Wisconsin Is Systematically Failing to Provide the Photo IDs Required to Vote in Nov

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2016, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Every U.S.Citizen should be allowed to vote; baring anything you have done to forfiet that right.

Every US Citizen should be provided with a photo voter's ID once they provide required documentation

Every US Citizen should then have to produce this ID to vote.

Timelines to obtain these ID's should be established and the cost of the ID should be a percentage of your taxable income (given a cap)

If you do not have the ID or wait too long to obtain the ID, you should not be able to vote.

Any cost required to vote could be considered a poll tax and would be unconstitutional per the 24th Amendment.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2016, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Every U.S.Citizen should be allowed to vote; baring anything you have done to forfiet that right.

Every US Citizen should be provided with a photo voter's ID once they provide required documentation

Every US Citizen should then have to produce this ID to vote.

Timelines to obtain these ID's should be established and the cost of the ID should be a percentage of your taxable income (given a cap)

If you do not have the ID or wait too long to obtain the ID, you should not be able to vote.

And the problem is, if you read the article, they are not doing that.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2016, 01:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Any cost required to vote could be considered a poll tax and would be unconstitutional per the 24th Amendment.

I suppose a court would have to decide. Is it violating equal protection is everyone is charged to same percentage?

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2016, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose a court would have to decide. Is it violating equal protection is everyone is charged to same percentage?

Text of the 24th:

Quote:Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It would go to the courts to determine whether the requirement to purchase an ID would be considered a tax, though the decision of Crawford v. Marion County Electoral Board did specify in the majority opinion that the reason there was not a substantial burden on the right to vote was because the IDs were free. So it may be that the precedent is there.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2016, 01:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Text of the 24th:


It would go to the courts to determine whether the requirement to purchase an ID would be considered a tax, though the decision of Crawford v. Marion County Electoral Board did specify in the majority opinion that the reason there was not a substantial burden on the right to vote was because the IDs were free. So it may be that the precedent is there.

As I understand the 24th was passed because the "tax" was a flat rate; I could see how this would bias the poor. If we provide free IDs to folks to vote; then someone else is just paying the "tax". 

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2016, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I understand the 24th was passed because the "tax" was a flat rate; I could see how this would bias the poor. If we provide free IDs to folks to vote; then someone else is just paying the "tax". 

The thing to keep in mind is that even with a flat rate you are looking at something that creates a greater burden on the poor. 1% to someone with a taxable income of $25k is a much greater deal than 1% to someone making $100k when taking into account costs of living.

That being said, the court case precedent is there. IIRC, in all that has gone on, the view has been since that case that the ID will have to be free in order for it to pass judicial scrutiny.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2016, 02:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The thing to keep in mind is that even with a flat rate you are looking at something that creates a greater burden on the poor. 1% to someone with a taxable income of $25k is a much greater deal than 1% to someone making $100k when taking into account costs of living.

That being said, the court case precedent is there. IIRC, in all that has gone on, the view has been since that case that the ID will have to be free in order for it to pass judicial scrutiny.

Hell, being poor is a bigger burden than being rich, but just because I take 1% from each doesn't mean someone is being treated unfairly and as I said, the ID will not be "free" just because the one getting it doesn't have to pay for it.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2016, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, being poor is a bigger burden than being rich, but just because I take 1% from each doesn't mean someone is being treated unfairly and as I said, the ID will not be "free" just because the one getting it doesn't have to pay for it.

Nothing is free, but in the minds of many people if they do not have to pay for it directly then it is free. Some people understand this, some people don't. Either way, the viewpoint of the law is that if they don't have to directly pay for it, then it is free and if it is free it is not a substantial burden to voting. If it is not free, then it could be considered to be a burden to voting and therefore a violation of the law.

Your problem is with the court ruling and the interpretations since, not with me.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2016, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, being poor is a bigger burden than being rich, but just because I take 1% from each doesn't mean someone is being treated unfairly 

Yes it does if a poor person needs 100% of his income just for living expenses.

Even $20 dollars can be a big deal for people who are just barely scraping by.

[fredtoast]

BTW I have no problem with requiring photo voter ID if every person gets a free photo ID when they register to vote.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2016, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does if a poor person needs 100% of his income just for living expenses.

Even $20 dollars can be a big deal for people who are just barely scraping by.

As I said being poor is a burden, but no one is being treated unfairly, but we are headed down the wrong path.

Let's make the IDs "free" to all.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2016, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's make the IDs "free" to all.

Good idea.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2016, 02:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Good idea.

I thought you would like that.

[Rotobeast]

(10-04-2016, 02:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said being poor is a burden, but no one is being treated unfairly, but we are headed down the wrong path.

Let's make the IDs "free" to all.

Agreed.

I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for this.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2016, 12:51 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Agreed.

I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for this.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Same. I feel if there is anything I would like my tax dollars to go for it would be the protection of civil liberties and civil rights.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 12:51 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Agreed.

I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for this.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

(10-05-2016, 12:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Same. I feel if there is anything I would like my tax dollars to go for it would be the protection of civil liberties and civil rights.

You guys OK with subsidizing the price of a hand gun for the poor?

[Rotobeast]

(10-05-2016, 01:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys OK with subsidizing the price of a hand gun for the poor?

No, I want free free guns FOR EVERYONE !!


Seriously though, I guess I missed something.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Dill]

(10-02-2016, 05:05 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Call it for what it is - Repub pandering that there is mass voter fraud, and Dem pandering that it's to disenfranchise blacks.  None of that is neither here nor there - you should have an ID.

Funny thing is, there are at least as many poor white people as poor black people.  Just a numbers game.  So if this is racist, then the question would have to be why do poor white people have ID's and poor black people don't?

"Dem pandering" is another term for defending all citizens' constitutional rights. 


Don Yelton: North Carolina GOP Precinct Chair: Voter ID Law Will “Kick Democrats in the Butt” and Hurt “Lazy Blacks” 
[b]Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters[/b]
[b]Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine"[/b]

 http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/24/voter-discrimination/

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35539-the-gop-is-now-bragging-about-voter-suppression

[Belsnickel]

(10-05-2016, 01:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys OK with subsidizing the price of a hand gun for the poor?

We already do, the military.

Aside from that, you're talking about something provided by the private sector versus the government. And you aren't required to pay a tax/fee for bearing a firearm. Firearms themselves are private property, the ability to have one is your individual liberty (at least since 2010) so as long as the government doesn't tax just your ability to have one, then it's not a violation of the civil liberty.

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2016, 02:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We already do, the military.

Aside from that, you're talking about something provided by the private sector versus the government. And you aren't required to pay a tax/fee for bearing a firearm. Firearms themselves are private property, the ability to have one is your individual liberty (at least since 2010) so as long as the government doesn't tax just your ability to have one, then it's not a violation of the civil liberty.

I assume this is a long, no.

Does being poor make it a larger burden to exercise your right and liberty to own a firearm?

Can these voter cards be made by private companies?

Just looking for a little consistency here.