Need ID to Vote or Be a Citizen? Not in Georgia!

Published on June 3, 2009 By Island Dog In Politics

I guess this is more of the “change you can believe” in, but yet, I don’t think most people believe it yet.

Obama Justice Department Decision Will Allow Non-Citizens to Register to Vote in Georgia

Decision Bars Georgia From Continuing Voter Verification Process

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice’s denial of preclearance of Georgia’s voter verification process

Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.

Now it’s no secret democrats don’t like voter ID, it’s their best source of voter fraud allowing illegal immigrants to vote for them in exchange for entitlements. Now we have a President who has long ties with liberal voter fraud organizations, namely ACORN, that have benefited from federal money, and will use legislation like this across the country to get more votes for their liberal allies.

Unbelievable.

Comments (Page 2)

kingbee

on Jun 04, 2009

voter fraud organizations like ACORN use illegals and even dead people to commit voter fraud

prove it. rather than jerking us all off with vague accusations or unsubstantiated partisan allegations by internet tabloid journals and talk radio demagogues, please cite data determined to be factual by a preponderance of the evidence as deternined by either jurists or jurors at the conclusion of prosecution of criminal or civil proceedings on behalf of the citizens of the united or any individual state of this nation.

kingbee

on Jun 04, 2009

Proof of citizenship requirements would indeed tend to keep illegals away from the polls

you're still a citizen of the other state which has enacted this sorta law? how's that been working out?

by now some beancounter (if not a battalion of them) musta compiled enough data with which we can all see a dramatic drop in ballots cast by those not eligible to do so...or even total votes cast, for that matter. how muc has it cost? any determination as to whether that money might be equally well disposed of by simply dumping it into the grand canyon?

Daiwa

on Jun 04, 2009

An awfully convoluted argument against a very simple, and morally straightforward, principle. How can you struggle so mightily against assuring that those who vote are truly eligible to do so?

kingbee

on Jun 04, 2009

How can you struggle so mightily against assuring that those who vote are truly eligible to do so?

perhaps because i still recall when 'assuring that those who vote are truly eligible' meant poll taxes, tests, arbitrary office hours and brute force intended to prevent citizens from ever qualifiying for eligibility status.

perhaps it's because i consider firearm registration galaxies less vulnerable to abuse than forcing citizens to "haff your papers mit you at all times und present them on demand".

perhaps because none of us should have to lay out a couple hundred bucks for a passport in order to visit canada.

whichever the case, you seem to have overlooked my questions about arizona's voter id law.

Daiwa

on Jun 05, 2009

And this is pertinent, now, exactly how?

forcing citizens to "haff your papers mit you at all times und present them on demand"

What drivel.* You know perfectly well that's not what we're talking about. How often do elections occur? How difficult is it to prepare to exercise the right to vote? If I can figure out when and where to vote, I can figure out how to be sure I'm not turned away at the polls for lack of evidence of legal residence or proof of identity. It ain't that 'onerous,' kb.

*Although I can imagine a domestic version of the Brown Shirts being an acceptable idea to Obama - he's said almost as much already.

You've already said it's not a problem - illegals don't want to vote (even though you can't provide the sort of proof you demand from others). So where's the beef?

As for that last item. Not having any Black Panther poll intimidators in Arizona (that I know about), things have been working out OK so far here. To borrow your tactic, I've not heard of anyone who's heard of anyone who can confirm that a legally registered voter presenting to a polling place was successfully intimidated into not voting in Arizona. Soon as such is 'determined to be factual by a preponderance of the evidence as deternined by either jurists or jurors at the conclusion of prosecution of criminal or civil proceedings on behalf of the citizens of the united or any individual state of this nation,' I'll let you know.

taltamir

on Jun 05, 2009

kingbee, there is absolutely no connection between verifying someone is a LIVING US CITIZEN and checking trying to block a certain RACE from voting. That argument is just pathetic.

Also, bad german accent? really? and you accuse us of being racists.

kingbee

on Jun 05, 2009

To borrow your tactic, I've not heard of anyone who's heard of anyone who can confirm that a legally registered voter presenting to a polling place was successfully intimidated into not voting in Arizona. Soon as such is 'determined to be factual by a preponderance of the evidence as deternined by either jurists or jurors at the conclusion of prosecution of criminal or civil proceedings on behalf of the citizens of the united or any individual state of this nation,' I'll let you know.

altho i'd never hold you to that sorta standard (because i've no concerns about you responding with deliberate disinformation ripped from the virtual pages of such illustrious online purveyors of freshly pulled out their ass fantasy as worldweeklynews), you may be presented with an opportunity to do all that anyway once this is finally adjudicated:

Gonzalez v. Arizona; Navajo Nation v. Brewer; Purcell v. Gonzalez

(page last updated June 5, 2009 at 4:50 PM)

Case Information

Current Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case 06-16702, 06-16706, 08-17094)
All Courts: U.S. District Court, District of Arizona (Case 2:06-cv-01268-ROS and 3:06-cv-1575-PHX-ROS); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case 06-16702, 06-16706, 08-17094); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 06A375, 06A379; 06-532, 06-533)
Topic(s): Voter ID
State: Arizona
Date Filed: May 9, 2006

Issue:

Whether Arizona's voter identification requirements disparately impact minorities in the state and, as such, are unconstitutional.

