GOP set to limit voting rights in 33 states

[RyanPsych]

It appears that the Republican Party may be turning to a new strategy to win elections this upcoming cycle. In 33 states, new laws have been proposed or enacted that make voter laws much stricter. These laws appear to be aimed at groups that are historically presumed to be Democratic voters, including the elderly, poor, disabled, minority and youth voters.

These laws cause concern with Democrats and others. Presidential advisor David Axelrod told the Washington Post's The Fix that 33 Republican governors are trying to create tougher voting requirements and that most of those measures are aimed at young people.

The new laws require that voters present specific forms of government-issued photo IDs in order to receive a ballot.

In Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, Minnesota and Ohio, voters must present a current state ID. Most states already require some form of identification to vote, however these can range from a driver's license to a bank statement.

These bills were introduced by Republican lawmakers under the premise of counter-acting voter fraud, when in fact no such phenomenon widely exists. Studies have shown that actual voter impersonation is so rare that it is practically non-existent.

While Republicans claim that the existence of voter fraud is so rampant that is has damaged their party's electoral successes, in the past five years only 120 people have been charged with the crime, and only 86 were convicted.

When juxtaposed against the tens of millions who voted in 2008 alone, it seems almost comical that it would be the focus of such a concerted effort. Yet still, many on the far-right cited ACORN as complicit in "stealing" the 2008 presidential election.

How much of an impact might these laws have upon the American electorate? According to studies by the Advancement Project, approximately 11 percent of American citizens (21 million) lack a current government photo ID. Percentages are higher among specific groups: 25 percent of African Americans, 20 percent of 18-29 year olds, 15 percent of those who make under $35k annually, and 18 percent of senior citizens are without a current government-issued photo ID.

Continue reading at: http://peoplesworld.org/gop-strategy-limit-voting-rights/

[Drale]

1. No state should be able to make laws effecting federal elections

Its ridiculous. In fact I would go so far as to say only the federal government should be able to make election laws.

[DJ13]

2. under the premise of counter-acting voter fraud

Its not the voters committing fraud, its the vote counters committing fraud.

[Blue Owl]

3. Thank GOD they've solved that non-existant problem

The GOP just loves to help America vote.

:sarcasm:

[liberal N proud]

4. This defies common sense

You need more people to vote in order to win elections.


Unless you know that the more people vote the less the chance you will win. The GOP knows they wouldn't exist if every citizen was allowed the right to vote.

[Atman]

5. I think they're one dead terrorist too late.

They'd need to eliminate voting for any breathing Democrat at this point...especially with the slate of ass-clowns they're putting forth.

[txlibdem]

19. What?!? You don't think Trump has the win?

Just for that: "You're Fired."

:hi:

[glinda]

6. Many of these people will loose their IDs as well as not be given them. I know this having

attempted to help a poor and handicapped family with this by personally going with them to Social Services. Social Services delayed giving them any.
Also, many people who are poor use pawn shops who take those IDs for from them for collateral. This whole situation is orchestrated to assure their padding their votes as well as supplemented with bad voting machines, crooks and illegal counting.

[iwishiwas]

7. Yup, Walker and Repug poodles will pass it in WI this spring.

[MineralMan]

8. Since we can only manage to turn out less than half of the actual

registered voters in any election, it may not matter all that much, really. For me, the key is to get voters to get off their butts and go to their polling place and cast their ballot. If we have to take them to a place to get a proper ID, I'll be happy to do that, just as I'm happy to drive people to the polls. But, first, we should be trying to get actual registered voters to even show up and vote, it seems to me.

Having said that, my precinct turned out 60% in 2010, which was higher than most. That was partly because I walked every block of that precinct in the two months before the election and talked to as many people as I could. Maybe that's what we need to do, eh?

[AndyTiedye]

11. You Can Take them to the Polls, but They Still Won't be Allowed to Vote

[MineralMan]

13. Not in my state. Our Democratic Governor will veto that shit.

Besides, as I said, we can also take voters in advance to get those IDs, too. You may have missed that part of my post.

[AndyTiedye]

21. But They Need Other IDs to get THOSE IDs

Getting a birth certificate if you don't already have it isn't so easy.

[enlightenment]

9. Unless those states offer the ID for free - including

getting to the location that issues the ID - this amounts to a poll tax, and it is unconstitutional. See Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

[Wait Wut]

15. That's what I was thinking, as well.

But, we've seen how well "unConstitutional" works for our side. What about a FREE Voter ID, only good for voting? Not the best option, but it may get Rs to rethink their idiocy if we tack on some more costs to the deficit to fund their bigotry.

[robinlynne]

16. yep. that is the whole point.

[jwirr]

10. Dayton will veto it in MN - Thank God.

[louis-t]

12. Repugs, that hate government so much, require

government IDs. Well, now I've heard everything.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RyanPsych.

[rpannier]

17. Voter fraud

You mean like Ann Coulter?

[JohnWxy]

18. impossible to overstate the importance of this. this should be printed and handed out to lumpen

proletarians you know. Something you'll never hear about on corporate tv.

recommended!

[bigmonkey]

20. It should cause more than "concern".

It should cause overwhelming opposition. The past 20 years, "causes concern" seems to presage a capitulation every time.

[PlanetBev]

22. Can these laws be challenged in court?

This is terrifying. :scared: