Jump to content

Dems Vote Against Needing A Photo I.D To Vote


Passion
 Share

Recommended Posts

The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks.

 

The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member.

 

The bill, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate, is part of a Republican effort to complete before the November elections a package of proposals aimed at curbing illegal immigration and its effects on ordinary Americans.

 

The so-called "Voter ID" bill, aimed at stamping out voter fraud, would require voters in federal elections to provide picture identification by 2008 and provide proof of U.S. citizenship by 2010. It was among the recommendations made last year by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican.

 

"Effective voter registration and voter identification are bedrocks of a modern election system," they wrote in their final report.

 

But Democrats, siding with groups that work on behalf of minorities and illegal aliens, called the bill a "modern-day poll tax" and said it would place an insurmountable burden on voters and infringe upon their voting rights.

 

Rep. Brian Bilbray, California Republican, countered that the real infringement upon voting rights would be allowing fraudulent votes by the dead or illegal "to cancel out legitimate votes."

 

"That is the violation of the Voters Rights Act that we have not addressed," he told colleagues before the vote.

 

Democrats, who have long demanded reforms to the federal voting process, yesterday dismissed Republican concerns about voter fraud.

 

"Show me the examples of the problem you're trying to solve," demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the "fear and -- yes, perhaps -- the prejudices of people."

 

A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.

 

Mr. Bilbray pointed out that such convictions might be obtained if proper identification were required.

"Voter fraud is not something you can come back to after the fraud is committed," he said. "The person who voted for those dead people is long gone by the time it comes up on the record."

 

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Republican, urged support of the bill because, she said, it would prevent illegal aliens from voting in U.S. elections.

 

"It's outrageous and inexcusable that voters do not have to show proof of citizenship in order to vote in an election," she said. "Illegal immigrants are populating this country at an unprecedented number, and it is unjust and unfair to citizens of this country that noncitizens should have a hand in electing federal officials."

 

Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Florida Democrat, said he's more concerned about discouraging voters than he is about illegals voting.

 

"Nonparticipation in the election process is more of a problem in this country than noncitizens trying to vote," Mr. Hastings said.

 

Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat, called the bill a "modern-day poll tax" and charged that the bill "is nothing less than voter suppression."

 

He also reminded the Republican chamber of its overwhelming support in July for renewing the Voting Rights Act, although many conservatives off Capitol Hill warned that portions of it are no longer necessary.

 

"Just three months ago, this body passed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, admitting the sad fact that voter discrimination is still the reality," said Mr. Lewis, who said requiring identification at the polls is "an attack on the voting rights of millions of Americans."

 

Across the Capitol in the Senate, Democrats continued to slow-walk legislation approved by the House last week to construct 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The chamber voted yesterday 94-0 on a procedural motion to take up the bill.

 

Despite universal approval for taking up the legislation, Democratic leaders refused to grant "unanimous consent" agreements to speed up the process.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/p...21-123316-5086r

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today delivered the following speech on the Senate floor to voice his opposition to an amendment offered by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that would require a photo ID to vote.

 

 

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Let me just echo Senator Kennedy's strong opposition to the amendment that is offered by the Senator from Kentucky.

 

There is no more fundamental right accorded to United States citizens by the Constitution than the right to vote. The unimpeded exercise of this right is essential to the functioning of our democracy. Unfortunately, history has not been kind to certain citizens in protecting their ability to exercise this right.

 

For a large part of our nation's history, racial minorities have been prevented from voting because of barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes and property requirements. We've come a long way. That was clear a few weeks ago when Democrats and Republicans, members of the Senate and the House stood on the Capitol steps to announce the introduction of a bill to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. That rare and refreshing display of bipartisanship reflects our collective belief that more needs to be done to remove barriers to voting.

 

Right now, the Senate is finishing a historic debate about immigration reform. It's been a difficult discussion, occasionally contentious. It's required bipartisan cooperation. After several weeks and many, many amendments, we're less than an hour away from voting for cloture. Considering our progress and the delicate balance we're trying to maintain, this amendment could not come at a worse time.

 

Let's be clear. This is a national voter ID law. This is a national voter ID law that breaks the careful compromise struck by a 50-50 Senate four years ago. It would be the most restrictive voter ID ever enacted, one that could quite literally result in millions of disenfranchised voters and utter chaos at the state level.

 

Now, I recognize there's a certain simplistic appeal to this amendment. Why shouldn't we require people to have a voter ID card when they vote? Don't we want to make sure voters are who they claim to be? And shouldn't we make sure non-citizens are casting ballots to change the outcome of elections?

 

There are two problems with the argument: number one, there's been no showing that there's any significant problem with voter fraud in the 50 states. There certainly is no showing that non-citizens are rushing to try to vote: this is a solution in search of a problem.

