Voter Photo ID, Minnesota.........

[CitadelGrad]

Graddy,
Quit now and stop embarrassing your fvcking self.

I'm not sure what you're reading. You probably don't either with all of that cum in your eyes.

[blueballs]

We have to show ID's down here in Florida and- surprise!!!- it would seem nobody has a problem doing so.

My old man used to tell me, "If you ain't doing nothing wrong you got nothing to hide."

Show the ID and cast your ballot... pretty simple.

[LeadBolt]

There is a Constitutional right to bear arms. To do so I have to go to the Sherriff's Department, present a government issued photo id, be finger printed and have a background check run to determine if I am a felon, which would cancel my right to bear arms. Some might think that was intimidation, but not the Hispanic lady ahead of me whose daughter was translating for her last time I renewed my license.

There is a Constitutional right to vote. The thought of having to present a government issued photo id to show I am who I say I am without the background check or finger printing to determine if I am a felon, which would cancel my right to vote hardly seems intimidating.


BTW - Before any vitrol about party affiliation hits the fan, I am a registered Democrat

[Cap'n Cat]

Oh, and there's the cost, too. $5 mil is estimated upfront charges for the state to implement. Untold millions more for local election boards ax the state.

[clenz]

i had to show id in Iowa.

What added costs are there Bill? Are Minnesotan's that stupid they have to be trained on how to ask to see an ID and how to show an ID?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

i had to show id in Iowa.

What added costs are there Bill? Are Minnesotan's that stupid they have to be trained on how to ask to see an ID and how to show an ID?

it isn't about costs. you have to show ID to register to vote. you then go to the polling station election day and affirm by your signature that you are who you say you are under penalty of perjury.

[CitadelGrad]

i had to show id in Iowa.

What added costs are there Bill? Are Minnesotan's that stupid they have to be trained on how to ask to see an ID and how to show an ID?

it isn't about costs. you have to show ID to register to vote. you then go to the polling station election day and affirm by your signature that you are who you say you are under penalty of perjury.

What is the mechanism for determining that people are who they say they are, other than faith in their honesty? What is to stop ineligible voters from registering when you Dems are trying to give illegals driver licenses?

When I was in the Army, I could vote absentee in the state of Missouri while living in Colorado where I was also registered to vote. I could have very easily voted twice in the presidential elections. There are a lot of holes in the system and you Dems are always looking for ways to open up more holes.

[Baldy]

i had to show id in Iowa.

What added costs are there Bill? Are Minnesotan's that stupid they have to be trained on how to ask to see an ID and how to show an ID?

it isn't about costs. you have to show ID to register to vote. you then go to the polling station election day and affirm by your signature that you are who you say you are under penalty of perjury.

Good, even though I haven't been carded in years I'll affirm with my signature that I'm over 21 the next time I go buy a 12 pack.

[grizzaholic]

Oh, and there's the cost, too. $5 mil is estimated upfront charges for the state to implement. Untold millions more for local election boards ax the state.

Really... For the lady to give you the piece of paper has to look and make sure that she/he is giving the voting slip to the right person. WOW.... I thought you were for smaller government.

[CitadelGrad]

Oh, and there's the cost, too. $5 mil is estimated upfront charges for the state to implement. Untold millions more for local election boards ax the state.

Really... For the lady to give you the piece of paper has to look and make sure that she/he is giving the voting slip to the right person. WOW.... I thought you were for smaller government.

Being in favor of smaller government doesn't preclude one from being for fair elections. One of the legitimate functions of government is to ensure fair elections, right?

[CID1990]

In all sincerity and all seriousness:
Why would providing a state issued ID for any State function be a problem..?

The Liberal who argues against this lose some credibility in my view
Kind of like the republican who says they're WAY OVER TAXED compared to the poor in this country

because it's about voter intimidation.

the MNGOP has been railing about "voter fraud" for decades, yet has never proven anything of substance to back it up.

we have high voter turnout in this state because we make it easy to register and vote... things that should be encouraged. MNGOP's desire is to depress voter turnout, and to intimidate voters who are not English speakers.

we found this in the last election - as tea party ass-clowns who have no clue about the actual laws signed up to be election judges in minority/immigrant precincts and were screaming about needing picture ID... they had to be set straight in over a dozen separate instances. we heard of no such challenges in white, conservative suburbs.

thing is cap - the ID bill isn't even about conk fever-dream fantasies about legions of illegal immigrants voting (which... seriously?) - it's a ploy so they can attack their opponents. it works for them on a piece of mail to say "Senator So-and-So wants to let illegal immigrants vote..." it's complete bullshit, but it's been known to work.

