The only good thing that can be said, if it is a good thing I mean, is that the poll judges do not discriminate.

That law they are enforcing came down from "on high" so they are not free to disobey the law even though it is a horrid law.

The law should be stricken, but that does not solve the problem of gerrymandering, or solve the problem that U.S.eh? demockcrazy only provides psychopaths to chose from.

I'm glad he did this protest, and I'm glad they videotaped it. I honor and respect the former Marine for his service. I think it's great he was willing to give up his vote as a protest and on behalf of the many who have been or will be disenfranchised by these idiotic and undemocratic polling restrictions.

I just wish he hadn't yelled at the poor man who was working at the polls. This isn't his fault.

I'm a former Marine, 8 years active duty. It pisses me off when Devildogs use their time in the Marines to push their agenda. His actions and conduct toward the poll workers were not in keeping with the standards and traditions of professionalism of my beloved Corps.

Wow. Another contrived situation designed to mobilize the doltish.

Surely the Marines taught him a little something about honor and respect. He knows the law going in, has his ID, but refuses to show it to prove his point? And yelling at the poll worker?

Hopefully, someone is arranging some remedial Civics, common courtesy and common sense classes for Mr. Thompson.

Good find.

A "gun permit card with photo" is acceptable --- what does that say as to the political leanings of those whom the GOP wishes to permit to vote.'

Oh, and to Buzz, who lacks the bravery to post his or her real name in our comment section (and probably never served, let alone faced combat), please explain what honor there is in needlessly disenfranchising millions of Americans by photo ID laws that have nothing to do with preventing voter fraud.

This billionaire funded, GOP concocted exercise in the destruction of the right to vote is an absolute disgrace!

First, I thought there was no such thing as an ex-Marine.

Second, if any has room to tell a governor to saunter off to hell it's the military when they can't vote. That's not an agenda, that's American and good on him.

Ernest,

I guess it didn't sit well for me to point out your lies and woefully inept attempts at logic in the *Church & State* comments, aye? I can assure you, whether I use my full name or not, lies are still lies.

I registered for the draft, as required, in 1980. 'not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

But, on to something you must certainly detest.

How on earth is anyone disenfranchised by having to show a photo ID if they show up at the polls to vote?

Here's one.

http://www.cleveland.com...nty_veteran_86_turn.html

Buzz, I know you are new to this site so I'll cut you some slack and, for the moment, assume that you are simply uninformed rather than a lying right-wing propagandist.

Here are a couple of articles that may serve to answer you question as to how polling place photo ID laws serve to disenfranchise millions of Americans.

U.S. Senate Hearings on New GOP Voter Suppression Laws [Part 1 of 2] - Photo ID Restrictions and the Disastrous Return of Hans von Spakovsky

New Federal Lawsuit Provides U.S. DoJ Golden Opportunity to Challenge Polling Place Photo ID Restrictions Under Section 2 of Voting Rights Act

Assume away, Ernest! Fine by me.

Can't you just tell me? You know, like a conversation? I honestly don't think I can stomach more of your articles if they are as poorly written and filled with as many lies as the Church/State "Academic" paper.

I went to vote today. I showed my license. I voted. An elderly neighbor voted today. He has a free ID card from the state. Another elderly neighbor who wasn't interested in getting an ID, cast their ballot absentee.

Can you just tell me, in your own words, without ...sinister music...stories of the Koch Brothers, or any other whacky conspiracy theories, how it is that showing a photo ID is such an incredible burden?

Ernest,

Even after reading your "academic" paper on Church/State, I decided to attempt to get through another of your works. Unfortunately, the obligatory mention of the Koch Brothers (and of course, pointing out that they are billionaires) was in the first paragraph. I'm sorry, but I just can't force myself through another one of those sort of things.

Why don't we just have a conversation. You know, I ask a question, you answer it. No need for links to HuffPo (or worse). No pointers to *academic* papers. 'just a conversation. You ask, I answer. I ask, you answer. Yes, it's unconventional, but let's give it a try. Whadda ya say?

So, in your own words, without any wealth envy, without any more lies or distortions, how is someone disenfranchised by showing a photo ID?

Buzz asked disenguously @ 11:

Why don't we just have a conversation. You know, I ask a question, you answer it...how is someone disenfranchised by showing a photo ID?

You know, you're extraordinarily rude, Buzz. Ernie has given you links, with actual evidence in response to your disingenuous question, and you not only do have the courtesy to read them, you hurl insults at the same time.

