Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AZ Law: proof of citizenship to vote
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #1
 
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. However, AZ can screw up ANYTHING. And, birth certificates are easily forged and available at the Dog Track flea market (according to one cop)

Ariz. Requires Citizenship Proof to Vote

Wed Jan 26, 8:27 AM ET U.S. National - AP



PHOENIX - Arizona has become the first state to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote, a measure that supporters say is intended to prevent voter fraud.



The law went into effect Tuesday after being approved by voters in November. It requires that people provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, when registering to vote and show specified forms of identification when casting a ballot at a polling place.


A civil-rights group and Democratic legislators recently had urged the Department of Justice (news - web sites) to reject the law. They argued the changes will erect barriers that will hinder minorities' participation in elections and hamper grassroots voter registration drives.


The Justice Department (news - web sites) gave final approval Tuesday.


Arizona needs federal clearance of all election laws and regulations because of the state's history of violations of minorities' voting rights.


Arizona officials said they did not know whether the law would be implemented by March 3 elections scheduled in some local jurisdictions.


"I look at my crystal ball and say I hope we are able to make this as smooth for the public as possible," said Secretary of State Jan Brewer, who oversees elections. "But any time you have a change of this magnitude, there's going to be some hiccups along the way."
01-26-2005 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #2
 
DrTorch Wrote:A civil-rights group and Democratic legislators recently had urged the Department of Justice (news - web sites) to reject the law. They argued the changes will erect barriers that will hinder minorities' participation in elections and hamper grassroots voter registration drives.
Basically saying "we don't approve cause then we can't get the illegal immigrant vote anymore."
01-26-2005 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
 
T-Monay820 Wrote:
DrTorch Wrote:A civil-rights group and Democratic legislators recently had urged the Department of Justice (news - web sites) to reject the law. They argued the changes will erect barriers that will hinder minorities' participation in elections and hamper grassroots voter registration drives.
Basically saying "we don't approve cause then we can't get the illegal immigrant vote anymore."
04-bow

That's EXACTLY what they are saying. How in the hell can ANYONE be against showing proof of citizenship to vote?
01-26-2005 08:46 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #4
 
Let me lay out the other side.

First, a word about Democratic values.

By and large, Democrats want people to vote. The more, the better. This leads Democrats to champion policy changes to make it easier to vote -- longer polling hours, same day registration, early voting, and a bunch of other things.

Sometimes Republicans go along, because "making it easier to vote" is a pretty popular position to take. But, at the end of the day, Republicans have an easier time winning elections with light turnout because Republican voters are more consistent about voting than Democratic voters.

So, when push comes to shove, Republicans aren't going to expend much political capital making voting easier. And, if they have an opportunity to find a popular way to make voting tougher, they'll do it.

That's what this is -- a well-packaged attempt to make voting tougher.

Think it through.

In many (if not most) states, one can register to vote without ever showing up at the Board of Elections. You just just fill out a card, attesting on it that you are a citizen and at least 18 years old, and you just mail it in. And you don't even need to mail it in -- because, often, people will offer to do that for you.

That's the landscape right now.

This Arizona proposal would seem to require people to register to vote in person. That's a big change. That means figuring out where the Board of Election is, perhaps driving downtown and paying for parking, then going in person to fill out a card, then presenting proof of citizenship.

And if you've lost your birth certificate? It means, first, you need to go to the department of vital records in whatever city or state you were born to have one printed up for you, then going back to the Board of Elections, finding parking, etc.

That's a whole lot more effort.

Republicans can say, look the right to vote is important, what's the big deal if its a bit more work?

All I can do is suggest that some people do not believe they are in an economic position to call off work and go downtown between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on a week day and invest the time it takes to register to vote in person.

I can also point to the practical result: If this thing happens in Arizona, fewer eligible voters will be registered to vote, meaning fewer people will vote.

And that's the concern of Democrats.

The spin on this is great. Right wing talk radio will be going nuts over this because it will feed this false idea that liberals are unpatriotic.

All I can say is that every Democrat I know does not want noncitizens voting. I'm certain that's just as true in Arizona as it is here where I live. I can't prove it, but I believe it to be true. I'm a Democrat, and I don't want noncitizens voting.

One final point: In many places, voting when you have no right to do so is a felony. That's a pretty big disincentive right there to try to cheat the system.

So this proposal sounds good on paper -- but it's going to be a pain in the *** that ultimately discourages legimate citizens from voting.

