Supreme Court Throws voting rights under the bus...
The Supreme Court has ruled to uphold Indiana'a voter ID laws. These laws have the effect of making it more difficult for the elderly and the poor to vote. However, they have the "benefit" of ensuring that that our elections will never suffer the voting fraud like we have no record of taking place in the 20th century!
That's right-- make it harder to vote in order to promote society's interest in preventing something that literally never happens.
In dissent, Justices Souter and Ginsburg:
Indiana’s "Voter ID Law" threatens to impose nontrivial
burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s
citizens, [] and a significant percentage of those individuals are
likely to be deterred from voting. The statute is
unconstitutional under the balancing standard of Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U. S. 428 (1992): a State may not burden the right to vote merely
by invoking abstract interests, be they legitimate, [] or even
compelling, but must make a particular, factual showing that threats to
its interests outweigh the particular impediments it has imposed. The State has made no such justification here, and as to some aspects of its law, it has hardly even tried.
More here.
- FILED UNDER: Editor Posts, Elections, Supreme Court
- April 28, 2008
If democrats do not like
If democrats do not like this, then appeal the 6-3 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court......
Good luck.....
.
- Email this page
By DustApril 28, 2008 - 12:02pmBy DustApril 28, 2008 - 12:02pm
Actually, what Democrats will likely do is push for voter reform legislation with the increased majority they'll have in congress.
- Email this page
By frazzledApril 28, 2008 - 4:29pmBy frazzledApril 28, 2008 - 4:29pm
Here is what I don't get...Most people would agree that asking for ID before somebody votes isn't way out in left field, so why was the law challenged?
NOW, I could see the challenge if it cost like $500 to get an ID, but it doesn't. In FL it's like $3.00 for a state ID.
What is the PROBLEM?
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
President John McCain, brought to you in part by the Democratic Party...
- Email this page
By Fight4itApril 28, 2008 - 4:38pmBy Fight4itApril 28, 2008 - 4:38pm
The problem is really quite simple. No one believes that Republicans backed this law for the altruistic cause of fighting voter fraud. Indeed, as Justice Stevens pointed out in his decision, "The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history."
So, if it was not necessary, why did they do it? Well, I believe they did so in a deliberate effort to disenfranchise traditionally Democratic voters. As Justices Souter and Ginsburg opine, the law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens, [...] and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting."
While Democrats and Republicans may have fundamental philosophical differences of opinion (even within their respective parties), there isn't really any doubt about which voting demographic will suffer; and it isn't yours. This is why the right's position is met with a lot of skepticism especially with regards to their motives.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf
- Email this page
By frazzledApril 28, 2008 - 5:14pmOK - Please explain
What "nontrivial burdens on the voting rights" are they talking about?
Cost? It's free.
Forgot to bring your ID? No problem, you can cast your provisional ballot (immediately) and just bring in appropriate documentation in, oh a week to 10 days.
No Birth certificate? No problem, there's exceptions.
No Driver's license? No problem, it's a state ID, and it's free.
Can you come up with 1 scenario where a voter would be turned away? Or couldn't get an ID?
What frigging voting "right" is at stake here? And why is it necessary to prove past voter fraud to pass a law to prevent future fraud? You've got to present ID when you register - why is it such a big deal to present ID when you vote?
This is a case of the Supremes at their dumbest.
- Email this page
By houndogApril 28, 2008 - 5:42pmBy houndogApril 28, 2008 - 5:42pm
I don't know what arguments were presented that persuaded Souter and Ginsburg but my guess is there was more evidence of nontrivial burdens than there was of voter fraud. And if I remember correctly, you're in NYC? Easy to take that mass transit system for granted. Things might be different for those living in poverty in rural Indiana. Then factoring in the elderly ... all I know is Republicans didn't back this legislation because they care.
Whether or not you agree with the decision of one Justice or another is really of no consequence to me. I disagree with the decisions of some of the Justices myself. I was asked why many of us had a problem with the law and subsequent decision and supplied an answer.
