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.

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?

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?

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.

And this is pertinent, now, exactly how?

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.

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.

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

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

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". 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.