Status:

Judgment for the Defendants granted by district court on 8/20/08. Notice of Appeal filed on 9/16/08. Appellants, Inter Tribal Council of AZ, submitted second opening brief (the first having been stricken due to an error in the document) on 1/7/09. Opening brief submitted by Plaintiff-Appellants, Gonzalez, et.al. 1/21. Amicus Briefs filed 1/28-29. Amicus brief filed 2/10. Appellees file unopposed motion to extend time to file answer brief until 3/23 on 2/17; Motion Granted 3/2.

link

btw, one of the plaintiffs (if she's still alive) is now a 98-year-old arizonan named shirley preiess who claims she'd voted in 19 presidential elections prior to 2008 when she wasn't permitted to register for last years election.

here's what's up with shirley priess (although i'm guessing you may already be familiar with her) :

Born at home in Clinton, Kentucky in 1910
Never had a birth certificate; never needed a passport
Taught school for decades
Has voted in every presidential election since FDR was first elected in 1932
Moved to Arizona nearly two years ago so that her 78-year-old son and his wife could help look after her
Has a Social Security Card, Medicare Card, Drivers Licenses going back decades
Barred from voting in Arizona because she lacks required proof-of-citizenshi

kingbee

on Jun 05, 2009

ooooops...here's another arizonan being deprived of her right to vote as told in her own words:

Testimony of Eva Steele
House Committee on Administration

My name is Eva Steele. I am 57 years old and I live at Desert Palms Assisted Living Center in Mesa Arizona. I grew up in a small town called Kirksville, Missouri, about 180 miles from Kansas City. My family lived there for generations. We are a patriotic family and we have always had a sense of civic duty. My grandfather was the town constable, a tradition begun by his father before him. My daughter was in law enforcement for eight years. And my son is now fighting in Iraq; fighting to make sure that the Iraqi people can have their voices heard by voting in democratic elections. He is in his 20^th year in the military and I am very proud of him.
I first registered to vote when I graduated from High School and I am pleased to say that I voted in nearly every election after that. Each election day I would get a call from my mother asking me if I had voted yet. Then my grandmother would call making sure I knew when the polls closed. You see, in our family we considered it our patriotic duty to participate in our democracy. We all vote and we always have. It was and is as important to us as our family tradition of putting up the flag and placing flowers on graves each and every Memorial Day.
I worked hard raising my four children. I have been a single mom, and I am proud to have instilled in my children the same values of honesty, integrity, civic responsibility and love of our country that I learned growing up in a small town in the Midwest.
Like so many others I moved to Arizona to live out my retirement years and I have lived here for seven months. I am a woman of very limited means. In fact, I have been disabled for seven years and my only income is disability. I am no longer able to drive. I have physical disabilities that make it very difficult for me to take public transportation. I don’t have a driver’s license. I have never been outside of the United States and I have never owned a passport. And I don’t have a birth certificate.
I wanted to register to vote here, but I was shocked to learn that the new proof-of-citizenship requirements passed with the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act or Prop 200 have made it impossible for me to do so. I cannot tell you how this pains me. Life is hard enough for disabled people like me without the added insult of being excluded from participating in our democracy. I do not have the economic means to pay the fees associated with obtaining the documents necessary to prove citizenship.
If somehow, I were to be able to register, Prop 200’s proof of identity requirements would prohibit me from voting at the polls because I do not have any of the documents required to prove my identity.
I live in an assisted living center and I do not have utility bills or property tax statements. I do not drive so I don’t have a car insurance card or a vehicle registration card. Whether unintentional or not, those who drafted this law could not have done a better job of ensuring that the voices of people like me and others in similar circumstances would be effectively silenced. It feels as though I am being punished for having the misfortune of being disabled with a low income.
I am not an illegal immigrant. It is clear to me that the barriers to voting imposed by Prop 200 are doing nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration. But they are certainly keeping law-abiding citizens like me from voting. While my son fights for the right of Iraqi citizens to vote, his own mother is prohibited from voting here in the only country she has ever known. That, to me, is un-American. We must eliminate these barriers to voting here in Arizona. And I ask that you oppose any efforts to enact similar barriers to voting at the national level. Thank you very much.

kingbee

on Jun 05, 2009

there is absolutely no connection between verifying someone is a LIVING US CITIZEN and checking trying to block a certain RACE from voting. That argument is just pathetic.

i guess you musta missed the part of the original post in which id was whining about the department of justice determining there is exactly that connection in the state of georgia. it's the reason georgia's current policy is being halted.

as far as the colonel klink thing being racist, the only germans who saw (or see) themselves as a race rather than a nationality were der duck's nazi buddies and i have no qualms about claiming they "vanted us to take out our teeth und valuables und put them in der bag" cuz they "ver goink to gif us a geshower".