- Email this page
By frazzledApril 28, 2008 - 5:58pm80 year old woman and a dmv 50 miles away
How's that for a scenario where a voter can't get an Id. Now of course, that 80 year old woman living 50+ from a dmv could get an id. It just is incredibly burdensome and difficult. Which means it is adding a burden, placing a higher bar to which this woman has access to vote. The fact of the matter is these cases are not uncommon.
If there is no history of "voter id fraud" and the potential for it would be meaningless anyway in affecting election results, then the Court should rule in favor of preserving the ease in which a person can exercise their right to vote.
- Email this page
By SEDERMay 1, 2008 - 12:37pmThis law should be manditory
This law should be manditory in all states
- Email this page
By obrien2501April 29, 2008 - 12:03pmBy obrien2501 April 29, 2008 - 12:00pm
...this law should be manditory in all states
And those who cannot afford ID should be offered free ID, if it is to be mandatory.
Seder's concern (I believe) is the disenfranchisement of qualified (legally) voters who have no current access to ID.
- Email this page
By roadgoddessApril 29, 2008 - 12:07pmBy roadgoddessApril 29, 2008 - 12:07pm
I think you're absolutely right. When one looks at this legislation in Indiana one has to ask if it is doing more harm than good. Especially when one considers that there's never been an instance of voter fraud in the state.
Personally, I won't ever support legislation that replaces a small problem (or nonexistent problem in the case of IN) with a big problem.
That said, if there were a guarantee that the state would ensure that every person could obtain an ID, I'd say go for it.
- Email this page
By frazzledApril 29, 2008 - 12:19pmfree is only half the problem
There needs to be time given to meet the new law and it must be easy and accessible.
- Email this page
By gt6April 29, 2008 - 2:04pmBy gt6 April 29, 2008 - 2:04pm
You are absolutely correct. Passing such a law without making compliance easy and timely...ensuring that those who are eligible to vote are not denied that right...is tantamount to vote suppression.
- Email this page
By roadgoddessApril 29, 2008 - 2:10pmBy roadgoddessApril 29, 2008 - 2:10pm
Just read in the paper that since Indiana started this 4 years ago, there hasn't been one substantiated case of disenfranchisement and democratic voter registration was up 2% during the 2006 election. Sounds like it's working just fine. The police department in Milwaukee recently completed an investigation a found (I think) over 400 instances of probable voter fraud and it was determined that voter ID would have prevented most of them. Not a huge amount of people, but we have had some extremely close races in WI.
Just sayin.....
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanApril 30, 2008 - 11:06pmBy jerrykramer64fanApril 30, 2008 - 11:06pm
I'd love to see this article you allude to. Indeed, more publicity could do much to allay critics' fears.
Still doesn't change the fact that there's never been a case of voter fraud in Indiana regardless of what may or may not have happened in Wisconsin. Sounds like their system was working just fine before IN Republicans decided a fix was needed.
- Email this page
By frazzledMay 1, 2008 - 12:24amBy frazzledMay 1, 2008 - 12:24am
Reassuring the system. First, how can it hurt to ask for a damn ID if somebody wants to VOTE! We require ID to purchase liquor or to see an "R" rated movie (if you look young enough) and I respectfully suggest that voting is a bit more important than either one of those two functions... If requiring state issued picture ID (which are free or nearly free - click the link I supplied) provides a bit more security in our voting system.....THEN WHERE IS THE PROBLEM! I'd LOVE to see a national poll on how the public feels about requiring ID when voting. I'll just be it would reflect the LIBERAL state of NY's stance on illegal aliens' getting drivers licences and that was about 70% AGAINST. And that is NEW YORK! The state the elected such conservatives as Hillary, Chuck and Elliot (Love client #9) Spitzer...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
President John McCain, brought to you in part by the Democratic Party...
- Email this page
By Fight4itMay 1, 2008 - 8:45amfrazzledMay 1, 2008 - 12:24am
It was in Wednesday Milw J/S. I'll see if I can find it using my dubious internet search skills.
As far as Indiana's or any other past states record, I think the lack of cases found isn't too relative. In the past there has been many instances of voter fraud (Chicago), but the mind set of the average person "back in the day" was a little different. Too many people today are too willing to bend then rules as seeing the end justifying the means. Our country has an ever increasing amount of illegals, felon's, and transients. The potential for abuse is growing rapidly. I mean my god, someone on this post already thinks we should give illegals half a vote. Shit, I want to vote in Russia, Iran, France and a few other countries.
