Obama the Liar at it again...
 

S#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g up to Al Sharpton with dishonest, paranoid, race-baiting garbage...

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-vote-und...tics.html?vp=1

My favorite line...

""About 60 percent of Americans don't have a passport," he said. "Just because you can't have the money to travel abroad doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to vote here at home."

Hey Spence, I wasn't aware that any conservatives were requiring a passport to vote, were you?

Under Obamacare, you need a photo id to get prescription drugs. Why isn't THAT racist?

Obama the uniter, my president, accurately articulating the position of the other side. Did we seriously elect this guy twice?

UNTIL HE or the next PRESIDENT
overturns or undoes the illegal shenanigan's
of what the CROOKED AS HELL
former president NIXON has Done
with his Cronies in the DEA (falsifying reports)
turning this Country into the LAND of MANY PRISON's
i will Simply have NO RESPECT for the FEDERAL Government
or the OFFICE of the President

This guy is an extremist... radical...which ever one U want to call him.

Republicans do appear to be focused on making it harder for minorities and poor to vote…is that right?

Perhaps more importantly, is voter fraud really a concern?

-spence

You nailed it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes he nailed it with "appear". The rhetoric intentionally tries to make it "appear" that Republicans are trying to make it harder for minorities and the poor to vote. Requiring identification should not make it harder to vote. If you cannot get identification, you have a problem, legal or otherwise, that you need to fix or it will be harder for you to do a lot of things besides vote--including run-ins with the law which minorities and poor people are more prone to have.

The same applies to other progressive rhetoric such as the "war on women," which is total nonsense, and minimum wage which very briefly "helps" but is soon neutralized by the inevitable rise in prices and loss of jobs, and equal pay for women for which there is already a long-standing federal law requiring equal pay for same or similar work--the overall discrepancy is mostly a result of the types of work women generally do as opposed to the types men generally do. But the raising of the "issues," as lame and useless as they mostly are, is meant not to solve problems, but to make it "appear" that Republicans want to make it more difficult for women, minorities, and the poor. Progressive legislation has been the dominant factor in moving government and its affect on society for the past 70 years. So if women, and minorities, and the poor are still having a harder time, it is the progressive movement that has made it so, not what "appears" to be opposition against it.

I didn't say anything about Ids. cons. continue to shorten voting hours bc they know the poor have difficulty getting to the polls during normal voting hours. You have cons. Saying they shorten the hours for exactly that reason. I guess spence shouldn't have used the word "appear" since that is exactly the reason cons, have changed the voting rules, My grandmother never had an id.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In your grandmother's day they probably didn't have expanded voting hours and maybe not even absentee ballots. If not in her day, in somebody else's day. And if we go back far enough, most people knew most everybody else in their voting community. And life was probably more simple to the point of not needing id. There has always been some voter fraud. Various documented cases may make it more prevalent now. I may be old enough to be your grand father, I don't know how old you are, but I remember when election day was the day to vote. I don't know how it came to be that it was more difficult for the poor than the not poor to vote because of that. If you had a job, many employers gave a couple of hours off either in the morning or at the end of the shift to vote. And if you didn't have a job, you actually had more time to vote. And if transportation was a problem for one day, how was it not a problem for another day. And if there is a problem which makes it difficult to get to the polls either on a given day or at all, absentee ballot is available. And if you're in line before polls close, you will be allowed to vote. Which cons say that voting time should be shortened in order to prevent the poor from voting? And the voting rules have been changed before. That's not something new.

I doubt your old enough to be my Grandfather, :) but if my memory serves me right I registered to vote in 1960 when I was 21. In order to vote you had to take your birth certificate to the County Board of Elections to prove your age (21 at that time) and prove you were a US citizen. You were then issued a voting card. Polls were open from 7 am to 9 pm and people knowing it was their Right and responsibility made it their Patriotic Duty to get there.
In 74 the voting age was dropped to 18 so that our Armed Services, who were willing to give up their lives for their country had the right to vote also.

Your correct. It used to be "harder" to vote than it is now, or will be by any "Con" shortening of voting hours. And it was viewed as a right, responsibility, and patriotic duty, rather than a catered-to entitlement made to order for your convenience. All the good, important things in our lives require effort, most of them far more effort than it takes to vote, or took to vote when it was even more "difficult." Being one of our most important rights and duties, it actually should require enough effort to make abuse of the right more difficult. The more lax the requirements to vote, or the more time than necessary to vote, the more ease in falsifying the process. That we accept the need of ID, time restrictions, difficulty in getting to and performing work and pleasure, and so forth, yet consider it too burdensome for voting is amazing. I suppose if its too burdensome to pay on your own for contraceptives . . . yeah . . . I can see the "logic" of having everything else, including voting, made easier. Besides, it doesn't seem to make an impact on the direction the country is heading anyway. What the Hell, let's make it completely open. Voting should be allowed every day up until the election, by computer if necessary. No identification or citizenship should be required.

