Voting Laws And The 2012 Presidential Race
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-11/voting-laws-and-2012-presidential-race
Following Republican victories in the 2010 midterm elections, legislatures around the country passed new voting laws. Today, 10 states require photo identification to vote and most states allow early voting and provisional ballots. Democrats say some of these laws discourage minorities and the poor from voting. Republicans argue they prevent fraud. Courts in the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Ohio will hear arguments this week on voter ID and early voting. And in Florida, a battle over voter registration might cause a replay of the 2000 presidential election. Diane and guests discuss new voting laws and how it will impact the 2012 presidential race.
Guests
Bruce Fein
former associate deputy attorney general, Republican counsel during the Iran-Contra hearings and founding partner with the Lichfield Group.
Richard Hasen
Chancellor's professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.
Spencer Overton
professor at The George Washington University Law School.
John Fortier
director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Institute.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Just finished reading about another T-Party voter suppression tactic called 'True the Vote'. A plan to go to minority polling places to intimidate and challenge legitimate voters. This was once called 'CAGING". These policies include going up to people as the get out of their cars and give people a hard time,or bully them and make individuals fearful for their safety.
In Ohio John Husted,Republican Secretary of State,refuses to listen to judges orders allowing voters the right to vote.Our Attorney General Mike DeWine,another Republican,refuses to do his job and enforce the law and court rulings.
All the election day problems of 2004 were solved. No more Diebold machines,instead paper ballots. No more standing in lines hours long on election day,fixed with early voting.Limited use of 'PROVISIONAL BALLOTS',which have NOT been counted.These solutions create a true Democracy,and reflects the TRUE voice of the people.Something many don`t want to hear.Problem solving and good government is not in today`s T-Party/Republican DNA.
Quite frankly I don't see a reason to fan the flames of black racism with this issue. It's guaranteed that the black racist vote is locked up by the democrat party, how can you get any higher percentage of people who vote by skin color. Hovering around numbers like 95%, you got it, you won, are we arguing over ringing out 96%?
Maybe we can get Joe Biden driving through the streets dragging chains behind a slow moving campaign police van, reminding black people that republicans want them in chains, that should scare up some votes. Why stop there, nooses hanging from trees throughout the neighborhood, Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein carrying burning crosses might increase turn out. Anything for a noble cause aye. Martin Luther King would be proud.
Considering most people do not find photo I.D. requirements as an unreasonable burden, it appears that the democrats only seek wedge issues and avenues to cheat.
Without a doubt Obama and the democrats have harmed and set back race relations in this country more than I could have imagined, it will take decades at least to undo the damage, if they have their way it will get much worse before it gets better. We were divided in many ways before Obama came on the scene, now we are entering a time of real hatred and it came from the far left.
When I visit my physician I am now required to show a photo ID.
SLATE recently ran a story about security requirements at the 9/11 memorial in NYC. Voter ID, among many many other things, a necessity for a visit.
Well - what is the problem w/a photo ID when voting?
Or is the problem that we are asked to show ID all too many times?
Recent stats show that between 20 and 25 percent of potential voters (INcluding those who have voted in the past) currently lack the specific documents required by the new voter laws. The fact that sitting members of state legislatures like Mike Terzai in Pennsylvania already are claiming victory for Gov. Romney on the basis of their suppression efforts is proof positive that the INTENT is truly there to suppress voters. NO true statesman would ever work to suppress voting.
Unfortunately for the perpetrators, demographics goes against them. It is just a matter of time and the suppression will be overwhelmed......if not in this electiin then surey within eight years.
1. You're making assumptions based on one election. Although it's probably true that Blacks voted for President Obama because he "visually" represented them, the contemporary Liberals have historically belonged to the parties of inclusion. To make the claim that Blacks only vote for Democrats excludes their support of Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and so forth. I suppose that my point is that every single POTUS prior to Obama was White, so your claim is baseless. As the ideologies of political parties over the years of inception of the United States of America have changed, so have candidates changed parties, redefined support lines, and campaign strategies.