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 1, 2008 - 9:33amBy frazzledMay 1, 2008 - 12:24am
OK, here goes. The article mentioned probably falls into the "opinion column" catagory in your opinion, so I emailed the author and asked for links to prove his research. Here is what I came up with.
Article- http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=745109
Links for research:
The Stevens quotes are from the text of his ruling. You can get that at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
The Baker-Carter report came out a few years back. You can download it off this site: http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/
The Milwaukee Police report on fraud can be downloaded by this pdf link: http://media2.620wtmj.com/breakingnews/ElectionResults_2004_VoterFraudIn...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/us/21voting.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The 150,000 new voters bit was also around recently. Try:
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8149590
or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR200804...
And the report on the effect of the rules on turnout was from a University of Missouri guy, prof of public policy who has made a name for himself in studying turnout. His name is Jeffrey Milyo. You can read a news report about the study here: http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/jan/20080113news005.asp
And you can download the pdf of the report here: http://truman.missouri.edu/uploads/Publications/Report%2010-2007.pdf
Seems like he does his homework.
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 1, 2008 - 12:30pmBy jerrykramer64fanMay 1, 2008 - 12:30pm
It doesn't just "probably fall[] into the "opinion column" catagory in [my] opinion," jerry. It falls there in any objective person's opinion; Is there honestly any question on who's team Patrick McIlheran bats for?
As I've said from the beginning ... Are there cases of voter fraud in this nation's history? Yes. Has there ever been a case in Indiana? No. Did Republicans in IN support this legislation there because they're concerned about voter fraud? No. Will there be voters (be they Democrat or Republican) disenfranchised by this ruling? Almost certainly.
First rule? Do no harm.
BTW. Jeffrey Milyo? You can't be serious. http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003
- Email this page
By frazzledMay 4, 2008 - 1:08amBy frazzledMay 4, 2008 - 1:08am
It doesn't matter which "side" he on if he backed his views up with facts, which it looks like he did. You pull out one thing and cry "Righty", and back it up with a far left source. And I'm supposed to accept that? You seem to know an awful lot about how other people think. I have yet to hear anybody that I know (Repubs) that claim they want voter ID's to keep people from voting. They all say it's common sense to have to prove who you are in order to vote. What is so unacceptable about that? Can you prove that voters in IN were disenfranchised in the last four years due to this law?
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 5, 2008 - 4:04pmBy jerrykramer64fanMay 5, 2008 - 4:04pm
I simply pointed out that Miylo was a fellow of a right-wing think tank. Do you have evidence that he's not?
Do you really believe that Republicans are going to come out and say, "I support this law because it has a good chance of keeping Democratic voters from the polls"? C'mon.
Fixing something that wasn't broken is not common sense which is why people like me have doubts about Republican motives. What is so unacceptable about our position?
Can you prove that there's ever been voter fraud in Indiana?
Round and round we go ...
- Email this page
By frazzledMay 5, 2008 - 4:31pmBy jerrykramer64fanMay 5, 2008 - 4:04pm
BTW. When you ask me to prove disenfranchisement you have to acknowledge that I'll never be able to do so to your satisfaction. But if you look at the SCOTUS opinions, it is clear that they recognize the problem:
"Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state,who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate;18 persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement
may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote."
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
Now I know you don't regard this as an undue burden because if it were you you'd simply have cast a provisional ballot and jumped in your car at some point over the next ten days to provide the proper documents. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy. And the majority of justices agreed (to no one's surprise). But the fact of the matter is there was more evidence of disenfranchisement in Indiana than there was of voter fraud.
- Email this page
By frazzledMay 5, 2008 - 5:54pmWrite Your Congressmember And Senator Now,Please..
This is another Biased and Pathetic Supreme Court Ruling !
