1. The federal government should issue photo ID cards to all citizens, and require that they be acceptable for voting in congressional elections, without further registration by the voter.

   When a citizen updated the address on the ID, this information would be forwarded to state election authorities at both the former and current addresses, to help prevent double voting, and to assist them in realigning district lines (Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires equal numbers of voters in each congressional district).

   This would also help ensure that overseas residents who are not US government employees to be counted in the Census.

2. How many States had Elector/Voter registration laws in 1866-1870 ???

   As if legal history means ANY thing to the New Age *politically correct* MORON judges — who can and do pervert every word in the USA Const, as the case may be.

3. In a rural area, residents who walked, rode, or drove a buggy to the polling place would be recognized. If they were new to the area they could still say where their farm was (property qualifications helped in this regard). This sort of personal recognizance is still used in North Dakota.

4. Hmmm…let’s see now. How many of the issues raised in the lawsuit are solved by Jimbo’s “solution” of the Feds issuing photo ID’s?

   (1) few early voting days. NOPE
   (2) elimination of the ability of unregistered individuals to register at the early voting location just prior to voting. NOPE.
   3) new restrictions on provisional ballots. NOPE
   4) the law requiring one of seven types of government photo-ID for voters voting at the polls. Adding a fed ID just increases the number to 8, so I’d say this is a “NOPE” as well.

   Let’s have some fun, shall we? Let’s see if Jimbo is ready to answer a direct question or two for the first time since he’s been posting on this blog.

   So, Jimbo…tell us…do you have any substantiated data to indicate HOW MANY noncitizens are voting? Please give us citations, would you? And do you have any substantiated data to indicate how many people are voting in two different precincts? Citations here, as well, please?

   And why do you think it’s desirable to make it more difficult for poor people to vote, apart from promoting the interests of Republican candidates?

   Please be specific.

   Thanks in advance, bud.

   Oh yeah – please post your telephone number so that we can get together for a few brewskies. But let’s make it some place very white and affluent. I don’t want you to feel uncomfortable.

5. Barry Scary,

   (2) Federal IDs eliminate the need for separate registration.

   Imagine you move to a new state. What are your priorities? Finding bars, getting cable hooked up, perhaps finding a job. Last on your priority list is registering to vote. You might not know if they have elections in your new location. You might think they only happen every 5 years, during the Olympics. But you are unlikely to neglect to update the address on your federal ID. How are you going to cash a check if your ID says you live in Italy.

   (3) This is when you vote out of your precinct. Why would you vote out of your precinct? Probably because you hadn’t bothered to update your registration when you moved. It is easier to say that the election officials must have messed up your registration. You vote near where you now live, and the ballot is only counted for some races. If I were unscrupulous, I’d encourage voters to vote outside their precinct – tell them its their right. That is one less vote for the Democrat legislator.

   But you are less likely to forget to change your federal ID when you move. You just need to drop by your friendly Homeland Security-Internal Revenue office.

   (4) The federal ID eliminates the need to register. Since you already have the ID, it really is not that much of a bother to bring the ID to the pools with you.

   Why wouldn’t you get an ID?

   (1) Because there will be no reason to register during early voting, it will be easier to vote. Since the number of hours are the same, there will be more time for those who have to work during the day to vote.

   Why do you want to keep poor people from having identification. Why do you want to keep them poor?

6. Can’t/won’t answer the questions, as usual.

   But of course you can’t answer them, because the hwole point of these restrictive laws is not to combat “voter fraud.” That’s a ruse. The real intent is to make it more difficult for people who are likely not to vote Republican to vote at all.

   But I’m interested in this notion that photo voter ID cards will combat poverty. Is this fantasy being pushed by A.L.E.C.? Are you a dues paying member of A.L.E.C., BYW?

   But I’ll ask you again, knowing you won’t answer because you’re just another hack Republican spinmaster, of course…where is the evidence of voter fraud in ANY significant number that must and can be combated only by issuance of photo voter ID cards? Check with your kindred spirit Demo Rep if you don’t have the data handy.

   C’mon, boy…enlighten us!

7. Barry Scary,

   I was correcting your answers, as usual.

   Why are you opposed to persons having IDs? Do you let your “workers” have a last name?

8. So here it is readers. Republicans, like Jim Riley here, make a concerted effort to pass voter ID laws in Republican controlled states, along with laws which restrict access to the polls in other ways, all with the obvious intent of cutting into the support for their opposition. Many of these laws are patterned, even copied directly, from “model legislation” crafted by the American Legislation Exchange Council, a nest of Republican legislators, wealthy contributors and corporate executives all supportive of the Republican agenda.

   They justify these laws by playing to fear and resentment. Generally the argument is that illegal aliens are voting in our elections. That an illegal would risk identification and deportation to cast one vote among millions is a comical proposition, but when you’re playing to emotions like fear resentment you don’t need to worry about rational, critical thought kicking in among your audience. However you might worry that you’re hitting the racist argument a little too hard, so you take a different tack, like Riley here. No, we need to worry about people voting in two jurisdictions.

   It’s a “solution” in search of a red herring.

   Now when pressed to produce actual data to substantiate the existence of a problem they purport to solve with voter ID laws, as you can see here, they come up with…NOTHING.

   Jim…you have NOTHING.

   but i predicted that, didn’t I?

9. Banks require more security than a polling place, after all can’t cash a welfare check with no account and no ID

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.