Last election bus loads of out of staters swarmed into NH and voted . I believe a certain state senator had 18 people registered to her home.
Here's a question ... Who the hell doesn't have an ID??
I can't think of one person.
The only people I know who were suppressed from exercising there right to vote were the military .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He ndidn't nail anything.

Paul/Spence, see if you can answer this...

If the GOP's suggestion that requiring a picture id to vote is really aimed at keeping minorities from voting...then why isn't Obamacare's requirement that you show a picture id to pick up a prescription, actually the Democrat's racist ploy to keep minorities from getting their medicine? What's the difference?

And Paul, why is Obama linking this to passports? Has anyone, anywhere, ever, suggested that you need a passport to vote? Why can't our Dear Leader keep it intellectually honest for 2 seconds?

A great question. The answer, of course, is "practically no one". Therefore, any law requiring an id to vote, is certainly not intended to keep all non-whites from voting.

But liberals in general, and Obama in particular, will never pass up a chance to demonize those who don't bow and kiss his ring. Because racisthatecrimeintolerantwaronwomenhomophobeislamo phobe.

Pretty degrading opinion of the poor to assume they can't get an ID . Now people here illegally , that's another issue , but I'm sure the Democrats can come up with something to get around that . Hmmmmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, first off is that even true? I've never heard about it and have picked up plenty of prescriptions in the past few years...

Even if it were true (hint: it's not) they're completely different scenarios. Giving the wrong prescription to someone could kill them.

Did you read the full transcript of what he said or is your entire opinion based off a quote lacking context?

-spence

"Well, first off is that even true?" It is true. I'm not on Obamacare thank Christ, but I have to show my id every time I go to the pharmacy. You also need an id to buy cigarettes and alcohol, I think to get a library card. Are all of those regulations rooted in racism?

"Did you read the full transcript of what he said or is your entire opinion based off a quote lacking context?"

Spence, in what context did he mean the 'passport' reference? Put that in any context you want, it's still ignorant, dishonest, race-baiting demagoguery. And why did he say those people "can't" have enough money to travel, what the hell does that mean? Why "can't" they? Because of the Koch brothers, or is it all Rupert Murdoch's fault?

I'll concede that voter fraud isn't at the top of my list of concerns. But Obama is saying that the effort to ensure voter integrity, is tantamount to racism. It's bullsh*t, and I cannot fathom that we have a President who would stoop to that, all in an effort to kiss the azz of a hate-peddling liar like Al harpton. Al Sharpton commands the attention of the President of the US? Are you kidding me? Jay Z and Al Sharpton can get an audience with our President at the snap of their finger?

"Giving the wrong prescription to someone could kill them"

That's true. It's also true that if I say my name is Jese Jackson and I vote in that name, I am depriving Jesse Jackson of his sacred right to vote. The voters should be thankful for anyone who wants to take such an obviously harmless step to ensure voter integrity. It's unbelievable that anyone could possibly interpret that as racism.

Spence...where I live the poor have vehicles.. if not free cab sevice or city mini bus will go to their door drive them where ever

need I D to get certain prescription drugs...buy cigarettes...need ID card for food card.

Some seem to make it to the polls to vote....therefore they can make it to a government building, they all have easy access.

Your logic has no value.....:)

If it's law you shouldn't have any problem showing a reference.

Perhaps your local pharmacy doesn't want to give you the wrong drugs and kill you?

Is it your civil responsibility to buy cigarettes and alcohol?

I don't know as I haven't seen the full transcript. Hence, my reluctance to judge.

No, Obama is saying that the effort to ensure voter integrity is both unnecessary and disproportionally impacts minorities and the poor. Certainly there's politics behind it, the GOP is trying to hurt voters that historically support their opponents and the Democrats are working to counter it.

But ultimately...are there people who legitimately don't hold an official government ID, are they breaking any laws in doing so, and do they have a right to vote?

-spence

name one......

My Mother.

-spence

"I don't know as I haven't seen the full transcript. Hence, my reluctance to judge."