- Email this page
By marcmaronrulesApril 28, 2008 - 12:44pmDumb dumb dumb
Of all the issues to complain about, this one ranks pretty high up on the stupid meter. Voter fraud happens all the time (r.e. JFK and the "missing" truckloads of Cooke COunty ballots during the 1960 Presidential election). The reason there are few "recoded instances" of voter fraud is lack of willingness of the FEC to investigate (after all, since most winners are incumbents, who's going to make them?)
ID's are provided free of charge to any and all, and you can cast a provisional ballot and have up to 10 days to show ID after the election. To argue that this will discourage voting when only about 40% show up in the first place is disingenuous.
And how about the deterrent value? Even if you accept the lack of "documented" fraud as true, why does it hurt to have this as a preventative measure? It's like saying you don't need speed limits on a stretch of highway because no one has ever gotten a ticker there.
Focus, focus focus - when we have healthcare, tanking economy and war issues, this is like round-off error on things to be concerned about.
- Email this page
By houndogApril 28, 2008 - 12:45pmYou are getting "election
You are getting "election fraud" and "voter fraud" confused.
Maybe this doesn't rank as highly as health care and the economy to some... but when the democratic process itself is in question, the entire democracy is in peril.
-- McCain = Four more years of the same --
- Email this page
By dtaylo75April 28, 2008 - 3:43pmThe repubs are so scared of voter fraud, because they
supposedly want to make sure we have free and fair elections, but then how do they explain voting against a measure in congress last week that would have mandated a paper trail from electronic voting machines? Any good reason why we shouldn't have that? Maybe because they wouldn't be able to rig elections like they are so fond of doing?
- Email this page
By UffdaguyApril 28, 2008 - 3:52pmIf they do this in Chicago.....
How will the dead vote? Who is looking out for the voting rights of the dead? This is unacceptable. How will the democrat party survive without the chicago dead vote?
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
- Email this page
By IlluminatiHottieApril 28, 2008 - 1:00pmElection Fraud exists ... not Voter Fraud
houndog: you're talking about election fraud ... like what the Republic Party did in Ohio in 2004. "Voter fraud" does not exist. How many times has "Mickey Mouse" voted? How many times has someone walked into the polling place, voted, then walked back in an hour later and claimed to be their neighbor, and voted a second time? None.
You say "ID's are provided free of charge to any and all". Citation please. Doesn't this make the "No Amnesty for Illegals" crowd (even more) angry?
You say "It's like saying you don't need speed limits on a stretch of highway because no one has ever gotten a ticker there." No ... It's like saying, "Buy this insurance, so if you're caught driving over 350 MPH then you'll be able to pay the ticket."
The thing is, no one drives over 350 MPH, or even close to it. But the Supremes say it's OK for the State to require the purchase of such "insurance", or the person can't "drive". That's Sam's point. The problem doesn't exist.
Other items the State should require you to buy:
1) Anti-Loch Ness Monster creme - prevents Nessie attacks
2) Meteorite safety helmet - a rock from space could hit you on the head!
3) Supernova sunglasses - wear them day and night - you never know when a star will go nova and blind you
4) A unitard with suspenders and a belt - pants drop for no reason all the time, right?
- Email this page
By rchildersApril 28, 2008 - 1:27pmYou people are so full of crap.....
voter fraud does exist. Google Kennedy & Nixon & chicago & graveyard. and I'd love for you to explain how the republicans pulled off election fraud in democrat controlled counties. You'd think one of the registered fucking democrats working the polls would have said something.
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
- Email this page
By IlluminatiHottieApril 28, 2008 - 3:15pmbecause your side
has been selling this fairytale for nearly 50 uears does not make it real. Where are the prosecutions?
As to republican fraud, read Bobby Kennedy Jr's article in Rolling Stone on the subject.
- Email this page
By gt6April 28, 2008 - 3:18pmYeah, bobby (brain damage) kennedy.
So Ethel was drunk off her ass the whole nine months she was pregnant with him because, big bobby was screwing around. He comes into the world with a bad case of FAS and he's the word of god? Sorry, try again.
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
- Email this page
By IlluminatiHottieApril 28, 2008 - 3:25pmYou can't refute it
so you resort to the personal attack. Nothing new there.
Just for the record, since you are so sure nothing happened, 2 people went to jail for it.
