I happen to be home quite a bit now and for a bit helping out my wife, and thus have more time than usual to be on here.

I enjoy conversation on issues but really like it to be based on FACTS. I also like to get right to it...meaning, I hate the tip toeing around things but that does not mean that I encourage rudeness or lying. I would love to discuss this issue of RACE just to get some idea of WHY certain folks feel they way they do and what is it actually based on.

Today, Hillary Clinton brought it up, and that got me thinking so I will use her justification to kick it off a bit.

She spoke of certain voters id laws and called them racist.

Ok....I do not see it as racist at all. I see a difference of opinion on how much identification should be required to vote. I do not see how it becomes racist.

I hear what those who think it is racist are saying but that is from them. They are inserting race into it, are they not.

IS NO IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED THE GOAL OF THOSE WHO THINK THIS IS RACIST ?

IF THE LAW SAID NO IDENTIFICATION IS REQUIRED WOULD THE CRY OF RACISM GO AWAY ?

IS THERE A MIDDLE AREA ON IDENTIFICATION WHERE THE CRIES OF RACISM WILL GO AWAY ?

Just curious on ONLY this part of race. So many others but I think parsing them is better than just a bunch of posts on race in general, so please keep your posts to the point of voter registration and then we can move on but for now, that is the subject of this thread.

VOTER REGISTRATION AND WHY IS IT RACIST AND WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST TO GET AROUND IT ?

The problem is not racist. I have had to show drivers license to vote most of my life.
It has become a race issue by special interest and minorities that want to be able to stuff the ballot box.

Nothing more.
There is no issue with the legitimately registered majority.
BS politics!

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem is not racist. I have had to show drivers license to vote most of my life.
It has become a race issue by special interest and minorities that want to be able to stuff the ballot box.

Nothing more.
There is no issue with the legitimately registered majority.
BS politics!

I happen to agree with you but really want to hear from those who feel that asking for an identification is racist at its core.

And I ask those who feel that way to please do not share the tweets or little blurbs you have heard but what you actually feel in your heart.

And remember, I asked a few questions and hope you take the time to respond to them. I am always criticized for using links, but I read a lot..I mean a lot but I promise I will not in this thread and if it goes well in subsequent threads. BUT no quipping or smarta$$ remarks....opinions from your heart and why.

Thanks and I am not picking an argument.....I almost should promise not to rebut those who feel differently than I and I will just try and ask questions to make sure I understand

A day or two ago, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a major portion of the Texas law that requires certain state issued ID in order to vote. They said it violated Part 2 of the Voting Rights Law. It obviously was a decision that took a lot of time and work. It was a 49 page decision.

Federal law trumps state law - especially in voting cases.

If you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote and ID is required to register, and you receiver a voter registration card, then what is wrong with asking for THE VOTER REGISTRATION card to be presented when voting? I don't expect an answer, it was a rhetorical question.
According to the liberal way of thinking, it is wrong to ask for ID when voting. Therefore, it is wrong to ask for ID when purchasing liquor, prescription drugs, welfare checks and food stamps and airline tickets when flying. Heck, it must be wrong to ask for a passport when traveling in and out of the country.

It's racist to ask, because everyone knows that minorities don't have ID.

According to liberals, asking for some form of ID when voting, is "disenfranchising" the blacks. How come the blacks don't take offense to that kind of speech coming from the left? Why would the left want to demean the blacks with that kind of talk?

It's all politics. Clinton can't run on her own policies so she has to make up lies and throw mud. Hillary has no wish to improve America, just exploit it for power and her own avarice.

Does no ID policy would imply that anybody could go in and vote for anybody else?

Does anybody really believe the voter ID requirement was purposefully aimed at denying any legally registered voter the right to vote?

Any more than having to show an ID for the many other things we encounter in a day in our lives.

Political BS!

Originally Posted by Guest

If you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote and ID is required to register, and you receiver a voter registration card, then what is wrong with asking for THE VOTER REGISTRATION card to be presented when voting? I don't expect an answer, it was a rhetorical question.
According to the liberal way of thinking, it is wrong to ask for ID when voting. Therefore, it is wrong to ask for ID when purchasing liquor, prescription drugs, welfare checks and food stamps and airline tickets when flying. Heck, it must be wrong to ask for a passport when traveling in and out of the country.

It's racist to ask, because everyone knows that minorities don't have ID.

IF you actually read the ruling beyond the headlines, you will find that the court simply criticized ONE SMALL part of the voter id law concerning photo id and that was it.

The judge must now reopen the case in her Corpus Christi court, and fashion a specific legal remedy for that violation.

From the Supreme Court blog...

"The judge should not issue a remedy order that is broader than the need to remedy the specific violation. It suggested several ways that such an order might be written that would leave Texas free to continue to enforce some form of photo identification requirement."

So, it is not as dramatic as the media is making out.

Most importantly as relates to this specific thread...

"The Fifth Circuit rejected her conclusion that the legislature had passed the law with a specific discriminatory purpose. "

So this is not as big a deal as is being made.

I am sorry...I said no links but I am not a lawyer so had to research and for those interested...

Texas voter ID law ruled invalid

There is no problem in asking for an ID at the polls. However, the people that are currently being targeted generally don't vote for Republicans. The voter id laws that are being changed are in Republican controlled states. The people that generally don't have a drivers license are inner city blacks. It might not be racism, but it is sure as hell targeting people that usually don't vote for you.