You'll understand what I mean if you've ever gone out to the bars while leaving your ID at home -- or if you aren't sure where your birth certificate is right this very moment.
01-26-2005 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #5
 
People always complain about voter fraud and other failures in the democratic system of voting. This is one way to ensure that only legitimate people's votes count (going on the idea of providing proof of citizenship, not the actual wording of whatever the law is). If you don't feel like going through the small amount of effort to prove your citizenship, then why bother voting?
01-27-2005 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JTiger Offline
Grand Master Sexaaayyyy
*

Posts: 16,068
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 282
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Germantown
Post: #6
 
This doesn't seem out of line to ask for proof of citizenship. Since a birth certificate can be faked easily, why not ask for a drivers license? The number should be in the system already. That seems to make sense to me.
01-27-2005 07:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #7
 
JTiger Wrote:This doesn't seem out of line to ask for proof of citizenship. Since a birth certificate can be faked easily, why not ask for a drivers license? The number should be in the system already. That seems to make sense to me.
What does a drivers license prove? Those are routinely given to non-citizens, and frankly for very legitmate reasons.
01-27-2005 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #8
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:All I can say is that every Democrat I know does not want noncitizens voting. I'm certain that's just as true in Arizona as it is here where I live. I can't prove it, but I believe it to be true. I'm a Democrat, and I don't want noncitizens voting.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec97/dornan_10-22.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/ju...rnan_10-22.html</a>

Not Arizona, but close enough.

I don't know the mechanics of the new voter registration. It may be as difficult as you say...it may not. But, voter fraud in the southwest is a big concern. Bigger than in MI, OH, and NY.
01-27-2005 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #9
 
DrTorch Wrote:
JTiger Wrote:This doesn't seem out of line to ask for proof of citizenship.&nbsp; Since a birth certificate can be faked easily, why not ask for a drivers license?&nbsp; The number should be in the system already.&nbsp; That seems to make sense to me.
What does a drivers license prove? Those are routinely given to non-citizens, and frankly for very legitmate reasons.
That's one thing that has *really* bothered me this past few years, this push to require that people prove their citizenship to get a drivers license.

A drivers license has *never* been proof of citizenship -- and only fools perceive it that way. It can be used as proof that you are who you say you are. It can be used to prove you are of a certain age. But mostly, it is intended to prove that you are licensed to drive.

That's it.

Immigration is a big, complex problem. There is something to the argument that discourging illegals is so important that we aren't going to allow them to drive in our country.

But that's not usually the argument. The usual argument is -- let's prevent illegals from getting these IDs which they will use to fool people into thinking their citizens.

Drivers licenses were *never* intended to be used that way.
01-27-2005 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #10
 
DrTorch Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:All I can say is that every Democrat I know does not want noncitizens voting. I'm certain that's just as true in Arizona as it is here where I live. I can't prove it, but I believe it to be true. I'm a Democrat, and I don't want noncitizens voting.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec97/dornan_10-22.html' target='_blank'>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/ju...rnan_10-22.html</a>

Not Arizona, but close enough.

I don't know the mechanics of the new voter registration. It may be as difficult as you say...it may not. But, voter fraud in the southwest is a big concern. Bigger than in MI, OH, and NY.
So how did that turn out?

I'm assuming there wasn't enough fraud there to over turn the election -- which was, what, in '96?

I'm going to assume a few people were charged with felonies for voting illegally, and that was it.

That was an extremely close election -- less than 1,000 votes in a Congressional race? That's close. And, yet, it appears noncitizens had no impact on the result.

I think that shows the problem of noncitizens voting isn't what its cracked up to be, even in southern California, home to many, many immigrants.

The bottom line question is this: Is making it tougher to break the law and vote illegally worth the cost of discouraging people who have every right to vote from doing so?

I guess the Democratic argument in Arizona is no -- the problem of noncitizens voting has not risen to the level where we need to change the rules to make it tougher for everyone else to vote too.
01-27-2005 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JTiger Offline
Grand Master Sexaaayyyy
*

Posts: 16,068
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 282
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Germantown
Post: #11
 
DrTorch Wrote:
JTiger Wrote:This doesn't seem out of line to ask for proof of citizenship.&nbsp; Since a birth certificate can be faked easily, why not ask for a drivers license?&nbsp; The number should be in the system already.&nbsp; That seems to make sense to me.
What does a drivers license prove? Those are routinely given to non-citizens, and frankly for very legitmate reasons.
If you are on record with the state, they should know your status, right? I didn't intend to imply that we give the right to vote to non-citizens that have a license. It just seems to be a form of identification that people can find easily, unlike the paper social security cards.
01-27-2005 09:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #12
 
JTiger Wrote:
DrTorch Wrote:
JTiger Wrote:This doesn't seem out of line to ask for proof of citizenship. &nbsp; Since a birth certificate can be faked easily, why not ask for a drivers license?  The number should be in the system already.  That seems to make sense to me.
What does a drivers license prove? Those are routinely given to non-citizens, and frankly for very legitmate reasons.
If you are on record with the state, they should know your status, right?
I don't think so. I'm not sure citizenship ever comes up when you're applying for a drivers license. Maybe indirectly when you show a birth certificate for your first one, but after that?
01-27-2005 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gruehls
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
 
Schadenfreude Wrote:First, a word about Democratic values.

