READER COMMENTS ON
"Federal Court Blocks Photo ID Law at Polls in Georgia!"
(32 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
George Walker Bullshit
said on 10/18/2005 @ 3:17 pm PT...
No photo ID's? Yikes!
I'll have 10,000 glasses of kool-aid please!!!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
A Concerned Citizen
said on 10/18/2005 @ 3:32 pm PT...
Smiling, all is good here. I'm beginning to think there might be the small hope of everyone waking up and taking a stand......
One small step for justice, one giant leap for getting us a fair election!!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 3:44 pm PT...
There is hope for us yet!!
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 3:45 pm PT...
There is hope for us all!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 3:51 pm PT...
OK...it's been a while since I posted since every time I ask a queston I get accused of being a "troll".
Why on earth does anyone think that a photo ID is disenfranchising anyone? I thought that if you didn't have a Driver's License the law said you could get a photo ID without driving priviledges that served the same purpose???? Do I misunderstand ....and puleeeze people...stop with the "troll" crap. I occasionally drop in and read and move on to other sites. It's ridiculous to name call everyone who dares ask a question. I've yet to figure out how this question could offend but my experience has already shown me otherwise!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 4:00 pm PT...
This is just the newer version of the old racist attempts to prevent people of color, and other minoritiies from having voting access. The fact that the Carter-Baker was chock full of the phoney ACVR bunch should have said it all.
Why should such a thing be an infringement? Think about this----Acenture provided the state of Florida with a voter purge list of 55,000 names of supposed felons who could not vote. 93% of the list was actually comprised of known Democratic voters who had no felony convictions.
Now---if they can identify who votes Democratic without seeing a photo ID---why would one be needed to vote?
Also----those bogus purge lists did not contain ONE Republican voter, unless they actually had a felony.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 4:07 pm PT...
The REAL ID bill is an extension of the FTAA (Free Trade in the Area's of the America's) which has as its main tenet, the establishment of a national ID which would be part of a continental ID.
This is part and parcel of the obliteration of our borders and the establishment of continental ID and economy.
It will simplify things if they can first issue a national ID to Americans and then Canadians and Mexicans.
This is not about voting, terrorism prevention, or anything but implementing more of the FTAA. NAFTA was the first step, and CAFTA was phase two. Supplemental parts like national ID are attempts to firmly establish the total of FTAA in America.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 4:28 pm PT...
Right now! - Unbelievable Pat Buchannan quotes on Hardball!!!!!
I mean, !!!! !!!! !!!!
"Somebody deliberaly forged the niger uranium documents to get this country into war. Who did it?"
Matthews asks "Was it Mosaad?"
Buchannan: "No, they do better work than that"
Pat was totally on board with a conspiracy to falsely sell the war! There were other quotes that were absolely fucking unbelievable!!! We must get this video!! I will quote Buchannan when I call my Representative again about this!
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 5:22 pm PT...
Good news! But while Conyers is at it, could he challenge the similar law that was passed here in Indiana?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 5:42 pm PT...
Once in a while, I get the feeling that this government is still working for us,
and this is one of those times
Isn't it funny though, congress persons from other states
suing Repub controlled states like Missouri about Medicare cuts, poll taxes in Georgia, and the like
Keep on kicking butt Mr Conyers, you are a true patriot
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 5:42 pm PT...
YES, as a Georgian, this proves the legislators in both our House and Senate are unelected, because this was never the will of the people. I'm so proud of the ACLU and NAACP for fighting this, and GA is lucky to have a few democratic judges left in this state. Now we must stop the use of Diebold in GA which disenfranchises 100% of Georgians everytime they hit the cast ballot button. Let's ask the ACLU why they would not support an open records request that was denied to the citizens by the SOS office for gaining access to the 2004 ballots? If they can fight for the Voter ID, they can also fight for election fraud.....
Harold Murphy just might be the last vestige of democracy left in GA... it should be a warning bell, that citizens can and will fight laws that prevent access to the ballot and prevent our citizen right to vote and have those votes counted fairly.....
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 5:46 pm PT...
WHY VOTER ID WAS DISENFRANCHISING?
Easy Answer: 56 GA Dept. of Motor Vehicle locations to get a driver's license or state issued ID, while there are 159 counties. Ask folks without a car or unable to drive to go outside their county to get a new ID to vote with... it just isn't fair to ask someone who might have financial or other hardship.
