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.
Voters can read what is behind this VOTER ID drive. We have heard what the republicans say, for example in Pennsylvania: "they want to get the vote for Romney".
This attempt to change the laws will disenfranchise voters. Tea Party and other republicans are behind this.
I hope all these requirements are challenged and the people revolt against them.
Look, I am as liberal as they come and I agree. You should be able to prove who you are to vote. I think the issue is such, the -timing- why were the conservatives not trying to push this through -years- ago. Giving everyone ample opportunity to acquire said identification? This is where the tactics are dirty, that is what makes me so angry.
The last 5 or so years have seen profound changes in Medical and Public Policies that appear to be attempts to quietly end policies and practices that may be dangerous or worse.
Eggie, in his rightish reflexive reaction to anything smacking of regulation, immediately jumped on my claim that the quiet removal of Arsenic from animal feeds was in response to years of Institutional indifference to the dangers of Arsenic residues in meat.
What followed was a wonderworld of deranged scrambling to save face after a continuous display of abysmal ignorance on the subject that wasted most of an Afternoon for me and provided an Afternoons Delight for Eggie in his otherwise sterile life.
He attributed HuffPost quotes to the FDA, then garbled the quotes anyhow. He was completely ignorant of the differences in Organic and Inorganic Arsenic which was at the Crux of the dangers.
I didn't make the comments to bug Eggie, I just wanted to inform the Readers of what I believe was going on and all I got for my trouble was a lot of irrelevant guff from Eggie.
That was why I asked him to leave me alone.
To Eggie, commenting on this Blog is entering Harry S. Trumans Kitchen and inviting any sort of abuse his deranged mind can dream up.
You are invited to see and judge for yourselves.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-09-15/renewed-debate-over-hpv-vac...
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote:
"Eggie, in his rightish reflexive reaction to anything smacking of regulation, immediately jumped on my claim that the quiet removal of Arsenic from animal feeds was in response to years of Institutional indifference to the dangers of Arsenic residues in meat.
What followed was a wonderworld of deranged scrambling to save face after a continuous display of abysmal ignorance on the subject that wasted most of an Afternoon for me and provided an Afternoons Delight for Eggie in his otherwise sterile life. ..."
He attributed HuffPost quotes to the FDA, then garbled the quotes anyhow. He was completely ignorant of the differences in Organic and Inorganic Arsenic which was at the Crux of the dangers."
All completely false, of course, but thanks for including the link. A DELIGHTFUL trip down memory lane. I encourage everyone to read it and laugh at McChaun's claims.
The one who did not understand the difference between organic and inorganic arsenic was YOU, bub. Characterized by statements (from me) like this:
"Your fundamental problem is, there's always a black helicopter over your head, and another conspiracy theory around the corner.
You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the arse, so let's see if we can educate you. "The FDA believes Arsenic may cause liver cancer". No, actually, "The FDA stressed that it did not think the increased arsenic in chicken posed a human health threat." The presence of inorganic arsenic may promote cancers. Chicken feed contains organic arsenic at levels that do not harm chickens, has been used for 70 years, and the FDA says it is safe. The FDA has a current concern that organic arsenic may be connected to increased levels of inorganic arsenic and therefore, Pfizer has taken it off the market.
Now, do you see the difference between factual information and "What if Arsenic is responsible for the Obesity Pandemic as well?"" (another of his fantasy claims).
"That was why I asked him to leave me alone."
No. That was a COMPLETELY different thread in which you were also COMPLETELY embarrassed (by my brother from another mother johnandere) from May 31st
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-31/us-drone-strikes?page=1
"ecgberht wrote:
Eagledancer wrote:
"All my banking/bill-paying is on-line, so I have no bank statements or bills mailed to me."
So why didn't you just print one out and take it to the polls. And you're a former college professor? You have NO official documents mailed to you that has your address on it? Highly doubtful.
