Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
It is really hard to discuss this thread. When common sense, logic, and the words right out of the speaker of Penn. house are thrown aside, you have a one sided discussion. That is not uncommon here, but it doesn't make it right.
The 2002 Help American Vote Act accepted a social security number to be used as an acceptable id at the voting booth. If it was good then, when "W" was president, why not now?
Concerning the public assistance comment, that doesn't sound like targeting. We know what that sounds like. From that comment, it appears that inner city blacks don't have jobs. We are back to the welfare moms. They take the bus or walk to work. Given the automobile insurance rates for inner city people, public transportation makes total sense. Maybe just maybe, they can't afford a car!
Given what is going on about voter id laws, and Gerrymandering, the federal government may have to step in, and correct these situations. States lose their rights, when they abuse their powers.
How about doing something totally out of character, winning on a level playing field?
|
As the OP of this thread, I have to object.
You, on a few seperate posts are doing you darn best to make this some kind of political debate, and that was not the intent of the thread. If you wish a thread to bash Republicans, I suggest you start your own.
I have read about bot Texas and Pennsylvania, and in both cases the courts have not objected to voter id in principle. Most of this stems from availability to some and/or details within what the state has done.
The Indiana case which went to the Supreme Court and was upheld seems to fir what is being expected by the law.
Bottom line to this thread is that race was not mentioned by anyone but one political party, a few organizations.
Fact is in Pennsylvania they specifically mentioned availability of state dis to informed and elderly.
So in the process of the law, which is our countries foundation, it appears this requirement for voter id is acceptable and the nuances need to be worked out as is the case with many new laws.
This entire movement, which admittedly was primarily from the right is prompted by the advance in technology, the number of illigal immigrants, etc.
But for purposes of this thread objective, minorities are ONLY mentioned in a political sense, race is mentioned only by political entities, but if all of us were black or all of us were white, the idea of voter id seems to fly with the courts and the law, except as I said, the availability of some state IDs. Seems using the Indiana law might work and it is strict and has passed all the court challenges.
Keep in mind there has been this movement since about 1950, and it really never got a foothold until the 2000 election when people realized suddenly that one vote could matter.
That plus our advanced technology and immigration mess put this on the front burner.
But again, to the thread title and purpose, it appears from reading all the court decisions, and the laws, the only mention of race is from those who ignore the basic reason and use it as a political tool.