Your reluctance to judge comes from the fact that you are head-over-heals in love with the guy.

"are there people who legitimately don't hold an official government ID, are they breaking any laws in doing so, and do they have a right to vote?"

Can't cash a check without an id, can't get a library card...why not? If those without an id aren't breaking the law, why can't they do those things?

The answer, which is obvious to anyone over the age of 5 (unless they are blinded by ideology) is that sometimes it is prudent to make sure you know who you are dealing with. Ensuring voter integrity is necessarily a good thing. Why are you opposed to it? I agree fraud isn't a huge problem, by why not make it less of a problem? What is the harm? Are there large numbers of people out there, for whom getting an id is difficult?

And why does Obama give the time of day to a horse's ass like Sharpton? Why is Obama at his beck and call? There's the politics. Obama knows full well that no one has ever suggested using passports, but he knows that demonizing conservatives plays well to Sharpton's sheep. So Obama says things that he knows are untrue, to pander to that audience. Cowardly, and beneath the dignity of the office, and not something Bush was in the habit of doing.

don't believe you

Hmm, I wonder how all those check cashing stores ID their customers?

the argument is stupid, it's hardly an imposition to show an id, we all do it regularly, it's hard to navigate daily life without one...but that seems to be where we are at ...it just helps fan the flames

Did you feel like jumping the shark or did it just come to you?

-spence

stupid:uhuh:

I don't want to harp on this but your mother doesn't have any form of identification ? It is pretty hard to believe . Is she poor ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I actually called her to confirm before I posted earlier. Shes does today, but didn't have *any* form of government ID for over 14 years due to health reasons. She only got an ID recently because of legal issues surrounding her mother's estate.

I'm pretty sure she's voted every election cycle regardless via absentee ballot.

So it's not that hard to believe, and no, she isn't even poor. Doubt she voted for Obama either...

-spence

sorry, it's very hard to believe..and it's hardly an argument against requiring an id to vote..sounds like she was able to get one when she needed to

which "GOP" in Rhode Island is perpetrating this horrible crime?

"Rhode Island passed a voter ID law in 2011, and it is the only state with a Democratic-controlled legislature to do so."

http://sos.ri.gov/elections/voterid/

"Poll workers will ask you to show a current and valid photo ID when you vote at your polling place. Voter ID strengthens the public’s faith in the integrity of our elections by enabling poll workers to match a voter’s face to the name they give at the polls."(unless the voter ID legislation is suggested by the "GOP" , in which case it becomes racist, bigoted and intended to harm the poor, elderly, minorities and others who traditionally vote democrat)

How to Obtain a Free Voter ID

You will not need a Voter ID card if you already have a valid and current Photo ID. If you need a Voter ID, we will provide you with a free one. You must provide one of these proofs of identity:

Employee ID card;
ID card provided by a commercial establishment;
Credit or debit card;
Military ID card;
Student ID card;
Health club ID card;
Insurance plan ID card;
Public housing ID card;
If you don’t have one of those proofs of identity, you must bring one of the following documents. It must include your name and be dated since November 6, 2012, unless the document is intended to be of a permanent nature such as a pardon or discharge:
Utility bill;
Bank statement;
Government paycheck;
Document issued by a government agency;
Official elections document issued by a government agency, dated for the election in which the registered voter is providing it as proof of identity;
Voter notification issued by a governmental agency;
Public housing ID card issued by a governmental agency;
Lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency;
Student ID card issued by a governmental institution/agency or non-governmental institution/agency;
Tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency;
Insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a government agency;
Discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the registered voter by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence or other matter;
Public transit authority senior citizen and disabled discount ID card issued by a governmental agency;
ID documents issued by governmental disability agencies;
ID documents issued by homeless shelters and other temporary or transitional facilities;
Drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider;
Property tax statement issued by a governmental agency;
Vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or
Vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency

Do minorities, or poor people need social security? ID requirements:

Identity

We can accept only certain documents as proof of identity. An acceptable document must be current (not expired) and show your name, identifying information (date of birth or age) and preferably a recent photograph. For example, as proof of identity Social Security must see your:
•U.S. driver’s license;
•State-issued nondriver identification card; or
•U.S. passport.

If you do not have one of these specific documents or you cannot get a replacement for one of them within 10 days, we will ask to see other documents, including:
•Employee ID card;
•School ID card;
•Health insurance card (not a Medicare card); or
• U.S. military ID card.

probably and to sign up for Obamacare you need a social security card and to get that you need what you listed above and Obama stated that healthcare is a "right"...just like voting...soooo.....is Obamacare trying to hurt people seeking medical insurance?


the tangled web they weave when first they practice to......