Really? Voter intimidation?

Well it seems to me that the voter intimidation and yelling and screaming you mentioned in another post would be easily thwarted if one of these voters was able to simply whip out a picture ID proving their eligibility to vote.

However, since the US DoJ does not seem to think that Black Panthers hanging around the front of a polling place is voter intimidation I hardly think picture IDs is going to be a problem. Unless you are referring to Cap'n's fat mother screaming at Mexicans at the polls only.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

it isn't about costs. you have to show ID to register to vote. you then go to the polling station election day and affirm by your signature that you are who you say you are under penalty of perjury.

What is the mechanism for determining that people are who they say they are, other than faith in their honesty? What is to stop ineligible voters from registering when you Dems are trying to give illegals driver licenses?

When I was in the Army, I could vote absentee in the state of Missouri while living in Colorado where I was also registered to vote. I could have very easily voted twice in the presidential elections. There are a lot of holes in the system and you Dems are always looking for ways to open up more holes.

What is to prevent you is the perjury charge. by signing your name in exchange for your ballot, you are certifying that you are who you have said you are - and that you are casting one, and only one vote in this election.

[CitadelGrad]

What is the mechanism for determining that people are who they say they are, other than faith in their honesty? What is to stop ineligible voters from registering when you Dems are trying to give illegals driver licenses?

When I was in the Army, I could vote absentee in the state of Missouri while living in Colorado where I was also registered to vote. I could have very easily voted twice in the presidential elections. There are a lot of holes in the system and you Dems are always looking for ways to open up more holes.

What is to prevent you is the perjury charge. by signing your name in exchange for your ballot, you are certifying that you are who you have said you are - and that you are casting one, and only one vote in this election.

That's just great -- and foolish. Anyway, you didn't answer either of my questions.

[CID1990]

What is the mechanism for determining that people are who they say they are, other than faith in their honesty? What is to stop ineligible voters from registering when you Dems are trying to give illegals driver licenses?

When I was in the Army, I could vote absentee in the state of Missouri while living in Colorado where I was also registered to vote. I could have very easily voted twice in the presidential elections. There are a lot of holes in the system and you Dems are always looking for ways to open up more holes.

What is to prevent you is the perjury charge. by signing your name in exchange for your ballot, you are certifying that you are who you have said you are - and that you are casting one, and only one vote in this election.

You and everybody else knows that the courts are not going to go after individual perjury charges.

[citdog]

toofatandnastytofitinjustonetown knows he, and the dems, are full of shit on this issue. they want to continue reaping the votes of the deceased, illegal mexicans, and felons. IT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN WIN. The people of the 'late united states' are finally starting to see through the bullshit of both parties and it scares the hell out of diseased vaginas like him.

[JohnStOnge]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You can tell where each major party's bread is buttered when it comes to the question of voter fraud by watching what happens with efforts to make voter fraud more difficult and efforts ot make it easier.

If there is an effort to do something that will make voter fraud more difficult, such as requiring photo ID in order to vote, Republicans for for it and Democrats are against it.

If there is an effor to make it easier, such as the "Motor Voter" thing in the 90s, Deomcrats are for it and Republicans are against it.

It's pretty darned obvious.

[Wedgebuster]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You can tell where each major party's bread is buttered when it comes to the question of voter fraud by watching what happens with efforts to make voter fraud more difficult and efforts ot make it easier.

If there is an effort to do something that will make voter fraud more difficult, such as requiring photo ID in order to vote, Republicans for for it and Democrats are against it.

If there is an effor to make it easier, such as the "Motor Voter" thing in the 90s, Deomcrats are for it and Republicans are against it.

It's pretty darned obvious.

Yup, when only Republicans can vote, there will be no need for photo IDs.

[JohnStOnge]

Yup, when only Republicans can vote, there will be no need for photo IDs.

There is absolutely no good reason to oppose making sure that people who show up to vote are really who they say they are and are really eligible to vote.

I'm telling you right now: If we had potential to develop a system based on biometrics where when you registered to vote they'd do something like scan your retina then only people how had those scans could vote and also everything was linked so that you could only vote in one place (no double voting), Democrats would oppose it. And ther reason is that that, on balance, Democrats benefit from people voting illegally and double voting.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Yup, when only Republicans can vote, there will be no need for photo IDs.