Furthermore, the article you are responding to (which I'm guessing you failed to read as well), also offers an answer to your question. The story of 96-year old Dorothy Cooper and the story of 93-year old Thelma Mitchell in TN have been ignored by you.

Then there's 84-year old Ruthelle Frank in WI. The previously legal voters who were disenfranchised last week in WI. The scores of voters who have filed a lawsuit, detailing how they are now disenfranchised in WI as well.

Then there are the nuns and students disenfranchised in IN in 2008. Shall I go on? I would, but you'll not bother to read them, because you clearly you don't actually give a shit. If you did, you would know the answer to your disingenuous question already.

So, "how is someone disenfranchised by showing a photo ID?" If they have one to show, obviously, they are not (presuming they remember to bring it, and a tornado hasn't wiped out their house the day before.) If they don't have it, however, like 21 million Americans, it's a different story. But, again, it's a story that clearly you don't give a shit about it, as you clearly don't give a shit about democracy. If you did, you'd be fighting like hell, like the former Marine in the story above, to make sure everyone is allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

But you won't. Because you clearly don't give a damn about democracy and the values of this nation. And that's pathetic.

First of all, we don't have a democracy. The Founding Fathers were very clear that that was NOT what they had in mind. A cursory read of our founding documents or any of the FF writings reveal that.

Secondly, there is no *right to vote* in a national election.

And the word is disingenuously, not disenguously.

So, since you obviously like to play fast and loose with the truth, why don't we just converse without links to other meaningless items?

Best I can tell, every state has provisional ways to vote. And you know the old adage...ignorance of the law... The contrived story of the rude Marine is meaningless. The guy had his ID. While I suppose it was brilliant to some, it's really more a testimony to what sort of a jerk he is.

So, I think you guys have referred to what, 21 million people without photo IDs? How many have availed themselves to the free ones offered by their states? How many have bothered to send in an absentee ballot? How many have even bothered to educate themselves as to what is required and what other options they have?

Without knowing how many people actually can not vote due to the straight-forward, common sense laws, it's kinda hard to know if or how big a problem we have. And, I can tell that you level headed people here would never want to go off half cocked or without complete, accurate information, right?

Anyone who wants to vote and who is legally entitled to, should be able to vote. If there are instances where an elderly person here, a group of nuns there can't, that should be addressed. In the case of the nuns, it sounds like they simply weren't aware of the laws. Absentee ballots would work for them, no?

There will always be *issues* with voting. a few years ago, it was hanging chads. Then it was some ballots in a box that was unopened. It's going to happen. It should be minimized, for sure.

Are you aware of any studies that show that of the people who do not have picture IDs, how many are not afforded another mechanism to vote?

Ernie said; "Millions of voters are going to be disenfranchised".

"For proof.. I will supply you two links to a far left website... where you can read left wing propaganda.... which I wrote."

In other words, Ernie is right because he says so.

Buzz,

I'm going to guess that by explaining we don't live in a democracy, you mean we live in a republic. I gather that's a long-time John Birch Society obsession. That's fine... you're right, we are not a direct democracy. We do get to vote for our representatives, though.

As for there being no right to vote in a national election, could you explain that one a bit more? I've never heard anyone say that before, and I'm not clear on what you mean. Do you view voting as a privilege that can be taken away from non-felons?

I'm also wondering if you feel laws that impose burdens (burdens you consider minor) are OK with you if they have a political impact but don't address a real problem. I ask that because repeated investigations have turned up no evidence of a real voter fraud problem. The political impact of imposing this particular burden is clear, though, just as the political impacts of literacy tests were clear in earlier years.

Epiphany Alert:

At first, like Brad and everybody else, I saw this ALEC/GOP attack against voting as a BAD thing. After all, disenfranchising five or ten million low-to-mid class Americans can only help the Rethuglicans and can't be good for Democracy (with a big D).

But, now I see a positive side to this IF we choose to take it...

Voter registration programs have been killed in their tracks by GOP-sponsored legislation that has frightened away many organizations including the League of Women Voters that had done it for years.

BUT "Get Your Photo ID so you can vote" programs would not be subject to those laws. Once people have their ID, you can figure that THEY will figure out how to get registered. And they will remember, who it was who helped them get their ID.

The DSCC and DCCC and all the other organizations should be ALL OVER this.

Let's make this the Summer of the Photo ID!!!!

Let's turn the Rethuglicans plan to stop people from voting into the biggest voter recruitment program in history and have overall voter turnout INCREASE in 2012.

Buzz continued to unimpress @ 12 with:

why don't we just converse without links to other meaningless items?