- Email this page
By gt6April 28, 2008 - 6:33pmHardly a Fairy Tale - Do your research
I suggest 2 particularly good sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=print...
http://thisdayinthe60s.blogspot.com/2006/12/december-11-1960-illinois-in...
Which does not mean Nixon was robbed - there was some question of repub election hi-jinks in downstate Illinois. But, the fact reamins that the only covictions (and there were some in 1962), were several Daly ward captains for, you guessed it, election fraud.
All in all, conceding was about the only classy thing Nixon ever did - and it was probably because he spent most of pre-election eve in Mexico swilling Maragritas.
- Email this page
By houndogApril 28, 2008 - 4:10pmopinion pieces
are not proof
- Email this page
By gt6April 28, 2008 - 4:23pmNo, but investigative reporting
From the washington Post with quotes, facts, dates and other verifiable data is not "opinion".
As for the Chicago Trib editorial being an "opinion", maybe so, but they probably know a little bit more about what goes down in Chicago than you or I.
The facts out there are indisputible if you care to look - I'm not going to do research for you if you've made up your mind, but this is clearly no "fairy tale" as you suggest.
- Email this page
By houndogApril 28, 2008 - 5:29pmIt's a Fairy tale
Wingnuts like you have been telling horror stories like this for generations.
- Email this page
By gt6April 28, 2008 - 6:30pmBy gt6 April 28, 2008 - 3:18pm
She's just mad because MAnn Coulter got caught, proving that the checks and balances in place to prevent such things really do work.
- Email this page
By roadgoddessApril 28, 2008 - 10:29pmCitations? Here's a few
BTW, the most common (and easily documented) "voter fraud" occurs not because of voter ID fraud, it is voter REGISTRATION fraud - which the Indiana law will do much to curtail:
Citations:
http://blackinformant.com/2007/07/27/the-biggest-voter-registration-frau...
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/missouri-acorn-voter-fraud-sca...
http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/10/republican-voter-fraud-inve...
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/fraud/wb/102600
As for the "free IDs" citation -
http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/ - which states:
"If you do not possess an ID that is acceptable for voting purposes, Public Law 109-2005 requires the BMV to issue an Indiana State ID Card free"
Individuals who are 65 years or older, and attest that they have never been issued a Birth Certificate because their birth was never recorded with any State Office of Vital Statistics, may present other forms of identification as a primary document, along with the secondary document, for an Indiana driver license or identification card.
Individuals who are 65 years or older may present, as primary documents:
Medicaid/medicare Card
Social Security Benefits Statement
Property Deed
Property Tax Statement
Bank Statements
US Veteran's Access Photo ID Card
Marriage/Divorce Decree
Pension Statement
This is a bi-partisan issue - I would think all of us would not like our votes diluted by fraud voting.
Not saying that election fraud is not a serious issue - clearly it is as we know from Ohio & Fla, but I think the "one person (preferably alive), one vote, one time" is essential to our continued liberties.
- Email this page
By houndogApril 28, 2008 - 3:43pmYou are both confusing vote or election fraud
(which is done, generally) by groups to whole bunches of votes or blocs of voters, which is relatively common, and (individual) voter fraud, which is very uncommon.
Generally, the excuse of individual voter fraud has historically been used as an excuse to make laws that have the effect of disenfranchising groups of voters, which have demographic characteristics which make the individuals tend to vote against the parties and interests that made the laws.
- Email this page
By alienuslxApril 28, 2008 - 1:28pmNot really - "Voter Fraud" includes
Voter registration fraud. You are taking a rather narrow view of "voter fraud" = "voting fraud".
There are plenty of dead/moved/convicted felons who do not get regularly removed from the voter registration rolls - anyone can walk up and "vote" as them if ID is not required.
Many other voter registration scams as well. I agree that "voter fraud" (someone stealing another's vote by misrepresentation) is not a big deal - but voter registration fraud is.
- Email this page
By houndogApril 28, 2008 - 3:51pmOK...
So AA is complaining about a 6-3 decision that upholds a law that you must show ID that you are who you say you are when you go to vote?
WTF!
I never knew that you didn't need to show ID. CERTAINLY, YOU SHOULD have to show ID and the state issued ID should be free.