There is absolutely no good reason to oppose making sure that people who show up to vote are really who they say they are and are really eligible to vote.

I'm telling you right now: If we had potential to develop a system based on biometrics where when you registered to votes they'd do something like scan your retina then only people how had those scans could vote and also everything was linked so that you could only vote in one place (no double voting), Democrats would oppose it. And ther reason is that that, on balance, Democrats benefit from people voting illegally and double voting.

for all the gnashing of conk teeth about it all - they've never been able to prove shit about people voting illegally or double voting in any real numbers (a few isolated incidents notwithstanding) - they insinuate it all the time... and yet CANNOT EVER DOCUMENT IT HAPPENING. and there is a reason for that... because the amount of work that would go in to organizing such a thing, and the risks involved - aren't worth it.

it's a nonsense issue used by conks to whip up xenophobia and fear, but it's based on NOTHING but a fantasy they've conjured in their own addled minds.

[Wedgebuster]

There is absolutely no good reason to oppose making sure that people who show up to vote are really who they say they are and are really eligible to vote.

I'm telling you right now: If we had potential to develop a system based on biometrics where when you registered to votes they'd do something like scan your retina then only people how had those scans could vote and also everything was linked so that you could only vote in one place (no double voting), Democrats would oppose it. And ther reason is that that, on balance, Democrats benefit from people voting illegally and double voting.

for all the gnashing of conk teeth about it all - they've never been able to prove shit about people voting illegally or double voting in any real numbers (a few isolated incidents notwithstanding) - they insinuate it all the time... and yet CANNOT EVER DOCUMENT IT HAPPENING. and there is a reason for that... because the amount of work that would go in to organizing such a thing, and the risks involved - aren't worth it.

it's a nonsense issue used by conks to whip up xenophobia and fear, but it's based on NOTHING but a fantasy they've conjured in their own addled minds.

Comes up whenever they get their asses kicked in an election.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

for all the gnashing of conk teeth about it all - they've never been able to prove shit about people voting illegally or double voting in any real numbers (a few isolated incidents notwithstanding) - they insinuate it all the time... and yet CANNOT EVER DOCUMENT IT HAPPENING. and there is a reason for that... because the amount of work that would go in to organizing such a thing, and the risks involved - aren't worth it.

it's a nonsense issue used by conks to whip up xenophobia and fear, but it's based on NOTHING but a fantasy they've conjured in their own addled minds.

Comes up whenever they get their asses kicked in an election.

yep.

dems experienced a bit of this in 04 with everyone screaming about diebold machines in ohio... they just couldn't process the loss.

[native]

In all sincerity and all seriousness:
Why would providing a state issued ID for any State function be a problem..?

The Liberal who argues against this lose some credibility in my view
Kind of like the republican who says they're WAY OVER TAXED compared to the poor in this country

The Repubs are not comparing themselves to the poor, Cleets. You are the one doing the comparison. The envy game is played mostly by the libs.

Anyone who is taxed more than 10% is overtaxed, and that includes every productive person in the country.

[89Hen]

because it's about voter intimidation

[native]

What is the mechanism for determining that people are who they say they are, other than faith in their honesty? What is to stop ineligible voters from registering when you Dems are trying to give illegals driver licenses?

When I was in the Army, I could vote absentee in the state of Missouri while living in Colorado where I was also registered to vote. I could have very easily voted twice in the presidential elections. There are a lot of holes in the system and you Dems are always looking for ways to open up more holes.

What is to prevent you is the perjury charge. by signing your name in exchange for your ballot, you are certifying that you are who you have said you are - and that you are casting one, and only one vote in this election.

"Wisconsin student unaware he could not vote twice in the same election?..." Pleeeeaaaaase!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212216/posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/29229144.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/elec ... quette.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/04 ... oying.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/ ... 0/11/40240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You can tell where each major party's bread is buttered when it comes to the question of voter fraud by watching what happens with efforts to make voter fraud more difficult and efforts ot make it easier.

If there is an effort to do something that will make voter fraud more difficult, such as requiring photo ID in order to vote, Republicans for for it and Democrats are against it.

If there is an effor to make it easier, such as the "Motor Voter" thing in the 90s, Deomcrats are for it and Republicans are against it.

It's pretty darned obvious.

Two words for you: "Al" and "Franken."