OK. She didn't have an id, and then the government told her that she needed one for probate reasons. What did she do? Did she (a) simply go get an id, or (b) tell Al Sharpton that the probate courts are racist and only require an id to deny poor black people the right to inherit their estates?

You are proving my point exactly Spence - that sometimes you need to know exactly who you are dealing with, and that requiring a photo id in those situations is clearly not an undue burden.

Unbelievable...

Obama is clearly a racist, whose intent is to deny healthcare to blacks. Is there any other explanation? Not based on what our Dear Leader said to Al Sharpton's group...according to Obama, the requirement of a photo id can only be interpreted as a thinly-veiled attempt to deny that product/service to those from whom you require an id. Right, Spence?

Panem Today, Panem Tomorrow, Panem Forever...

i hate C&Ps but....

By Dara Kam and John Lantigua
Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau
A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.
Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.
Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
Greer is now under indictment, accused of stealing $200,000 from the party through a phony campaign fundraising operation. He, in turn, has sued the party, saying GOP leaders knew what he was doing and voiced no objection.
“Jim Greer has been accused of criminal acts against this organization and anything he says has to be considered in that light,” says Brian Burgess, Florida GOP spokesman since September.
But Greer’s statements about the motivations for the party’s legislative efforts, implemented by a GOP-majority House and Senate in Tallahassee in 2011, are backed by Crist — also now on the outs with the party — and two veteran GOP campaign consultants.
Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.
“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.
Another GOP consultant, who did not want to be named, also confirmed that influential consultants to the Republican Party of Florida were intent on beating back Democratic turnout in early voting after 2008.
In 2008 Democrats, especially African-Americans, turned out in unprecedented numbers for President Barack Obama, many of them casting ballots during 14 early voting days. In Palm Beach County, 61.2 percent of all early voting ballots were cast by Democrats that year, compared with 18.7 percent by Republicans.
In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.
Various voter registration organizations, minority coalitions and Democratic office holders are now demanding investigations either by state or federal officials.
On Oct. 26, The Post published a story citing a deposition by Florida GOP General Counsel Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell IV in litigation between Florida and the U.S. Justice Department over HB 1355. Mitchell described a meeting near New Year’s Day 2011, in which he was approached by GOP staffers and consultants to write the bill that would become HB 1355.
He said the meeting had followed other conversations with those same GOP officials and consultants since the fall of 2010.
Crist said he was asked to curb early voting
Crist said party leaders approached him during his 2007-2011 gubernatorial term about changing early voting, in an effort to suppress Democrat turnout. Crist is now at odds with the GOP, since abandoning the party to run for U.S. Senate as an independent in 2010. He is rumored to be planning another run for governor, as a Democrat.
Crist said in a telephone interview this month that he did not recall conversations about early voting specifically targeting black voters “but it looked to me like that was what was being suggested. And I didn’t want them to go there at all.”
About inhibiting minority voters, Greer said:
“The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” he said. “It’s not really a broad-based racist issue. It’s simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them.”
But a GOP consultant who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution said black voters were a concern.
“I know that the cutting out of the Sunday before Election Day was one of their targets only because that’s a big day when the black churches organize themselves,” he said.
GOP spokesman Burgess discounted Crist’s statement to The Post.
“Charlie Crist speaks out of both sides of his mouth,” he said.
Former Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning, a Republican, has spoken favorably about HB 1355, because he believes its 12-hour early voting days — the law previously limited them to eight hours a day — give voters more flexibility to vote before or after work.
“But reducing early voting days does not attack voter fraud and given the longer days, it certainly does not save money,” Browning has said.
In a 2011 deposition in the litigation over HB 1355, Browning said that while he was always concerned with voter fraud, he did not see it as a large problem in the state and that was why he did not include any mention of it in his legislative goals for 2011.
“It wasn’t an issue that rose to the level to place it in our package,” Browning said.