What is AA worried about? All the DEAD people who can’t now vote?
PS: There is no place in the Constitution where it says the average person can/should vote for ANY office above the Representative level.
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
President John McCain, brought to you in part by the Democratic Party...
- Email this page
By Fight4itApril 28, 2008 - 2:38pmHere's where I probably will piss off people from both sides
I believe everyone should show valid ID when they vote, but I also believe that this is addressing a problem that really doesn't exist, at least not to any great extent. It is certainly far less prevalent and widespread than the vote rigging and dirty tricks run by repubs since 2000.
I still don't understand why every voter can't have some form of ID that proves their identity when they vote. Yes, I know not everyone has a driver's license, but most states produce IDs that are similar, photo IDs that would be quite as acceptable as a drivers license in terms of voting.
Can we come up with a perfect system that absolutely prevents voter fraud 100% of the time? Not unless you require fingerprints or something of the sort, but once again, I think we are trying to address a problem that really doesn't exist in any great amount. Our bigger problem is electronic voting where there is no paper trail, no voter receipt, and no ability to examine the software to make sure it is secure and does what it is supposed to do.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyApril 28, 2008 - 3:27pmOnly republicans benefit from election fraud
- Email this page
By f u bush2April 28, 2008 - 5:28pmThere are many felons that should be allowed to vote
There are a wide range of felonies. It is a rather odd policy.
The other oddity is how an individual can be denied the right to vote because of a felony and yet a CEO can contribute money to candidates from a corporation representing many employees who most likely have a wide range of political views and also may include some felons.
- Email this page
By f u bush2April 28, 2008 - 5:32pmActually, Felons can be allowed to vote
A convicted felon can go to a judge and petition to have his right to vote re-instated. He/she just has to show some evidence of good citizenship (whatever that means).
When we have a recividism rate of upwards of 60%, this seems like a fair and appropriate condition.
I would use "keep your nose clean for 3 years and you're good to go".
- Email this page
By houndogApril 28, 2008 - 5:45pmYou mean kinda like,
Unions collecting dues and then giving endorsements and money on behalf of their members to candidates of a certain party even though some members don't back that party? HMMMMM??????
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanApril 28, 2008 - 7:36pmBy jerrykramer64fan April 28, 2008 - 7:36pm
hmmm??
No
- Email this page
By f u bush2April 28, 2008 - 8:28pmBy f u bush2April 28, 2008 - 8:28pm
I know quite a few members of different unions. Not one of them suffers from the delusion that Republicans are their friends.
Who could have possibly envisioned an erection -- an election in Iraq at this point in history?
--George W. Bush - 01/10/2005
Freudian slip defined...
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesApril 28, 2008 - 9:36pmBy Guy Fawkes April 28, 2008 - 9:36pm
Guy
Check this out. I said here that I thought it sounded like Hillary was trying to show she can "can get the most people ready for war with Iran". And FACTME demonstrated his true colors for us again by responding with "Hold that thought for Hillary's campaign against McCane after August '08."
Doesn't that imply that he supports being pro-war with Iran for political advantage?
I'm guessing FACTME is working at some level on her campaign. He's probably at a lower local level which is fine. If so then he is getting this stuff from her campaign to pass along. Is there any doubt that Hillary is a right wing war monger?
- Email this page
By f u bush2April 29, 2008 - 12:50amBy Guy FawkesApril 28, 2008 - 9:36pm
You know quite a few huh Guy? Wow, that must qualify your statement as fact. I was in a union. The TEAMSTERS in IL, and I worked with plenty of hard core Republicans that we re always pissed that part of their union dues always found a way into some Dem's campaigns.
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 1, 2008 - 1:33pmBy jerrykramer64fanMay 1, 2008 - 1:33pm
So you worked with a few idiots that like to vote against their self interests. I'm guessing that they weren't members of a brain surgeon union.
Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesMay 1, 2008 - 2:27pmBy Guy FawkesMay 1, 2008 - 2:27pm
Guy's opinion- I support unions, but the people that are union members workers are morons because they're not brain surgeons and therefore don't know what's good for them, so we'll just take your money, thank you very much. Move along now, move along....