 

The second problem is that historically disenfranchised groups - minorities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled - are most affected by photo ID laws. Let me give you a few statistics, overall 12% of voting age American do not have a driver's license, most of whom are minority, new U.S. citizens, the indigent, the elderly or the disabled. AARP reports that 3.6 million disabled Americans have no driver's license. A recent study in Wisconsin this year found that white adults were twice as likely to have driver's licenses as African Americans over 18. In Louisiana, African Americans are four to five times less likely to have photo IDs than white residents.

 

Now, why won't poor people be able to get photo IDs or Real IDs? It's simple. Because they cost money. You need a birth certificate, passport or proof naturalization and that can cost up to $85. Then you need to go to the state office to apply for a card. That requires time off work, possibly a long trip on public transportation assuming there's an office near you. Imagine if you only vote once ever two or four years, it's not very likely you'll take time off work, take a bus to pay $85 just so you can vote. That is not something that most folks are going to be able to do.

 

The fact of the matter, Mr. President, is that this is an idea that has been batted around not with respect to immigration but with respect to generally attempting to restrict the approach for people voting throughout the country. This is not the time to do it.

 

The Carter-Baker commission in 2002-2004 said fraudulent votes make up .000003% of the votes cast. That's a lot of zeros. Let me say it a different way. Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during these elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that into some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a federal election.

 

Mr. President, this is not the appropriate time to be debating this kind of amendment. We've got a lot of serious issues with respect to immigration. I would ask that all my colleagues reject the amendment so we can move on to the important business at hand. Thank you, Mr. President.

 

 

Very interesting stat at the end there. Just thought I'd share this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injustice? It's not an injustice to not have a photo I.D. It's apathy and laziness and more Democratic coddling that has hurt a generation of minorities and will continue to do so with crap like this.

 

The 52 fraudulent are only those that were discovered, not those that may have gone un-documented or those ballots that were casted using someone elses name that never came to light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd be fine with someone stealing your identity to vote in your name?

 

Ridiculous.

 

The ammount of offenses has nothing to do with whether or not something unlawful or should be changed.

 

 

so you would be fine with poor people who are not able to afford a drivers license and the necessary items required to obtain such to not be able to vote?

 

 

of the two, which is the more likely event occuring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd be fine with someone stealing your identity to vote in your name?

 

Ridiculous.

 

The ammount of offenses has nothing to do with whether or not something unlawful or should be changed.

 

 

so you would be fine with poor people who are not able to afford a drivers license and the necessary items required to obtain such to not be able to vote?

 

 

of the two, which is the more likely event occuring?

There are different types of acceptable photo I.D then just a driver's license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd be fine with someone stealing your identity to vote in your name?

 

Ridiculous.

 

The ammount of offenses has nothing to do with whether or not something unlawful or should be changed.

 

 

so you would be fine with poor people who are not able to afford a drivers license and the necessary items required to obtain such to not be able to vote?

 

 

of the two, which is the more likely event occuring?

There are different types of acceptable photo I.D then just a driver's license.

and the only difference to obtaining one is not having to pass a drivers test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd be fine with someone stealing your identity to vote in your name?

 

Ridiculous.

 

The ammount of offenses has nothing to do with whether or not something unlawful or should be changed.

 

 

so you would be fine with poor people who are not able to afford a drivers license and the necessary items required to obtain such to not be able to vote?

 

 

of the two, which is the more likely event occuring?

 

Those people you're mentioning already have disincentives to vote.

 

Lack of education, lack of income, inability to substitute time spent working for time spent at polling places...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injustice? It's not an injustice to not have a photo I.D. It's apathy and laziness and more Democratic coddling that has hurt a generation of minorities and will continue to do so with crap like this.

 

The 52 fraudulent are only those that were discovered, not those that may have gone un-documented or those ballots that were casted using someone elses name that never came to light.

 

 

 

Apathy and Laziness? C'mon. Believe it or not, yes, there are people out there who are living on food stamps and have no means of transportation to obtain a drivers liscense or muchless have the money to purchase one (or even need one for that matter) Yet these people still want, and are entitled to the right to vote...and are being disenfranchised due to this overhyped, baseless paranoia from the right wing that thinks that if you no longer require a photo ID to vote, elections will be tainted.

 

 

 

 

Voter ID cards...They've worked in the past without photo ID's.

 

 

I love how you think that disabled people who can't drive should have to go get a drivers' license.

 

I never said that...since when does photo identification mean only a driver's license?

 

I love how you paint your own picture to prove a point.

 

I think it's safe to say that most (if not all) forms of photo identification , atleast the ones that are accepted means of ID at the polls, cost money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injustice? It's not an injustice to not have a photo I.D. It's apathy and laziness and more Democratic coddling that has hurt a generation of minorities and will continue to do so with crap like this.

 

The 52 fraudulent are only those that were discovered, not those that may have gone un-documented or those ballots that were casted using someone elses name that never came to light.

 

Apathy and Laziness? C'mon. Believe it or not, yes, there are people out there who are living on food stamps and have no means of transportation to obtain a drivers liscense or muchless have the money to purchase one (or even need one for that matter) Yet these people still want, and are entitled to the right to vote...and are being disenfranchised due to this overhyped, baseless paranoia from the right wing that thinks that if you no longer require a photo ID to vote, elections will be tainted.

