement to bearing arms, and we all know that bearing arms is a right…right?

Yes it is, on both counts. Keeping and bearing arms IS a right and licensing in any shape, form or fashion IS an infringement upon that right.

Sadly, there’s not an overabundance of legal eagles willing to challenge THAT one. Not that it would matter, with the dictatorial, blackrobed vultures we have shitting on the Constitution in the Supreme Whores. Any attempt at a challenge has been met with nothing but scorn and MORE of their Imperial attitude and complete and utter contempt for the law of the land.

Rope, tree, judge… You know the drill, and it’s getting to be long overdue.

But that’s hardly an excuse for more creative interpretation of the law.

Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952

Let’s see here…you have to show an ID to buy a gun, a constitutional right. So you don’t have to show an ID to vote, also a constitutional right? Then fine, let’s eliminate the need to show IDs for gun purchases. Oh? Felons might buy guns? Sure, they might, and also vote as well. Both presently illegal. My view? a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship. A drivers license is not valid, not any more.

Comment by LC Jackboot IC/A-OBR

Great Thread, so I’ll weigh in with another curve ball.

Let’s play Constitutional Soccer, I get a free kick:

The 1965 and 1975 Voter Rights Acts (Federal) are both unconstitutional.

This is irrespective of Arizona’s Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 4:

Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [original form-ed]Senators.

and Bill of Rights- 10th Amendment:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That settles the first constitutional issue here. The Voter Rights Act was bad law from a “purely legal” standpoint. With that said it was bad law, enacted for the right reason. A number of states had played with the intentional leeway (maintaining a strict federalist doctrine) in the U.S. Constitution, as it was very clearly intended to allow the states or we the people via the state level constitutions to set the requirement, look again, “Time, Place and Manner“. It had been used to impose the infamous Poll Tax and other “tests” designed malicious to exclude targeted minorities both religious and racial.

The U.S. Congress had previously passed the Civil Rights Act and was hungry to put a final nail in the coffin of unconscionable and legitimate, disenfranchisement of citizens. The result was the Voter Rights Act. Clearly this law would not have passed judicial muster either, assuming a constructionist bench (debatable point for another day)

In fact, the provisions of the Voters Rights Act would require a constitutional amendment to enhance the definition of Article 1, Section 4. Congress acted knowing that even if there was a challenge and SCOTUS overruled the act on these grounds, and the mood of the country wouldn’t neccessarily ensure the state’s ratification requirement. A roll of legal bones, if you will. The challenge never materialized and Stare Decisis (in spite of an obvious flaw) now sets the stage for further tinkering by the 1975 amendment. The 1975 act further chipped away at the state’s rights on the issue as a whole. Taking the issue even farther outside constitutional bounds are it clearly encroaches further the “Manner” provision.

Nonetheless the original act was bad law for a necessary and right reason.

Now, I haven’t had the time (or inclination, honestly) to study Arizona’s constitution, but since it obviously made it to a federal appeals bench, I’ll assume the lawfully enacted legislation (e.g. We the People) via the state’s elected representatives, chose to clarify the citizenship requirements (again, implicit in the federal constitution) by providing for an easily met standard to ensure voters were in fact, citizens. I’ll let the issue of it’s constitutional legality under Arizona’s own alone for now. It would appear that was the initial challenge grounds, as I haven’t studied the exegesis of the specific issues at hand. Obviously it passed State Constitutional muster at their SC level to arrive at the doorstep of the Ninth Circuit.

Regardless, if Arizona passed legislation requiring this simple standard to prove voters presenting themselves at the polls to demonstrate some form of identification is hardly burdensome. Any arguments re: obtaining photo ID are “burdensome” or confusing, I’ll throw the bullshit-penalty flag on.

Many have pointed out above how simple this demonstration can be met. Indeed, Tweel #5 apparently having some more detailed knowledge of Az’s requirements pointed out that persons not in possession of acceptable ID are allowed to vote with their ballots set aside until they can be properly vetted.

My point in the post is simple. The 9th Circuit was waaay out of bounds, staying duly enacted legislation of the State of Arizona period. Full Stop.

That ruling was unconstitutional as it violates both the Article 1, Section 4 and the Tenth Amendment provisions re: States Rights. Bad Law and Wrong on Two Counts. Furthermore, the timing is to say the least, suspect.

Misha’s posit in Comment #28 would present further grounds for a challenge from a different and valid angle.

Now….off to work with me, but I had to weigh in here. Great discussion, isn’t it fun to argue with ourselves and maintain decorum based on reason, unlike our “talking point parrot” trolls ?

Thanks, Rotts….

JB- another evil student of “The Great One”

P.S.- BC pointing just above me here. Yup…zackly