The 2002 Help America Vote act allowed for driver's licenses, but also the last four digits of your Social Security number. I don't know many people that don't know the last four digits of their SS number. Why was it necessary to change this law?

As soon as the Federal Preclearance law was ruled by the Supreme Court as not necessary any more, Southern states couldn't have run any faster to change their voter id laws. Surprise! Surprise! The people, that are now being targeted, are people that don't generally vote for them. For a party that always hails the Constitution, which they should, certainly don't think that much of the right to vote for people that don't agree with them. Racist or not, this is a fact. Texas tried to push accepting a gun owner's picture ID, but not a student's picture ID. Say what!

What is worse being called a racist, or being called un-American? One more time, when the Penn. leader of the their house said upon changing the voter id laws, "we just gave Penn to Romney." How can anyone defend what they did? According to Wikipedia, this is what they did, and how the court acted.

Pennsylvania's voter ID law allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities. Voters who do not possess these forms of identification can obtain voting-only photo IDs issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).[21] A judicial order on October 2, 2012 blocked enforcement of Pennsylvania's law until after the 2012 Presidential election. Following a trial in the summer of 2013 and a six-month delay, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down Pennsylvania's voter ID law as violative of the constitutional rights of state voters on January 17, 2014. Required IDs were only available through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs are open only one day per week in nine counties and two days per week thirteen counties. The Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to providing IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID".[22] Photo IDs are not required to vote in PA.[23]

Originally Posted by Guest

There is no problem in asking for an ID at the polls. However, the people that are currently being targeted generally don't vote for Republicans. The voter id laws that are being changed are in Republican controlled states. The people that generally don't have a drivers license are inner city blacks. It might not be racism, but it is sure as hell targeting people that usually don't vote for you.

The 2002 Help America Vote act allowed for driver's licenses, but also the last four digits of your Social Security number. I don't know many people that don't know the last four digits of their SS number. Why was it necessary to change this law?

As soon as the Federal Preclearance law was ruled by the Supreme Court as not necessary any more, Southern states couldn't have run any faster to change their voter id laws. Surprise! Surprise! The people, that are now being targeted, are people that don't generally vote for them. For a party that always hails the Constitution, which they should, certainly don't think that much of the right to vote for people that don't agree with them. Racist or not, this is a fact. Texas tried to push accepting a gun owner's picture ID, but not a student's picture ID. Say what!

What is worse being called a racist, or being called un-American? One more time, when the Penn. leader of the their house said upon changing the voter id laws, "we just gave Penn to Romney." How can anyone defend what they did? According to Wikipedia, this is what they did, and how the court acted.

Pennsylvania's voter ID law allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities. Voters who do not possess these forms of identification can obtain voting-only photo IDs issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT).[21] A judicial order on October 2, 2012 blocked enforcement of Pennsylvania's law until after the 2012 Presidential election. Following a trial in the summer of 2013 and a six-month delay, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley struck down Pennsylvania's voter ID law as violative of the constitutional rights of state voters on January 17, 2014. Required IDs were only available through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs are open only one day per week in nine counties and two days per week thirteen counties. The Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to providing IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Judge McGinley found that this leaves about half of Pennsylvania without DLCs for five days a week, imposing a significant barrier to obtaining Pennsylvania's "free ID".[22] Photo IDs are not required to vote in PA.[23]

First, as relates to this thread, race was never mentioned in any decision. The only mention of race was by the media and politicians.

Now, voter id has been upheld by the Supreme Court as in an Indiana case. At some point all of these laws will make their way once again to the Supreme Court

But again, the only mention of race comes from politicians and the media interviewing politicians.

By the way the comment you cite about "giving the state to Romney" simply plays into what politicians want.....the comments was obviously because it was a Republican backed bill and the Democrats made an great racial issue of it during the campaign.

Originally Posted by Guest

First, as relates to this thread, race was never mentioned in any decision. The only mention of race was by the media and politicians.

Now, voter id has been upheld by the Supreme Court as in an Indiana case. At some point all of these laws will make their way once again to the Supreme Court

But again, the only mention of race comes from politicians and the media interviewing politicians.

By the way the comment you cite about "giving the state to Romney" simply plays into what politicians want.....the comments was obviously because it was a Republican backed bill and the Democrats made an great racial issue of it during the campaign.

Perhaps this was the reason Romney thought he would win in PA right up until election night, when it was determined Obama had won PA by five percentage points.

These new laws passed by republican legislatures have not worked. Giving the appearance of restricting voter's rights only drives more people to the polls.

Originally Posted by Guest

Perhaps this was the reason Romney thought he would win in PA right up until election night, when it was determined Obama had won PA by five percentage points.

These new laws passed by republican legislatures have not worked. Giving the appearance of restricting voter's rights only drives more people to the polls.

How does requiring identification "restrict" voters' rights? The law states that you MUST be a citizen. How does one determine that requirement? The honor system????

Why don't these poor inner city minorities that have been disenfranchised, just use the same I.D. that they use to sign up for and collect public assistance?

Originally Posted by Guest

How does requiring identification "restrict" voters' rights? The law states that you MUST be a citizen. How does one determine that requirement? The honor system????

Read some of the court decisions that overturned these state legislatures for the answer to your questions, including the case in Pennsylvania.

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?