Nitro Cruiser

on Jun 05, 2009

Drivers license use to be a pretty good form of ID. Now that liberals want to give them to illegals, it does present a problem where previously none existed.

Daiwa

on Jun 05, 2009

Cholly Atkins & Fred Astaire couldn't hold a candle to you, kb.

Those 'barriers' can be remedied easily enough (not to mention that they qualify as, shall we say, 'outliers') and with a modicum of effort an absentee ballot can be submitted, even by poor li'l ole Ms. Preiss & Ms. Steele. Melodrama is not an argument - you've yet to make an affirmative case for allowing any and every breathing body that shows up (or asks for a ballot) to vote, no matter whether a citizen or not, no matter whether they've previously voted or not, no matter whether they're actually alive or not. If you have one, I'd be glad to hear it.

And adjudication, as you say, has yet to occur.

taltamir

on Jun 06, 2009

i think the term is "appeal to emotion"... trying to bypass logic and common sense with emotionally charged stories and melodrama.

Also, you have not shown any connection between not being able to show proof of citizenship a person's race, remember your argument was that they are doing it to stop blacks from voting because they are evil racists.

kingbee

on Jun 06, 2009

"appeal to emotion"... trying to bypass logic and common sense with emotionally charged stories and melodrama.

of all the many issues raised since the beginning of this new century, there are few more aptly described or accurately characterized by your statement quoted above than the one being discussed in this thread.

when you finish reading this sentence, please browse back to my comment #24 to read (or perhaps reread) the information i excerpted from a study conducted by a group (truthaboutvoterfraud.org) operating in assocation with the brennan center. from what i've observed of you here, i believe you very likely know the difference between say .017 and .017% or .0002% and 2%--so please be sure to note the numbers and percentages they use in summing up the results of what appears to be the most extensive investigation of this 'problem' to date.

if you're willing to risk challenging your assumptions, i'd recommend following this LINK and perusing the document from which those few paragraphs were gleaned.

you have not shown any connection between not being able to show proof of citizenship a person's race, remember your argument was that they are doing it to stop blacks from voting because they are evil racists.

i believe i've pointed out--several times--nearly 200,000 registered voters in georgia were deemed ineligible during the first three months of 2009. because that number is so ridiculously high, almost--if not all--of those invalidations are the consequence of applicant or clerical error and should be reinstated. according to the doj, a higher percentage of the rejects appear to be hispanic or black. georgia's secretary of state is doing nothing to ensure those errors are considered, much less corrected.

draw your own conclusion.

taltamir

on Jun 06, 2009

you can make statistics say ANYTHING that you want. The bottom line is that many whites are denied voting too, this is not a race issue as you make it out to be.

consequence of applicant or clerical error and should be reinstated

Oh noes, the stupid people filled their forms WRONG and got denied! RACISM! RACISM![/sarcasm]

Seriously, how can applicant error be blamed on racism? and people can be reinstated, if anything this is an argument to modernize the system to make it QUICKER so that people could correct errors like that in time to vote.

The link you posted:

1. Defines voter fraud as an INDIVIDUAL impersonating ANOTHER individual for the sake of voting to defraud an election. They have other definitions for other things, including "fraud" which is when a voting machine has been tampered to tally incorrectly.

2. Does not take into account that maybe the reason voter fraud is rare (according to them) is exactly BECAUSE we have voter registrations and anti fraud systems in place.

3. I am all for IMPROVING the METHODS of anti voter fruad... I realise that not all "security" is secure. Just like when the airport staff asks "did you pack your own bags" or "are you a terrorist?" (they ask foreign nationals on entery, I know because I had to answer NO to that question many times coming into the US.)

There are certainly ASPECTS of voter "security" that do not actually do anything to prevent fraud and are thus useless. But that does not mean that all voter ID efforts, especially not PRE-Clearance, should be halted.

Daiwa

on Jun 06, 2009

if you're willing to risk challenging your assumptions, i'd recommend following this LINK and perusing the document from which those few paragraphs were gleaned.

That's still not an affirmative case. And I believe there were elections, let's see in 1960 & in 2000 I believe, where the margins were small enough for vote fraud to matter, just to mention two. Never mind Minnesota in 2008. See talt's #29.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!