By "meaningless items", you mean actual evidence to back up our claims, so that you don't have to trust me and I don't have to trust you? Ya know, cites to independently verifiable facts and stuff? Is that the "meaningless items" you're referring to? Really??

Best I can tell, every state has provisional ways to vote.

"Best [you] can tell"? You're not too familiar with our electoral system, are ya? Yes, anyone can vote provisionally in any state. Getting that vote counted, however, is a different matter. And without a Photo ID in most of the state's that have passed those restrictions, your provisional vote will not be counted, unless you can come up with the money and/or resources to obtain the state-issued Photo ID you couldn't before Election Day anyway.

I know you don't like links and facts and stuff, but here's one that walks you through how easy it is to get your vote counted if you don't have a state-issued Photo ID on Election Day in Indiana. Hurry up and don't bother to read it right away, son.

So, I think you guys have referred to what, 21 million people without photo IDs? How many have availed themselves to the free ones offered by their states? How many have bothered to send in an absentee ballot? How many have even bothered to educate themselves as to what is required and what other options they have?

So, just curious. Let's say there is 220,000 legally registered voters who will not be able to vote unless they manage the hurdles (and can afford them) to get their "free" ID in Wisconsin, as discussed by the judge who put that state's law on hold today, finding it unconstitutional. Let's now say that a huge majority of them manage to jump those hurdles. How many legal voters are you cool with disenfranchising? 20,000? 1,000? How many of them are just fine with seeing their constitutional right to vote taken away from them before you'd have any concern about their liberty and loss of rights?

I can tell that you level headed people here would never want to go off half cocked or without complete, accurate information, right?

Actually, both Ernie and I have been level-headed enough to offer you actual, complete, accurate information, studies, legal findings and factual cases. You are too lazy, apparently, to bother to educate yourself with them. Right?

You, in the meantime, have provided not a single fact to this discussion. I can't imagine why.

Are you aware of any studies that show that of the people who do not have picture IDs, how many are not afforded another mechanism to vote?

If I did, would you bother to read it?

WingnutSteve @ 14 also whiffed with:

"For proof.. I will supply you two links to a far left website... where you can read left wing propaganda.... which I wrote."

In other words, Ernie is right because he says so.

No, Ernie is right because he has directed you to articles which include independently verifiable facts, so that you don't need to trust a word that Ernie says.

And, what have you provided to rebut those independently verifiable facts? Oh, that's right. Like your kinfolk Buzz --- and like the legislative and legal proponents of these bills --absolutely nothing.

I wonder why.

Charlie L @ 16:

Wow. Talking about making lemonade outta lemons! Good luck with that! You're gonna have to do alotta squeezing!

Mitch,

Now that's truly weird. You admit that no, we don't live in a democracy (and you're right), but when I say it, it's because of "long-time John Birch Society obsession"? Wow. Just wow.

Voting in a national election IS a privilege. It is not I that asserts that it is a RIGHT, so perhaps you should point me to where you find that it IS a right. Our rights are clearly spelled out for us. The right to vote in a national election is simply not there. But, if you can find it, I'm all ears.

Your question about laws that impose a burden is a little odd. Yesterday, I had to fill out my name and address in order to vote. Is that not a burden? I had to wait while they checked the voter registration logs to see that I was registered. Was that not a burden? Several years ago, due to some sort of glitch, I was not even listed on the voter registration rolls. Boy, was I ever burdened by that.

Living in a (somewhat) free country requires some level of effort and some self-education as to what is required. If someone shows up once every 4 years and is shocked that the requirements have changed since the last time they voted, shame on them.

I'm traveling for the next few days, but I look forward to continuing...

brad:

"Best [you] can tell"? You're not too familiar with our electoral system, are ya?

I don't claim to know the laws of each and every state. MY state offers a free Voter ID card, absentee voting, etc.

So, just curious. Let's say there is 220,000 legally registered voters who will not be able to vote unless they manage the hurdles (and can afford them) to get their "free" ID in Wisconsin, as discussed by the judge who put that state's law on hold today, finding it unconstitutional. Let's now say that a huge majority of them manage to jump those hurdles. How many legal voters are you cool with disenfranchising? 20,000? 1,000? How many of them are just fine with seeing their constitutional right to vote taken away from them before you'd have any concern about their liberty and loss of rights?

I've already made it clear that I feel that no one who is qualified to vote should not be able to vote.

And again, there is no Constitutional right to vote, hence no loss of rights. Breathlessly saying it over and over, feigning shock at the loss of a non-existent right, is silly.