But more importantly, Shirley Franklin's mom, the mother of our awesome Mayor of Atlanta, had a social security card.. they tried to make it where you cannot vote with that ID either.... this is great news for Shirley's mom!!! somebody tell Shirley's mom she can keep on voting....
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 6:03 pm PT...
It wasn't Mossad it was CIA agent Frederick Fleitz, some american trouble-makers....mafiosos.
In fact they all work for Olliver North!!
As to the POLL TAX, we don't need no god damn poll tax!!!!
If we want to PREVENT any kind of voter fraud at all, get rid of the double-voting by ensuring real social security cards at the polls!!!! You have to provide your real social security card number, THAT will prevent fraud!!!!!
And then get rid of those damn machines!!!! DOWN WITH DIEBOLD/ES&S!!!!!!!!!
Smartmatic should be the only machine anyone votes on!
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 6:05 pm PT...
Essentially wanted to reduce from 17 forms down to 4 approved state IDs, with the cost of a state ID being $20. The case was handled well, taking the issue with cost of the state ID, showing it ot be an unnecessary poll tax, that was the legal angle that won it for them. Way to go guys!
Suit filed against Georgia's voter ID law
By CARLOS CAMPOS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 09/19/05
"The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two African-American registered Georgia voters and several groups including Common Cause/Georgia, the League of Women Voters of Georgia, the NAACP and the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, also calls the photo ID requirement an illegal "poll tax" that disproportionately affects blacks, the poor, the sick, and the elderly.
Gov. Sonny Perdue signed into law earlier this year a bill passed by the General Assembly requiring voters to show one of seven forms of government-issued photo identification when voting. The U.S. Department of Justice, which has to review any changes to voting laws in Georgia, approved the new law in August.
"House Bill 244 discriminates against minorities, the elderly, the poor and the disabled," said Neil Bradley, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Voting Rights Project in Atlanta, one of the lawyers in the case. "The $20 fee that is required to obtain a five-year state ID card is an unconstitutional poll tax."
Although Georgia is one of four states in the nation requiring voters to show photo IDs, it is is one of the most restrictive because other states allow photo IDs that are not issued by the government, such as work badges. Previously, voters in Georgia could show one of 17 forms of identification, including non-photo ID such as birth certificates, Social Security cards, utility bills, payroll checks and other documents showing a name and address.
"The new photo ID requirement ... imposes an unnecessary and undue burden on the exercise of the fundamental right to vote on hundreds of thousands of citizens of Georgia who are fully eligible, registered and qualified to vote, but who do not have Georgia driver's licenses, passports, or employer ID cards or other forms of photographic identification issued by the state or federal government," according to the lawsuit.
Staff writer Bill Rankin contributed to this article.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 6:12 pm PT...
*** TALKING POINT the authors of this bill count not cite 1 instance of VOTER FRAUD.
"Authors of House Bill 244 could not give one instance of voter fraud in the state when asked while presenting the bill. It is well known that most voter fraud emanates from absentee ballots; however, the legislature expanded the provisions regarding those."
The 17 forms of ID are listed below.
(1) a valid Georgia driver's license;
(2) a valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification;
(3) a valid United States passport;
(4) a valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;
(5) a valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any employer of the elector in the ordinary course of such employer's business;
(6) a valid student identification card containing a photograph of the elector from any public or private college, university, or postgraduate technical or professional school located within the state of Georgia;
(7) a valid Georgia license to carry a pistol or revolver;
(8) a valid pilot's license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authorized agency of the United States;
(9) a valid United States military identification card;
(10) a certified copy of the elector's birth certificate;
(11) a valid social security card;
(12) certified naturalization documentation;
(13) or a certified copy of court records showing adoption, name, or sex change;
(14) A copy of a utility bill;
(15) A bank statement (will be kept confidential);
(16) A government check or payment with name and address; or
(17) A government document that shows the name and address of the elector.
House Bill 244 reduces required ID from 17 to four:
A Valid Georgia Driver's License
A Valid Georgia ID Card
A Valid Military ID Card
A Valid United States Passport
If citizens do not have any one of these four forms of ID, they will not be allowed to vote.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 7:30 pm PT...
You got one answer that's "reasonable".. not being able to go get an ID.. right? Here's some more..