Greer told The Post that people who attended the GOP’s behind-the-scenes meetings on early voting included: Andy Palmer, former state GOP executive director, now a Tallahassee political consultant; Bret Prater, head of party development; Randy Enwright of Enwright Consulting, a veteran Tallahassee political consultant; Jim Rimes, former state GOP executive director and now a consultant with Enwright; Kirk Pepper, a former top aide to House Speaker Dean Cannon; and Rich Heffley, a former top aide to Crist.
The Post contacted all of them. GOP spokesman Burgess responded for Palmer and Prater and also for Frank Terraferma, director of state House campaigns, who had been named in the Bucky Mitchell deposition as attending the meeting about the drafting of 1355.
“If what Greer said had happened, that would be wrong and he should have fired those men,” Burgess said. “Why didn’t he fire them? They said they were never in any meeting with Jim Greer of that kind. They never had meetings of that kind.”
The other four did not respond.
Ex-House speaker:
Law meant to curb fraud
Cannon, who took over as House speaker in 2010, said he had no conversations about early voting with GOP strategists and that he believed HB 1355 was aimed at voter fraud.
“I don’t recall anybody talking about some tactical advantage or need to curtail early voting,” said Cannon, who has launched a lobbying business in Tallahassee since his term as a state representative ended this month.
But Crist, who extended early voting hours in 2008 by executive order to address long lines during that presidential election, said he was approached about early voting but told the GOP consultants and staffers that he would veto any proposed legislative changes that would reduce early voting.
“The people that worked in Tallahassee felt that early voting was bad, ” Crist said. “And I heard about it after I signed the executive order expanding it. I heard from Republicans around the state who were bold enough to share it with me that, ‘You just gave the election to Barack Obama.’”
It wasn’t until Gov. Rick Scott took office in January 2011 that the idea went anywhere. It passed the legislature that session and Scott signed it into law.
“I assume they decided, ‘It’s 2011, Crist is gone, let’s give it a shot,’” Crist said. “And that’s exactly what they did. And it is exactly what it turned out to be.”
Before signing the law, Scott said he wanted to make voting easier and to eliminate voter fraud. Recently, he asked Secretary of State Ken Detzner to look into problems with the November election and to recommend changes if necessary.
Purging of non-citizens
off voter rolls discussed
Besides early voting, Greer said other issues discussed at the behind-the-scenes meetings were voter registration organizations, attempts to have Florida Supreme Court judges defeated at the polls and the purging of voters on the rolls who might not be U.S. citizens.
“There is absolutely nothing with their absolute obsession with retaining power that they wouldn’t do — changing the election laws to reduce early voting, to keep organizations like the League of Women Voters from registering people, going after the Supreme Court justices,” Greer said of his former colleagues.
HB 1355 greatly reduced the time voter registration organizations had to hand in registration applications and imposed hefty fines for any violation of the time guidelines, which forced the largest voter registration organizations to suspend activities, afraid they might incur fines they couldn’t afford. The League of Women Voters suspended its activities in Florida for the first time in nine decades.
A federal judge subsequently struck down those parts of 1355 and registration organizations resumed their activities over the summer of 2012.
The Division of Elections under Scott also issued purge lists for non-citizen voters, which several county elections supervisors have criticized as being filled with errors. The attempted voter purge resulted in several lawsuits against Scott’s administration, and nearly all of the state’s elections supervisors abandoned the effort in the months leading up to the presidential election.
And the Republican Party of Florida waged a campaign to defeat three Supreme Court justices this fall. Voters chose to retain all three.
Staff researcher Michelle Quigley and staff writer Christine Stapleton contributed to this story.
________________________________________
Key dates
• 2006: Jim Greer becomes chairman of Florida Republican Party.
• 2007: Republican Charlie Crist takes office as governor of Florida.
• November 2008 — President Barack Obama wins Florida, in part due to Democratic majority in early voting.
• 2009 — GOP staffers and consultants begin talking about ways to inhibit early voting, according to Greer. Crist and two GOP consultants confirm.
• January 2010 — Greer, accused of stealing from GOP, resigns as chairman. Arrested six months later. Greer then sues party, saying it owed him money. Both cases are pending.
• Fall 2010 — Conversation begins between GOP staffers and consultants and Florida GOP General Counsel Emmett “Bucky” Mitchell IV about drafting legislation to reduce early-voting days, what would eventually become HB 1355.
• November 2010 — Republican Rick Scott elected governor.
• May 2011 — Scott signs HB 1355 passed by GOP-majority legislature. Parts of law later overturned by federal judge, but reduced days of early voting remain.
• November 2012 – Despite long lines at early voting sites, Obama re-elected president, Democrats pick up seven seats in Florida Legislature.

