READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For December 31, 2005"
(6 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
John D. Hall
said on 12/31/2005 @ 5:49 pm PT...
To My most valued friends of this blog: I am very happy and in wonderment to wish all the gang a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, along with
the setiments that this united States will have the courage to get away from the voting machines, and
make "every vote count" It is time for the "sheople's" of America to take back their sovereignty and stand on their hind leggs and bite back. It is also proper and time that the illegal
pResidents of the White House to lose their residents, and that we as the"American People"
bring out our troops out of the persian gulf area,
and bring to justice those that used false information and told lies to get us into this sorry predicument.. Thank you for this opportunity to
voice my opinion and to wish every body a Happy
and Properous and Peacefull New Year..
GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND GET OUR
TROOPS HOME SAFELY!!!!!!
jOHN D. HALL, sOVEREIGN CITIZEN OF THE US OF
A, AND THIS bEAUTIFUL PLANET.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 12/31/2005 @ 5:51 pm PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 12/31/2005 @ 10:35 pm PT...
Does anyone other than me find the new Indiana photo ID law particularly draconian? (This is from the Tippecanoe IN article link above) They will have to scrutinize each ID to make sure its validity dates conform with the new law. And how does an "indigent person" go about signing the required affidavit? And new polling places can be up to 5 miles outside the county?!
"And not just any photo ID will do, according to a law that Gov. Mitch Daniels signed last May. Laurie Wilson, the Republican co-director of the county election board, said the ID must be issued by either a state or federal agency.
Moreover, the IDs must show an expiration date and either be current or have expired since the last general election, which was November 2004.
"Purdue IDs will not meet these requirements," Wilson said. "You could make the case that since it is a state institution, it meets the requirements. But it technically doesn't."
Ruth Dowden, a secretary for the League of Women Voters, said she worries the new identification law will exclude many otherwise eligible voters from exercising their constitutional rights.
"I just do think that saying that everybody has to have a driver's license or a state ID that you have to pay for, that's where they are really making it hard for some people these days," she said. "There are many people who do not have an extra penny."
Heather Maddox, the Democrat co-director of the election board, said there is a provision in the law that excuses from the new requirements the indigent and those whose religious beliefs forbid them from having their photograph taken. To take advantage of either exception, a voter must first sign an affidavit, she said.
Wilson said those who neglect to bring an appropriate form of identification to the polls will be directed to fill out a provisional ballot, which the county will only accept once the ID requirement has been met. For that reason, provisional ballots are expected to be more numerous in 2006 than in previous years."
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 1/1/2006 @ 2:28 am PT...
Catherine Its almost like the only way some of these politicians care about reform is if the "reform" includes putting photo IDs on everyone.....I find that not just disturbing, but crazy.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/1/2006 @ 6:35 am PT...
It sounds similar to the ID law Georgia came up with which was found to be unconstitutional under the Twenty-fourth Amendment.
The first US Supreme Court case dealing with that Amendment is Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965).
In that case the court said that "Nor may the statutory scheme be saved, as the State asserts, on the ground that the certificate is a necessary substitute method of proving residence", indicating that anything that makes it more difficult for a voter just for the heck of it is unlawful.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/2/2006 @ 12:29 pm PT...
I am one of the folks of which we have all been hearing much of late. I have Fed Hackers assigned to me 24-7. They are ilegal. I am not a terrorist. They regularly abuse and misuse their powers. One example is that they will not let me access the site Velvet Revolution. I am sure it is linked to this blog, but not for me. If I check search engines there is no such site as the velvet revolution, not for me. Understand that this is seen as an acceptable use of our tax dollars by our current Administration.
This and radioinsidescoop.com are the only blogs that I have ever been permitted access. I don't remember how I got around them here.
Yes they hack voting machines.