2) Some people, even if they -did- find a way to get to a place to get a liscense, might have to give up food for several days to spend that $20 on a liscense. Those same people are not likely to keep track of it from one election to the next (poverty has millions of side-effects, messiness not withstanding). That would mean buying new IDs for various elections (if they could get to the places to buy them, that is)
3) The Constitution of the United States has a clause that prevents "poll tax". Way back when, then the rich elite wanted to "rig elections" (in various countries, I'm sure, and probably before our independance here too), they would charge a "tax" to vote.. called a "poll tax". That means, if you want to "vote", you have to "pay".. Our Founding Fathers saw this as enough of a problem for "Democracy" to decide that we had to protect against it.. So, "no money can be required to vote".. Forcing you to "buy" an ID to "vote" is no different than making you "pay at the polling station".. All the forms of ID must be free (or at least enough of the possible forms to validate the voter)..
hope that clears it up a bit..
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 8:07 pm PT...
First, you give our Founding Fathers too much credit. The actual text of the Constitution says nothing of a "poll tax." It wasn't until the 24th Amendment (ratified in 1964) that a poll tax was banned. Several states in the south used poll taxes (and literacy tests/civics tests) to prevent people from voting until this amendment. This was not really meant to rig elections (although it probably did rig them somewhat), it was meant to deny blacks from having equal rights.
Second, in Georgia if you do not have the money to get a state ID, the fee is waved and you get it for free. This something that most people seem to ignore about this.
That said, my thinking is that if one person is kept from legitimately voting because of this law, it's bad law and should be done away with. The argument was already made that transportation to a DMV could keep some from being able to get the ID, I think that is enough said. While I don't think this is really a poll tax, I guess I'm OK with the federal court using that to justify it as unconstitutional.
Another thing, this may not necessarily be over. It could be appealed (although I doubt that the Federal Court of Appeals or Supreme Court could hold this law up either.)
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 9:07 pm PT...
Ah.. Thanks Nittany.. I was wondering where the justification came from for the founding fathers to have that insight.. didn't seem like such an issue "back then".. it's being the 24th Amendment makes a lot more sense.. I recond I should have read over my Constitution again before "making claims"
Oh, and if you are "denying votes", even if it's main objective is "denying rights", you're still rigging an election (if the people you're denying are legal voters). If you know those people are likely to vote a certian way, you block their rights.. if they are gonna vote the way you want, why not let them vote? I think it's all tied together, but I could be wrong.. My knowledge on that kind of stuff is pretty limited..
Also, "ignoring the fee" doesn't get people to the dispersal stations, right? if the numbers were right.. 59 stations in 150+ counties, that's a lot of folks that can't get their "free" ID.. and what proof do you need to show "can't afford"? And, as you point out.. if it's being considered a "poll tax", why? I think, even with the "free ones", you're charging other people to vote, and the 24th (I'll take your word for it ) amendment prohibits that.. right? I think the reasoning is, -all- of the forms of ID to vote cost money, there are no "free forms" 'for the general population', which is where it's problematic..
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 10/18/2005 @ 9:11 pm PT...
Nittany - Good for you.
Emma - Apologies if you've been unfairly labelled as a "troll" here. I try my best to keep that from happening inappropriately, but folks do have reason to be concerned from time to time. Hope it doesn't happen again. If so, please let me know! And I hope folks here have answered your questions about why Photo ID is nothing more than a scam to keep disenfranchising folks.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 5:40 am PT...
When I moved to Fl from Ca (not a choice I would normally make), I went to get my drivers license
switched, they asked me if I wanted to register to vote,
okay I said, so I registered as a Democrat, lo and behold
when I got back home I looked more carefully at the license,
THEY MADE ME A FEMALE,
I thought it was a coincidence, until I read something here about this ID crap that made me wonder...
Sex is one of the requirements
on these IDs that Feeney is trying to slam through.
I can't register here for absentee ballot until after the first of the year, so I am going to try to register with this ID, before I go through my "sex change" to see if they turn me down first
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 7:39 am PT...
Read the legal opinion of the court if you want to get it straight from the horse's mouth.
Take note of people like Steve F (the gay guy who posts here), jeffie gannon (gay prostitute Rove approved for the white house "news reporter"), and other gays in the RNC who hide their sexual proclivity from the public, and deny it (closet), but who are activists against gay rights on behalf this admin. And note that Alberto "Torture Man" Gonzales while claiming to be the justice seeker of americans advocated torture tactics.