Also, Blacks make up arount 13% of the United States, if all of that 13 of 100% voted for President Obama, that's still not sufficient enough to court the White House.
2. Surprisingly, in NC, there was a guy driving a pickup truck around the DNC with nooses hanging from its side and a caricature of President Obama was in one of them. I don't know if that speaks to leftist ideologies, but because our President is Black, racism in America no longer exists, ESPECIALLY in the Republican Party, you're right.
3. Although I agree with voter identification laws, most registries have systems in place whereby you have to identify yourself and you are matched with your full-name and specific voting place. Were this a primary election issue I'd have no problem, but this is a national election and this issue is fairly recent. It's a bit too convenient that issues like voter identification (aimed at immigrants, the poor, and elderly populations) become such critical issues when the direction of the nation is at stake. Kind of like issues of flag burning, or discrimination based on sexual identity, or negative attack ads aimed at separatist ideologies.
Democrats required showing a photo ID at three separate points before you could get into the Convention.
What's up with that?
Clifford wrote:
"Just finished reading about another T-Party voter suppression tactic called 'True the Vote'."
Another Tea Party voter suppression tactic?
Do you have any evidence that this is connected to the Tea Party? Or is this just something you made up to smear the Tea Party? The best I could find is a reference to a "Tea Partyish" website from a leftie blog. This has NO connection to the Tea Party except in your lying mind, Clifford.
I live in PA, and Gov. Tom Corbett signed into law a Voter ID law here.
Also, I find these voter ID laws offputting and suspicious because the states that have these laws decided to do this NOW. Why wasn't this done after 2000 when there were suspicions of fraud in terms of Bush stealing the election? Also, State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai was taped saying at a Republican gathering, "Voter ID Law to help Mitt Romney win Pennsylvania...DONE". Hmmmm, doesn't that sound suspicious in terms of why this law was implemented?
Has anyone else noticed that these laws were implemented by states with Republican governors? It gives me the impression that they'll do ANYTHING to win--even to the point that they feel they can stifle people from going to the polls with out ID. SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS is what they're saying.
Here's my proposal for all of you who doesn't have a problem with the ID law. Instead of making it a state's law, how about we amend the US Constitution to implement this?
The problem with voting is the same as always: finding responsible and trustworthy candidates to vote for.
We've been waiting a long time. We're always left with the choice between evils.
It is it One Vote.
Here in Florida, it is common for a poll to receive boxes of absentee ballots just as the poll is closing.
How convenient. No ID needed!
IndieLady7 wrote:
"Why wasn't this done after 2000 when there were suspicions of fraud in terms of Bush stealing the election? "
Indie ... you forget ... the SUPREME COURT handed Bush the election, he didn't STEAL it.
You all need to get your slurs straight!
I notice that none of you have mentioned the New Black Panther Party threatening voters in 2008 after "All the election day problems of 2004 were solved".
This is not just a minority issue. I am at a point in my life where I may only have a driver's license another 10 or 15 years. Then what? In my area, election workers are trained only to look at driver's licenses. I have a passport that should be sufficient ID but it does not have my address, so if I use it as an ID, I have to cast a provisional ballot with no guarantee election officials will count it.
This still confuses me. Everytime I go to vote I take my ID, and I am surprised when I don't get asked to show it. I have to show ID to pick up my child from their after school program, I have to show ID to run my credit or debit card. I have to show my ID if I were to purchase tobacco or alcohol products. During the time my adult son did not drive, he made sure he had a state issued ID. It is part of what you do when you move somewhere....forward your mail, get your utilities in your name, get a drivers license or ID. It just seems to make sense to me to show ID when I vote.
Sick of all these selfish people saying "it's not a problem for ME, so it's not a problem at all".
Sorry, that's not how constitutional rights work.