"Mr. Fawkes" - always concerned that the middle class blue collar worker's voice is heard.
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 1, 2008 - 3:05pmYou really don't understand crapola, do you
Union endorsements are given on the basis of the platform that most supports the Union's goals, so that the Union gets what it needs for its membership overall. Individual members are free to vote for whomever they darned well please. I never read the literature the Union sends me about a candidate, and I vote for whomever I feel is best qualified. I don't resent the money the Union spends behind a candidate because the Union is looking after itself as an entity. I look after myself as an entity. To endorse a candidate that is anti-Union or has anti-labor stands would be a ridiculous stand for a Union to take and would eventually work against the workers' best interests.
- Email this page
By MichtouApril 28, 2008 - 10:03pmBy MichtouApril 28, 2008 - 10:03pm
How many times did your union endorse a candidate that you were not voting for? Regardless, they are still taking money by force from people that don't agree with the unions stance, and giving it a candidate that the member wouldn't vote for. My brother is an union electrician, and is a staunch Repub. He bitches constantly about were his union dues go to.
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 1, 2008 - 1:37pmBy jerrykramer64fan May 1, 2008 - 1:37pm
My brother is an union electrician, and is a staunch Repub. He bitches constantly about were his union dues go to.
Then he should leave the union and go work "rat". There are a handful of republicans in my local union, too. I have yet to hear any of them bitch about giving money to the candidates who are officially endorsed by the union. They understand that the union endorses candidates based solely on their position regarding labor issues. These republican members vote republican based on other issue(s)...abortion being the top of that list.
- Email this page
By roadgoddessMay 1, 2008 - 9:55pmBy roadgoddessMay 1, 2008 - 9:55pm
He actually started out with a nonunion shop. Pay was less but there were other things that he liked. He didn't switch until the shop he worked for consistently lost jobs to union shops even though the non-union job had lower bids. Strange huh? You got to work if you want to pay the bills. Joining the union was the only way to get consistent work.
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 2, 2008 - 9:41amBy jerrykramer64fan May 2, 2008 - 9:41am
He didn't switch until the shop he worked for consistently lost jobs to union shops even though the non-union job had lower bids. Strange huh?
Not really....I don't know about the requirements of your brother's local, but in the local that I belong to, we have continuing education requirements, which ensure a better educated, more talented pool of workers than our non-union counterparts. The electricians in our area have the same thing.
Price is only one consideration when deciding on a contractor, particularly when you factor in any safety/liability issues that might come up. Union contractors stand behind their work, and won't bail out if there's a problem.
- Email this page
By roadgoddessMay 2, 2008 - 10:19amBy roadgoddessMay 2, 2008 - 10:19am
So now you are implying that non-union shops are unethical, poor quality, and don't stand behind their work. Hard to stay in business for long with those attributes. Many of the non-union shops are owners(former union) that started their own businesses and cannot supply the same pay and bennies that the union shops do. Nothing makes our economy grow faster than the entrepreneur. I don't think we help those kinds of people as much as we should.
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 2, 2008 - 10:30amBy jerrykramer64fan May 2, 2008 - 10:30am
So now you are implying that non-union shops are unethical, poor quality, and don't stand behind their work.
No. Not all of them, in fact I'm sure that the majority of them (non-union) are honest. I AM saying that union shops hold their workforce to a higher standard, so YES, their work is superior.
Nothing makes our economy grow faster than the entrepreneur.
I won't argue with you on that point. BUT...in order to KEEP the economy going, the workers (Majority of Americans) must be able to afford to buy 'stuff'...so a respectable living wage is essential to the health of our economy.
What good is a business that makes and sells widgets, but pays their work-force only enough to buy widgets made in China? How is that good for the economy? How is that good for business?