The characteristic they all have is hypocrisy. They say one thing but do another.
The voting ID is the same. They had plenty of information as to why it is not a good idea because it harms the voting ability of many poor folk. You would not be aware of it by experience, so you must rely on experts ... not shills.
Before a federal court can grant an injunction the evidence and law must be stronger than in a normal case, so I am convinced at this point, that the case is quite clear.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 7:55 am PT...
Nittany Lion #17
Savantster did not give our Founding Fathers too much credit. As a matter of fact he did not mention them at all. He said "back then".
Each and every current amendment is the constitution, and more than that, are more so the constitution than the "constitution".
For example at one time we had no federal constitutional right to vote for senators, just as we have no federal constitutional right to vote for president now. An amendment changed that so we now have such a right to vote for congress members. And that is the "real" constitution, not the "old one" as your text would seem to have it.
Perhaps you have been infected by the errors of the "original intent" people. They have more distortions than a heavy metal band when it comes to knowing what the constitution is. Be wary of them.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 10:41 am PT...
I posted this in the 'indict the V.P.?' thread too:
Wayne Madsen reports on the Plame 'affair' and in the middle tosses this in:
"Plame and Brewster Jennings & Associates' most critical overseas work on WMD counter proliferation occurred between 1996 and 2003. U.S. intelligence sources also confirm that during this period, the CIA counter-WMD team discovered the involvement of neo-con elements in the Bush administration, closely tied to the Likud regime in Israel and the Russian-Ukrainian-Israeli Mafia (RUIM), in trafficking nuclear components to Pakistan and Iran in order to heighten tensions between the West and Islamic states with developmental and embryonic nuclear weapons programs."
This sort of trumps a lot of other stories going around, if it can be proven in a court and isn't just speculation.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 12:10 pm PT...
Actually Dredd.. I kinda did imply the Founding Fathers put in the poll tax provision.. I knew I had read it, but wasn't sure (and totally blew the entire Amendment process)..
I had a hodgepodge of thinking.. and like you noted, the "back then" meant, for me, the early 1900s through mid 1900s or so? Why I didn't stop to check my "facts" I don't know.. in a rush I guess..
So, given "history" and my not realizing my "back then" was -after- the Founding Fathers, I kind of made a faux pa (sp).. Though, I agree with you that some of what came after the original Constitution is "more" (in a better sense).. But, we have things like the Prohibition in there.. which is exactly COUNTER to what the entire Constitution is about .. kind of like Shurbby wanting to ban gay marriage in the Constitution. That's a sacred document and should NEVER be sullied with -anything- that takes away rights of Americans, ever.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 12:24 pm PT...
Whoa there. Savantster was inferring that the Constitution in its original text banned poll taxes, I was just clearing it up for him that it came through an amendment. I know that the amendments are part of the Constitution, I was just trying to clear up where it came from. And he did mention the Founding Fathers. And I don't know what you mean when you say the amendments are more so the constitution than the constitution. They are just clearly part of it, just as an amendment to a treaty would be part of a treaty.
These examples you give me are nothing new to me. I would be willing to bet I know more about the Constitution and Constitutional Law than you do.
You said, Perhaps you have been infected by the errors of the "original intent" people. They have more distortions than a heavy metal band when it comes to knowing what the constitution is. Be wary of them.
What distortions exactly are you referring to? I realize that a "strict constructionist" approach is impossible, I posted about why that approach doesn't theoretically work in the "Fox Backing Repubs" post. But at the same time, saying that you need to "modernize" the Constitution is somehwat dangerous, because then the Constitution could be construed to fit the political philosophy of whoever is in control. For example, in Griswald and other decisions, the Supreme Court wrongly made privacy a "fundamental" right, when it definitely shouldn't be (according to the Constitution, at least.) Privacy is an important right that should exist, but it was wrong for the court to justify it being "guarenteed" by the 9th amendment rather than being "allowed." This set the stage for Roe v. Wade, which was not bad because it legalized abortion, but bad because it came from a fundamental right that should not exist, and made abortion a fundamental right. In the case of abortion, that is a moral issue, and should have been left up to the states to decide (like the death penalty.)