Elections in the U.S. are a rigged game...and shows like this just keep us floundering amidst red herrings, ignoring the 'Real' issues...what a joke
Most of these arguments against a voter ID are just ridiculous. First of all, people have 2 years between most federal elections in which to get an ID. I agree that any new law requiring an ID should have at least 1 year until implementation since it can take a very long time to get information. And why in the world would anyone need to vote so far in advance of an election!? One week, two at the maximum, should be enough. I can not think of one person I know who can't get to the polls in a 5 day period...especially since polls are open such long hours. People will adjust if they really want to vote!
I don't understand why individual states are allowed to decide who can or cannot vote in a federal election. It seems to me that this should be a federal decision.
Agreed!
There is no difference between the two fascist parties.
Refuse to take part in the farce know as the American political system.
Don't Vote!
ecgberht wrote: "You all need to get your slurs straight!
I notice that none of you have mentioned the New Black Panther Party threatening voters in 2008 after "All the election day problems of 2004 were solved".
Who said anything about 2004? I said 2000--four years earlier. And where are you getting your information on the Black Panthers threatening voters in 2008? If you pull another National Review source, then I honestly will think that you are talking out of your rear.
@ecgberht--it's amazing that you take out part of my post to suit your convouluted thinking as opposed to looking at my whole post. It's as if you're deliberately trying to start an argument.
You generally have to pick up the ballot in person and would have to show ID. However, that certainly doesn't mean that you have to be the one to fill it out. But you only get one.
Your guest just said citizens have the responsibility to vote.
Well, yes but just as important, if not more so, is voters' responsibility to BE INFORMED!
I cannot believe how many people vote in a knee-jerk fashion, with no thought or attempt at learning of both sides of issues. What good is that kind of vote really???
Can your guest discuss why we do not yet have a uniform voting system across the nation for our Presidential elections. We all know that states rights on voting only create room for tremendous amounts of hanky panky.
Photo ID`s are a great tool in the War Against Women.How many women have ID`s and birth certificates that don`t match. Now many need divorce papers as well to provide even more proof.
The issue here gets to the fundamentals of what it means to be an American. It is my birthright as an American that I can vote for whom I chose. Since it is a right, it is granted to me by default by the Constitution, not by an act of any Congress. As such, it is not for me to prove to the poll worker that I am Jane Smith, but for the poll worker to prove that I am not. With a right this important, this fundamental to the functioning of our democracy, we are required to operate with a presumption of a voters' innocence rather than her guilt.
My question is Why is this being debated right before an election? There were four years to debate and resolve this. And also, isn't it possible to have other government or official photo IDs, other than just passports and driver's licences? That's how it works in most if not all other developed countries.
The ID requirements in THIS election sound to me like one of the players changing the rules during the game, in order to ensure he wins. In my world, that's called cheating. Just because they use the justice system to change those rules does not make it just! Could it be that this push towards removing an important percentage of US citizens from voting IS the fraud.
IndieLady7 wrote:
"Who said anything about 2004? I said 2000--four years earlier."
Clifford did and I quoted him.
"And where are you getting your information on the Black Panthers threatening voters in 2008? If you pull another National Review source, then I honestly will think that you are talking out of your rear."
Well, pulling a NYT article out of my rear is an apropos metaphor, nevertheless, this article contains the gist of the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html
Diane mentioned the MD congressional candidate who voted in both MD and FL. Washington Post has the story this morning,
-----quote-----
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A Democratic congressional candidate from Maryland dropped out Monday after that state’s Democratic party said she had voted in both Maryland and Florida in the 2006 general election and in the 2008 presidential primaries.
Wendy Rosen confirmed by phone to the Associated Press that she was withdrawing from the 1st District congressional race in eastern Maryland, but did not elaborate beyond a statement to the media.
---close quote---
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-democratic-congressional-candidat...
Basically, people fabricating absentee ballots in a van outside the poll using the voting lists from the poll.