September 11, 2012 - 2:37 pm"
He was told to bring a Bill or Statement MAILED TO HIS NEW ADDRESS!!!!!
Why in the name of G_d are you picking on him with your Loony criticisms???
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Governor Romney and the Republican Party invoked Martin Luther King, Jr., the paragon of the Civil Rights movement, a movement that expanded rights, including the right to vote. Yet, Republicans have been relegating American Citizens to second class citizenship. New “voter purification” laws in Austin, Harrisburg or Tallahassee effectively discriminate, to the point of being one with Nuremberg or the Ole Pre-Civil Rights South. The laws require all citizens- be they octogenarians, war veterans or both- to find their birth certificates so that they can vote. This, despite these octogenarians having voted for more years than the ages of apparent party proxies acting as henchman, while cloaked in government garb, pushing these laws through. Praising Martin Luther King while stealing the right to vote from American Citizens? Orwellian?
The same people who push the Voter ID laws pushed the Diebold machines. Would African-Americans have been elected as representatives throughout the South if the infamous Diebold machines and now Voter ID laws were in place in the 1960's?
You may be a privileged white person here, but go to a country like Russia and you will begin to understand what it's like to be harrassed constantly for papers and ID based on the fact you look like a foreigner. This can be the beginning here too.
Lillian M wrote:
"you will begin to understand what it's like to be harrassed constantly for papers and ID"
That is what is known as the "strawman" argument. You can ask McChaun (Ha Ha - he STILL doesn't get it!). You refute an argument that is similar, but different (and usually extreme) to the one being offered.
Argument: You need to present a picture ID to vote
Strawman: People will be constantly harrassed for their papers
See?
I live in Iowa, but was born in Boston. I only have photocopies of my birth certificate. If I was required to exhibit a notarized certificate (obtained by mail) to get a voter ID it would cost me $15. Looks like a poll tax to me... Maybe states requiring such documentation should be required to reimburse the voter in such situations. I wonder how they would like that...
I am a retired veteran with two combat related injuries from serving more than two tours in Vietnam. I presently live in Utah. I am a Democrat and MY VOTE DOES NOT COUNT!
I have a Drivers License, Military ID and FAA ID all with photo ID; but because of redistricting in Utah, being a Democrat means MY VOTE DOES NOT COUNT.
A photo ID requirement pushed by Republicans is just another method to discount Democrat voters some like myself who has served their country UNLIKE THE REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS making the law!.
If all Americans obtained a photo ID then the Democrats face redistricting laws in 13 states! What's next??
Some certificate from a minister that you are a Christian? Maybe if you are a minority you must prove you're not on Food Stamps??
What's the next restriction the Republicans will come up with??
I am a strong civil libertarian and, yet, I am deeply disturbed by the general opposition to voter identification laws by Democrats. I can understand some of the limited, practical objections -- such as the obstacles faced by the poor in obtaining IDs -- but those obstacles can be addressed. States like Pennsylvania have done so, and yet the categorical opposition remains. The leading argument appears to be that the ID laws are, effectively, solutions in search of a problem, i.e., that voter fraud is so rare that it shouldn't be a concern to anyone. The basis for this assertion is the claim that few verified instances of voter fraud have been discovered. But, the absence of an ID system appears to be one of the reasons that voter fraud could easily escape detection. For example, limited studies show that there are thousands of dead people on voter rolls across the country. These are all votes that are "up for grabs" by unscrupulous politicians. In a 1982 election in Illinois, for example, election inspectors concluded that 1 in 10 votes were fraudulently cast, including on behalf of the dead. With a solid voter ID system in place, who knows what would be uncovered? Shouldn't we want to know? The inescapable answer is "Yes," unless the group opposing these laws doesn't wish to know.
At a time when elections are extraordinarily close, and the vicious anger stoked by the parties creates an even greater risk of an "ends justifies the means" approach to politics, isn't the prudent position on this issue to support voter ID laws provided they give the poor reasonable and affordable access to obtaining ID cards?