BTW, how about an amendment to the Constitution to ban the death penalty? Any chance we ever see that in our lifetime? (or, for that matter, just signing and ratifying the Second Optional Protocol on the Abolition of the Death Penalty)
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 12:28 pm PT...
It's amazing to me the government is expending all this energy to make sure that not a single invalid vote is cast, while we routinely hear about many thousands of votes that are lost, "spoiled," invalidated or otherwise uncounted AFTER the votes are cast. The back-end of the voting process needs more attention than the front-end. So why the focus on the front-end? In a word: politics.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 12:35 pm PT...
This set the stage for Roe v. Wade, which was not bad because it legalized abortion, but bad because it came from a fundamental right that should not exist, and made abortion a fundamental right.
Oops, I didn't mean to say that abortion is a fundamental right. My bad.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 12:41 pm PT...
Both ends need attention. You don't ignore little problems just because bigger problems exist. And I don't know what you mean that politics is the reason this is being focused on, unless you mean that the Repubs in Georgia want to use a fix to a legitimate problem to function as a means of shifting votes to their side, in which case I agree.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 6:12 pm PT...
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, the answers here have been helpful. I guess that given the concern about voter fraud that people on this website have ,I don't know how we expect to stop it unless people have to prove they are who they say they are. I live in Florida and in order to get a voter registration card we must PROVE who we are so why is this any different? I just see it as protecting us from another republican coordinated activity to show up anywhere they want over and over and never having to show a photo ID. I guess I see the bad side of human nature but in truth I could just grab my mom's social security card and run vote at her precinct after I've voted in mine???? Clarification please...I thought we wanted HONEST voting. I don't see how proving your identity is a bad thing. How do we assure that only legitimate people vote???? I don't want to see anyone "disenfranchise" but I certainly don't want a bunch of frauds determining the outcome of future elctions.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 7:00 pm PT...
This is to stop illegal aliens from voting, not blacks, at least in PA, you can get a non-drivers licence Photo ID, they are probably free, and you can always make up some excuse that you are poor if they aren't.
Illegal aliens would vote for who sucks up to them most, could go either way.
With "eminent domain", telling toledo police to stand down to the rioters, sending katrina "victims" to lily white towns, an insane increase in government spending, increased debt to china, the elimination of all domestic manufacturing, outsourcing even service jobs, praising black stars for "bringing it to the hizzy" and other bullshit, promoting ugly miscegination on popular TV shows, complete loyalty to israel before the American people, buying back bullets from israel that we gave them for free, Israeli porn peddlers, and drug dealers dictating the morality of the nation, I do not believe for one second that our republican leaders put anti-black or any non-white racism in front of their policy of anti-white talmudic by proxy hate.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 10/19/2005 @ 9:48 pm PT...
We don't need a POLL TAX like this. People should only be required to show proof of residency and their real social security card. That prevents illegals from voting.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 11/18/2005 @ 8:43 am PT...
You said "I don't know what you mean when you say the amendments are more so the constitution than the constitution". That is not an accurate quote of what I posted.
I posted Each and every current amendment is the constitution, and more than that, are more so the constitution than the "constitution". The portion in quotes in my post was left out in yours.
What you do not understand, then, is that Amendments are the constitution, and the original text becomes obsolete, non-binding, and no longer the constitution when an amendment is made.
Amendments supercede the original. There are cases where one amendment is later made invalid by a subsequent amendment. The latest is the greatest, and the former is not law.
You said "I would be willing to bet I know more about the Constitution and Constitutional Law than you do." Good. The more people that know more about the constitution than I the better.
You said For example, in Griswald and other decisions, the Supreme Court wrongly made privacy a "fundamental" right, when it definitely shouldn't be (according to the Constitution, at least.)
I don't know of any "Griswald" case, perhaps you are referring to GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT (link here).
In that case the court mentioned the 9th amendment as follows: The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Ninth Amendment says that any list of rights "SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE" any other rights retained by the people. So it is text in the constitution that ORDERS the courts to interpret the constitution in FAVOR of rights rather than against rights. It mandates a liberal construction of the text in favor of rights.
One of those rights is privacy.
You said "Roe v. Wade, which was not bad because it legalized abortion, but bad because it came from a fundamental right that should not exist, and made abortion a fundamental right". That is a common misconception. What it did is give a woman the right to choose. It did not legalize anything other than her right to make a choice either way.