- Email this page
By roadgoddessMay 2, 2008 - 10:54amhey jerry
your brother sound bitter
- Email this page
By wmt62May 1, 2008 - 9:41pmAnother Democratic Leadership Failure
Again, another issue that we needed the Democratic Leadership to take a lead on and NOTHING. Black Box voting is alive and well and in place for the 2008 election, why has the Congressional Leadership done nothing on Voting machine reform. Everything hinges on who counts the votes, and who will be counting the votes agin in November of 2008? Republican controlled corporations that hold the power of the count. The Indiana ruling is a non-event, what does it matter how hard or easy it is to vote when the numbers will be presented in a way that will be beneficial to the staus quo.
http://sohighabove.blogspot.com
- Email this page
By DanielNJApril 28, 2008 - 9:18pmI scoped out http://www.govtrack.us/
http://www.govtrack.us/
a quick scan shows the Congress has been lately prioritizing on:
-Veteran Benefits
-Elderly Benefits and Security
-Airport Logistics and Security
-Job Growth
-Transportation/ Road Infrastructure
-Coast Guard/Terrorist security
-Recognizing Israel
-Glaucoma Day
This is suppose to be the voice of the constituencies
back home, but when you put the Congress in a room behind
closed doors, other possible directives arise.
The public needs to have a closer daily "reining ability" on our government. They aren't going to want to hear that,
but thats what they need.
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiApril 29, 2008 - 12:10amComparing Oregon State Vote Requirements
"...New laws require that people must provide identifying information to register to vote. If you have a current, valid Oregon DMV Driver's License/ID, you must provide that number. A suspended Driver's License is still valid, a revoked Driver's License is NOT valid. If you do not have a current, valid Oregon DMV Driver's License/ID, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security number.
If you do not have a current, valid Oregon DMV Driver's License/ID or a Social Security number, you must affirm this on the voter registration card, and if you are registering by mail, you must provide a copy of one of the following:
courtesy: oregonvotes.org
Dewbie Comment: I would assume felon does not imply revoked licence. I read that all states have some recourse for aiding those without data trails, to vote if they are that hep to do so. I think this is a non-issue, except for the part that mandatory photo IDs are a bit over the top, considering the adequate alternatives already in place.
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiApril 29, 2008 - 12:53amBy dewbie dubai April 29, 2008 - 12:53am
Nawwh, that makes it too easy!
Seriously...we all are issued SSN's. We should all be then granted the right to vote. Audit the vote, if there's doubt. But then wouldn't that require a paper-trail?
- Email this page
By roadgoddessApril 29, 2008 - 1:18amAnd we should have the incentive to vote
Scented ballots, so we don't have to hold our noses.
Non-citizens should have half a vote. Everybody in the world is affected in some way by these crooked dumasses.
- Email this page
By dewbie dubaiApril 29, 2008 - 1:59amBy dewbie dubaiApril 29, 2008 - 1:59am
Ummmm, no.
- Email this page
By jerrykramer64fanMay 1, 2008 - 9:17amWe're also affected by
We're also affected by dumbasses elsewhere. So maybe we should get to vote in the elections of any country that affects us.
- Email this page
By MichtouMay 1, 2008 - 9:40amID
This law goes into affect immediately , this law should have gone into affect at least one year from now. Some people were born in a different state and now will have to request a birth certificate from their state of birth, which today will be a difficult task. I believe the next thing to watch will be the national ID or real ID laws to make a come back.
- Email this page
By getmad54April 29, 2008 - 1:58amI lost by birth certificate
I lost by birth certificate and got a new one in the mail in 7 days for 12 dollars. Yeah, that's damn near an impossible feat.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggApril 30, 2008 - 12:47pmBy bannedfroggApril 30, 2008 - 12:47pm
Gosh. It's hard to refute this sort of solid anecdotal evidence that may or may not be true.
- Email this page
By frazzledApril 30, 2008 - 12:52pmOne phone call that took
One phone call that took about 15 minutes. And I don't give a shit if you believe me or not, but if you don't, try it. Do some fucking research instead of just calling everyone you don't agree with a liar. Each state does it different, but from Michigan all I had to do was call the department of community health and they got me a copy in a week. I did notice that the price has jumped from 12 dollars to 26 though.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggApril 30, 2008 - 1:09pmBy bannedfroggApril 30, 2008 - 1:09pm
No need to get your knickers in a twist ... I'm sure it was very easy for you.
- Email this page
By frazzledApril 30, 2008 - 1:13pm