[jeffkrol]

In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the threat posed by voter fraud and ruled that Indiana's photo ID requirement was a legitimate, non-discriminatory means of protecting the integrity of elections.

The Texas attorney general has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions.

Nov 2010: The voter fraud hall of shame: Milwaukee voter fraud conviction makes ACORN’s 2010 total at least 15
The voter fraud hall of shame: Milwaukee voter fraud conviction makes ACORN?s 2010 total at least 15 | The Daily Caller

Voter fraud, also called electoral fraud, is a blanket term encompassing a host of election-related improprieties. In this case, Busefink entered an “Alford plea” which is roughly equivalent to “no contest.” The case involves a conspiracy to provide illegal financial bonuses to voter registration canvassers exceeding their daily quotas. Nevada law forbids the practice on the theory that such bonuses provide an incentive for canvassers to file bogus registrations.

Just your free market at work.. Have something against someone being paid for performance.. ????

Actually it is registration fraud ..which while apparently by definition "voter fraud" it did and does not translate to ACTUAL votes as in ACTUALLY voting, fraud...

no, millions in state money (ID is free or it is a poll tax) to prevent "voter fraud" is not money well spent..
Since currently living in the land of recall and recount..what it seems to me is "clerical error" creates MORE shifts in votes than ANY "ahem" vote fraud..
I'll leave out the ease of HACKING a machine to produce fake results to you to "investigate"..........

BUT keep punching those windmills.. it is funny to watch..........

[GeneV]

It seems like our papers constantly have a story on the front page about rings of ID counterfeiters. ABQJournal Online Again, for all those who think that photo IDs are the saviors of democracy, how will the little old ladies and gentlemen who volunteer for the polls check these fakes, which just about every undocumented worker has? Isn't it likely that anyone who really wants that badly to brave prison to vote will have a fake ID?

The people who will be excluded will be the elderly and the uneducated poor but legitimate voters who assume they are OK and go about things the same way they always have.

[ElJamoquio]

9 Lawyers in black robes have done a lot more than "implied" there are rights associated with voting that are protected by the constitution. Not so much with attending rallies.

There are limitations on when and how you can exclude people from voting, but there is no intrinsic right to vote.

[GeneV]

There are limitations on when and how you can exclude people from voting, but there is no intrinsic right to vote.

OK, with those semantics, there are limits on when and how you can exclude people from speaking, but there is no intrinsic right to free speech.

No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 560, quoting Wesbury v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 07-09-2012 at 10:23 AM.

[ElJamoquio]

OK, with those semantics, there are limits on when and how you can exclude people from speaking, but there is no intrinsic right to free speech.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"

Seems pretty darn clear to me, and the only question is what abridges speech.


"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

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.

Seems to me like you can, constitutionally speaking of course, limit voting rights to only firearms owners, or only government employees, or only union members, or only landowners (hint, this was the status in many locations when the constitution was adopted). There is no recognized right to vote. Feel free to change this, I'd be in favor of changing it, but it's perfectly within the state's prerogative to limit voting to ONLY those who own an ID as long as that law isn't really meant to eliminate minorities, etc., from voting. Seeing as state ID's are pretty much free I don't see how that's applicable.

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 560, quoting Wesbury v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1.

If you say so. What is 'unnecessarily abridging'? Where in the constitution is that information based? You know that case was about gerrymandering, and gerrymandering is now, basically, federally required (i.e. in southern states you cannot "dilute" minority-majority districts), right?

[GeneV]

If you say so. What is 'unnecessarily abridging'? Where in the constitution is that information based? You know that case was about gerrymandering, and gerrymandering is now federally required, right?

You questioned why I, as a lawyer, would say there is a right to vote. I say so because the Supreme Court says so in the language I quoted, and the court stated it is one of the most precious rights in society. That really ends the discussion why it is on a different plane from the privilege of being invited to a rally. Reynolds v. Sims was not about political "gerrymandering." It required representation based upon population, rather than geography. (The one exception being the U.S. Senate, which is expressly prescribed in the Constitution).

As the First Amendment is applied in practice, it is essentially the same standard. The amendment sounds absolute, but common sense says it cannot be, starting with Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous thoughts about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. The court looks to whether speech is unnecessarily abridged.

No, you cannot arbitrarily limit voting to a certain group. When dealing with a fundamental right, the court applies a high level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause to any classification which would abridge the right. States must show that the voting restriction is necessary to a “compelling state interest,” and is the least restrictive means of achieving the state’s objective. The scrutiny given to voting under Equal Protection is actually thought by some scholars to be more intensive than that given to rights of speech.