Actually, both Ernie and I have been level-headed enough to offer you actual, complete, accurate information, studies, legal findings and factual cases. You are too lazy, apparently, to bother to educate yourself with them. Right?

I pointed out several lies/distortions/misrepresentations in Ernest's "academic" paper on the Fluke thing. You continue to refer to non-existent rights as if they do exist and don't even know what form of government we have in this country. So, for you two to refer me to other things you have written as evidence of some sort of proof is kind of silly, no?

Are you aware of any studies that show that of the people who do not have picture IDs, how many are not afforded another mechanism to vote?

If I did, would you bother to read it?

Of course!

You state that 21 million people don't have photo IDs. I'll accept that number, but it's meaningless in an honest discussion about voting unless we know how many of those 21 million haven't been provided other mechanisms to vote, no?

Go to go catch a flight. The 49%, you know.

brad wrote to WingnutSteve:

Like your kinfolk Buzz ---

The jig is up, Steve. Brad has figured it out, brother.

Buzz,

Regarding democracy vs. republic, you should know who has been pushing your meme for the last few generations. Maybe you don't, which would explain your "wow". It's hard to see why so many people think it's a wise, relevant thing to say when it's often --- not always --- intended as a battle flag.

On to the more important topic, which is the imposition of burdens on voting. Yes, you had to fill out your name and address and wait while they checked to see if you were registered. We both understand why that was necessary and appropriate. Why is a photo ID requirement necessary and appropriate? What investigation has shown that there is a voter fraud issue at the polls? What efforts do these new poll laws require that the election staff be able to authenticate the IDs that are claimed to be vital? Oh, none. To me, that makes the purpose of the laws clear.

Seriously, spend a moment checking yourself if you are sincere.

Enjoy your flight.

Buzz @ 21 continue to blather foolishly:

I've already made it clear that I feel that no one who is qualified to vote should not be able to vote.

And yet you are supporting laws which make that the case. Of course, you feel that by letting them vote in a way that their vote won't be as equal as everybody elses, or may never get counted at all, that's okay. Sorry, it isn't. And I'm sorrier still that you appear not to have enough respect to read a single link I took the time to share with you here in my very patient replies to you.

And again, there is no Constitutional right to vote, hence no loss of rights. Breathlessly saying it over and over, feigning shock at the loss of a non-existent right, is silly.

Ya know what's even sillier? Shooting your mouth off about things you haven't a clue on. I was discussing Wisconsin with you, and gave you the link to yesterday's court decision. Clearly, you didn't bother to even look at it, or you'd have learned that the judge in WI put the law on hold, finding it unconstitional in violation of WI Constitional, Article III, Suffrage, which reads, in part:

There is more in their Constitution on this, but I don't believe you care.

As to the U.S. Constition, yes, there are certain protections there as well. Though the "right to vote" is not explicit, it is there in many different ways, including the Amendments which discuss voting age, suffrage and equal protection under the law.

But, again, you clearly don't care.

You continue to refer to non-existent rights as if they do exist and don't even know what form of government we have in this country.

If that were in any way true, I'd agree with you. But making a jackass of yourself here is clearly your goal. And, congrats! You are succeeding!

You state that 21 million people don't have photo IDs. I'll accept that number, but it's meaningless in an honest discussion about voting unless we know how many of those 21 million haven't been provided other mechanisms to vote, no?

No. Because that's already on record in numerous legal findings in both courts and from the DoJ, etc.

But, again, you don't give a shit. If you ever care about protecting your nation's Constititonally Representative Democracy, let me know. Until then, see ya.

COMMENT #8
@ Rick H.

Well if the veteran was to vote in TN, he would have been able to vote.
TN accepts ANY federal or State issued ID. even if it were to be expired. So the expired Drivers license, or the VA card would have worked. If someone was to have just moved from another state (of course it would have had to have been 30 days before the election) and didn't have a TN Drivers license the License from the other state would have been acceptable even if it was expired. Even if a person for what ever reason is unable to pay for items necessary to receive a state issued ID then they could sign an affidavit stating that they can't afford a state issued ID and still be able to vote with a regular ballot. The only people that would have to vote with a provisional ballot would be someone that had registered, but for some reason is not on the poll lists, or someone that "forgot" or lost their ID, but they would have to show up at the election commission within 2 days with it.

The guy in this story was not turned away as the title says, he refuses to vote and leaves. He could have voted a provisional ballot. But I do not think it would have mattered that much because the only person on the Democratic ballot was Obama. Unless he was to vote on the Republican ballot to possibly vote for someone that they think that Obama will beat....(some that came in told me that is what they were doing)