Another one.... sorry


Judge in Landmark Case Disavows Support for Voter ID
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us...id.html?ref=us

By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: October 15, 2013
It is the kind of thought that rarely passes the lips of a member of the federal judiciary: I was wrong.
Nathan Weber for The New York Times
Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit said effects were not clear in 2007.
But there was Richard A. Posner, one of the most distinguished judges in the land and a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, saying he was mistaken in one of the most contentious issues in American politics and jurisprudence: laws that require people to show identification before they can vote.
Proponents of voter identification laws, who tend to be Republican, say the measures are necessary to prevent fraud at the polls. Opponents, who tend to be Democrats, assert that the amount of fraud at polling places is tiny, and that the burdens of the laws are enough to suppress voting, especially among poor and minority Americans.
One of the landmark cases in which such requirements were affirmed, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was decided at the Seventh Circuit in an opinion written by Judge Posner in 2007 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008.
In a new book, “Reflections on Judging,” Judge Posner, a prolific author who also teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, said, “I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion” in the case. He noted that the Indiana law in the Crawford case is “a type of law now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Judge Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, extended his remarks in a video interview with The Huffington Post on Friday.
Asked whether the court had gotten its ruling wrong, Judge Posner responded: “Yes. Absolutely.” Back in 2007, he said, “there hadn’t been that much activity in the way of voter identification,” and “we weren’t really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disenfranchise people entitled to vote.” The member of the three-judge panel who dissented from the majority decision, Terence T. Evans, “was right,” Judge Posner said.
The dissent by Judge Evans, who died in 2011, began, “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”
In a telephone interview on Tuesday, Judge Posner noted that the primary opinion in the 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding the law had been written by Justice John Paul Stevens, “who is, of course, very liberal.” The outcome of the case goes to show, he said, that oftentimes, “judges aren’t given the facts that they need to make a sound decision.”
“We weren’t given the information that would enable that balance to be struck” between preventing fraud and protecting voters’ rights, he added.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and an expert on election law, said an admission of error by a judge is unusual, and “gives to Democrats an ‘I-told-you-so’ ” argument on voter identification issues.
More significant, he said, it reflects what he called a recent shift. Previously, cases were decided largely along party lines, but then “you started seeing both Democratic- and Republican-leaning judges” reining in voter identification requirements.
Judge Posner seemed surprised that his comments had caused a stir, and said much had changed since Crawford. “There’s always been strong competition between the parties, but it hadn’t reached the peak of ferocity that it’s since achieved,” he said in the interview. “One wasn’t alert to this kind of trickery, even though it’s age old in the democratic process.”

Yes, I'm lying about my mother...sweet jesus.

The point is you said "name one" and I did...just be a man and admit when you're wrong.

-spence

Paul, there's nothing wrong with C&P's, I don't think, as long as they are relevant. The first post had to do with the GOP's rules regarding early hours for voting and such. I'll happily concede that both parties do things (like drawing district lines) to maximize winning probabilities. We need to keep them from doing that. I don't think either side has a monopoly on that kind of corruption, do you? Ask any fair-minded CT voter how Malloy got elected governor in a very close race - due to "irregularities", the voting booths in one town - Bridgeport - were kept open far later than scheduled. Guess which candidate 99% of the Bridgeport voters supported in that election?

As to the second...you have a former judge (appointed by Reagan), who is now a professor at the University of Chicago Law School (one of the most liberal places on Earth) telling a story. I don't know this man's politics, I have no idea if he has an agenda. But nowhere in there did it say (unless I missed it) WHY voters get disenfranchised when they are required to show an id. Why? What's the big deal? We have to show photo id's all the time in our every day lives. Can someone try to articulate why any meaningful number of people would be discouraged to vote by having to show an id?

For many years, Connecticut (also one of the most liberal places on Earth) had some of the toughest voting registration requirements - you had to register months and months ahead of time to vote. I don't recall anyone saying that the CT legislature was trying to keep poor blacks from voting.

Lots of liberals claim the photo id requirement is designed to suppress turnout. Liberals say it. I'm sure they believe it. But I haven't heard one support that theory.

Spence says his mother did not have an id. She needed one for probate purposes. Did she throw her arms up in the air and become disenfranchised? No. She went out and got an id. End of story.

What is the big deal about requiring an id? I just don't see it...I cannot believe it's a controversial topic.

That would assume the situation was ripe for fraud. The evidence doesn't appear to prove that's the case.

What you're saying is that you want legislation that would expand the regulatory power of government in a manner not congruent with the Costitution.

According to Detbuch's other thread you're supporting liberal policy.

-spence