Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) said that every state governed by a Republican is attempting to prevent the poor, minorities, seniors and students from voting by requiring individuals to present photo identification at the polls.
“I guess they don’t think that we understand that they’re trying to keep poor people from voting, minorities from voting, the elderly from voting, students from voting, we are not stupid,” she told reporters at a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday alongside liberal activist Rev. Jesse Jackson.
“We understand that this is by design – when you go to every state that a Republican governor, where there’s a Republican governor, they are doing this across this country and we’re just not going to take it,” said Fudge.
According to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which was represented at the news conference, 16 states now have laws “requiring” or “requesting” voters to present photo ID in order to cast a ballot: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin. Hawaii has a Democratic governor and Rhode Island’s governor is independent.
Given his opposition to state-voter identification laws, CNSNews.com asked Rev. Jackson what documents, rather than a photo ID, should voters be required to show to prove their identity.
There are very few situations anymore where you don’t need an ID, so I doubt it’s going to cause anymore hardship than it does when you cash a check, or use a credit/debit card, or go to buy alcohol, or drive, or get a job. I have always had to present an ID to register to vote regardless of the political persuasion of the governor.
The drivers licence is a photo ID. And the state photo ID is for people who do not drive but might need to provide a photo ID for some circumstance; like cashing a check. And in this state it has the same time span as a drivers license.
Please help me to understand what in the world people mean when they say this is a hardship? I don’t understand how it would be a hardship. There is plenty of time for people to get the id card being spoken of. It applies only to people who do not drive or currently have an acceptable means of identification.
How does that define hardship? If the person wants to vote, don’t most go to the polls? Those who don’t can certainly get an id card. My mother is 91, and she has an identification card. I just do not understand the burden people are speaking of.
Here is your answer. Democrat controlled states depend on voter fraud to stay in office. If a voter-id bill passes, they will have only a slim chance of remaining in office. It is hard to imagine but some of these lifetime politicians may have to find a real job.
The media is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the democratic side. They will portray this law as a heartless republican maneuver.
Usually, the people of america believe what they hear in the news media. We will have to wait and see if they are still so gullable on this one.
Show me the proof that voter fraud is a problem in the United States?
Name one election where the few incidents of voter fraud influenced the results? links please.
What WILL happen as a result of these photo ID laws is that legitimate voters who do not drive, who do not have easy access to their birth certificate, and who do not have time to make a special trip to get a photo ID will not be able to vote. Such people are more likely to be poor, minorities, seniors and students.
These are legitimate voters. There is no compelling reason to make it harder for them to vote, unless you are a Republican, since they tend to vote for Democrats in high numbers. However, making it harder for them to vote for THAT reason is not only illegal, it is disgustingly immoral.
Republican controlled states depend on voter suppression to stay in office. If a voter-id bill fails, they will have only a slim chance of remaining in office.
Fox News is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the republican side. They will portray opposition to this law as a heartless democratic maneuver.
Usually, the “ditto heads” of america believe what they hear on Fox News. We will have to wait and see if they are still so gullable on this one. :eek:
The Milwaukee police department reported some detailed fraud in the 2004 presidential election in Wisconsin. The Colorado Secretary of State found last year that 5,000 non-citizens voted in their Senate race, which was decided by a close margin. And probably all will remember Minnesota in 2008 when more ineligible voters were identified than the margin between the winning and losing Senate candidates.”
Having Photo ID Laws has benefits, voting went up 2% in Indiana, after they introduced the law. So how can you say Republicans rely on voter supression when voting went up? And peole need to stop catagorising Republicans as Fox viewers, not that there is anything wrong with Fox news, it definetly has a Republican bias but MSNBC has a Democrat bias as does the whole of the mainstream media.
Look at the numbers: Rasmussen found 85 percent support for photo ID among Republicans, 77 percent support among non-affiliated voters, and even 63 percent support among Democrats. The poll also found, not surprisingly to anyone who understands the American electorate, “support for such a law is high across virtually all demographic groups.”
I find it very hard to believe that those who are poor, seniors or minorities who are not illegal immigrants are able to have a job, or apply for social security, rent, buy etc. without having some form of Photo ID.
Polls don’t really mean anything when it comes to constitutional issues and if voting went up by 2% after the law went into effect in Indiana, who is to say it wouldn’t have gone up by 4% if it hadn’t? However, I will check out your point about illegal immigrants.
My comments about Fox News were meant to point out the absurdity of Samuel63 rhetoric. However, Fox News is definitely Republican. Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin were all prominent Republican politicians who work or have worked for Fox News. I don’t think you can say the same about MSNBC or any other mainstream news organization (MSNBC does have Michael Steele, who I enjoy watching very much!)
A social security card and maybe proof of residence (e.g., a bill or letter mailed to your home) may be good enough to apply for a job or government services. You don’t necessarily need a photo ID.
My guess would be that the biggest obstacle is not having a valid in-state driver’s license. That would explain the demographic factors. Seniors, minorities and poor people are less likely to drive. Students are more likely to have an out-of-state driver’s license. All the same, they are legitimate voters and unless there is a compelling reason, it is unethical to make it harder for them to vote.
Do you really believe as Samuel63 claims, that these laws are intended to redress some sort of rampant voter fraud perpetuated by the Democratic party? If that is the case, why isn’t that accusation being put before the Justice Department?
Nope, the only explanation is that this is a Republican political strategy - and not a very nice one.