 

Voter ID cards...They've worked in the past without photo ID's.

Please, don't 'C'mon' me when it comes to when I say apathy and laziness. It comes from first hand experience and acknowledge.

 

If this passes, states would issue free state photo IDs just like Missouri was doing this month.

 

This is about securing mine and yours right as a voter to not have my right to vote taken away by someone who isn't registered, an illegal alien, or someone who wants to vote multiple times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injustice? It's not an injustice to not have a photo I.D. It's apathy and laziness and more Democratic coddling that has hurt a generation of minorities and will continue to do so with crap like this.

 

The 52 fraudulent are only those that were discovered, not those that may have gone un-documented or those ballots that were casted using someone elses name that never came to light.

 

Apathy and Laziness? C'mon. Believe it or not, yes, there are people out there who are living on food stamps and have no means of transportation to obtain a drivers liscense or muchless have the money to purchase one (or even need one for that matter) Yet these people still want, and are entitled to the right to vote...and are being disenfranchised due to this overhyped, baseless paranoia from the right wing that thinks that if you no longer require a photo ID to vote, elections will be tainted.

 

Voter ID cards...They've worked in the past without photo ID's.

Please, don't 'C'mon' me when it comes to when I say apathy and laziness. It comes from first hand experience and acknowledge.

 

If this passes, states would issue free state photo IDs just like Missouri was doing this month.

 

This is about securing mine and yours right as a voter to not have my right to vote taken away by someone who isn't registered, an illegal alien, or someone who wants to vote multiple times.

and the next step is a national ID card. Then Big Brother will always know where you are.

 

 

oh and who is going to be paying for these free state photo ID's I know I dont want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injustice? It's not an injustice to not have a photo I.D. It's apathy and laziness and more Democratic coddling that has hurt a generation of minorities and will continue to do so with crap like this.

 

The 52 fraudulent are only those that were discovered, not those that may have gone un-documented or those ballots that were casted using someone elses name that never came to light.

 

Apathy and Laziness? C'mon. Believe it or not, yes, there are people out there who are living on food stamps and have no means of transportation to obtain a drivers liscense or muchless have the money to purchase one (or even need one for that matter) Yet these people still want, and are entitled to the right to vote...and are being disenfranchised due to this overhyped, baseless paranoia from the right wing that thinks that if you no longer require a photo ID to vote, elections will be tainted.

 

Voter ID cards...They've worked in the past without photo ID's.

Please, don't 'C'mon' me when it comes to when I say apathy and laziness. It comes from first hand experience and acknowledge.

 

If this passes, states would issue free state photo IDs just like Missouri was doing this month.

 

This is about securing mine and yours right as a voter to not have my right to vote taken away by someone who isn't registered, an illegal alien, or someone who wants to vote multiple times.

 

 

The fact is, your right to vote being taken away by an illegal alien or someone who wants to vote multiple times is not a realistic concern. It's not as if the polls will require absolutely no proof of residency, citizenship or identification to vote. A voter ID card, that ensures one is a US Citizen and are indeed who a given person says they are is a perfectly legitimate means of ID and will (like they've been proven to do in the past) filter out fraud. This is the best, if not the only way, to not disenfranchise a large group of voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that fact that TSA doesn't accept school or identification cards, I would assume the same would be in this case--you pretty much need a drivers license or some kind of official gov't id.

 

And Barak Obama is an incredible speaker. I could almost hear him saying those words as I read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, the democratic party is so desperate. They don't even want you to be able to show a photo ID to vote now, what a joke.

 

If they thought that requiring and not requiring ID's wouldn't make a difference in the elections, they wouldn't give two shits about this bill and probably vote in favor of requiring them. This is just another case of the democrats putting themselves before the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say I am poor and I don't have a driver's liscense and I'm black. I have a valid voter card and the only photo ID I have is an old high school ID card from a couple years ago. I'm one of the many, many poor black people that Democrats comb neighborhoods for to give them a ride to their local polls.

 

The person working the desk at the local poll knows that I'm part of a van full of poor black people that the Democrats drove over.

 

I'm turned away from the polls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a much greater risk of a situation like this happening if this bill is passed

 

I say screw this bill. I'd rather have an absolutely miniscule amount of fraudulent votes than to have many times more poor people turned away from the polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, the democratic party is so desperate. They don't even want you to be able to show a photo ID to vote now, what a joke.

 

If they thought that requiring and not requiring ID's wouldn't make a difference in the elections, they wouldn't give two shits about this bill and probably vote in favor of requiring them. This is just another case of the democrats putting themselves before the country.

 

 

oh please. let's ignore the entire potential for voter disenfranchisement arguement and the whole let's do what is right thing.

 

but you are right, its all part of the game called politics. Its not like the poor blacks vote for Republicans anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...