By and large, Democrats want people to vote. The more, the better. This leads Democrats to champion policy changes to make it easier to vote -- longer polling hours, same day registration, early voting, and a bunch of other things.

Sometimes Republicans go along, because "making it easier to vote" is a pretty popular position to take. But, at the end of the day, Republicans have an easier time winning elections with light turnout because Republican voters are more consistent about voting than Democratic voters.

So, when push comes to shove, Republicans aren't going to expend much political capital making voting easier. And, if they have an opportunity to find a popular way to make voting tougher, they'll do it.

That's what this is -- a well-packaged attempt to make voting tougher.


well, that's your word. got any of those, what do they call 'em, "facts" to support this "word" of yours?

Quote:This Arizona proposal would seem to require people to register to vote in person. That's a big change. That means figuring out where the Board of Election is, perhaps driving downtown and paying for parking, then going in person to fill out a card, then presenting proof of citizenship.

again, your factual basis is? why have libraries and other agencies been conveniently excluded from your analysis of the horrible possibilities this minimal requirement will inflict? by statute, the arizona bmv's will accept and encourage voter registration with issuance and renewal of drivers' licenses. are you going to argue that requiring driver's licenses is a republican plot to keep democratic voters off the road?



Quote:All I can do is suggest that some people do not believe they are in an economic position to call off work and go downtown between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on a week day and invest the time it takes to register to vote in person.

it is staggering the liberties you take. factual basis for claiming registration will be available only from 9-5 on weekdays? and only downtown?

you register to vote one time only. you act like it's a weekly event.

Quote:I can also point to the practical result: If this thing happens in Arizona, fewer eligible voters will be registered to vote, meaning fewer people will vote.

And that's the concern of Democrats.

.

hooey. the concern of democrats is it will disproportionately effect democratic voters. if i were inclined to make wild statements on the subject, i'd say that they really worry about losing all those illegal voters, both the living and the dead ones, who everone knows overwhelmingly vote democrat.
01-27-2005 10:12 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #14
 
Quote:By and large, Democrats want people to vote.

Quote:Republicans have an easier time winning elections with light turnout because Republican voters are more consistent about voting than Democratic voters.

Sounds like Democratic voters don't want to vote?
01-27-2005 10:33 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #15
 
Anyone against a national ID Card? Honestly, I used to be, but I don't see a problem with proving your citizenship and/or status in the United States.

...course I've been working a lot this week and my mind is kinda fried right now.
01-27-2005 10:42 AM
Quote this message in a reply
JTiger Offline
Grand Master Sexaaayyyy
*

Posts: 16,068
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 282
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Germantown
Post: #16
 
Quote:By and large, Democrats want people to vote. The more, the better. This leads Democrats to champion policy changes to make it easier to vote -- longer polling hours, same day registration, early voting, and a bunch of other things.

We see how that worked out in the last election for John Kerry.
01-27-2005 03:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #17
 
RebelKev Wrote:Anyone against a national ID Card? Honestly, I used to be, but I don't see a problem with proving your citizenship and/or status in the United States.

...course I've been working a lot this week and my mind is kinda fried right now.
I'm for it.
01-27-2005 04:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #18
 
gruehls Wrote:
Schadenfreude Wrote:First, a word about Democratic values.

By and large, Democrats want people to vote. The more, the better. This leads Democrats to champion policy changes to make it easier to vote -- longer polling hours, same day registration, early voting, and a bunch of other things.

Sometimes Republicans go along, because "making it easier to vote" is a pretty popular position to take. But, at the end of the day, Republicans have an easier time winning elections with light turnout because Republican voters are more consistent about voting than Democratic voters.

So, when push comes to shove, Republicans aren't going to expend much political capital making voting easier. And, if they have an opportunity to find a popular way to make voting tougher, they'll do it.

That's what this is -- a well-packaged attempt to make voting tougher.


well, that's your word. got any of those, what do they call 'em, "facts" to support this "word" of yours?
It's conventional wisdom. Politics 101.

In 1982, Democrats clobbered Republicans in Ohio. Dick Celeste beat old man Rhodes, and most of the other statewide offices went Democratic.

Asked what had happened, one prominent Ohio Republican said, essentially, "Too many people voted."

(I wish I could show you a link to back that up. I spent entirely too much time today trying. Maybe I'll try again later. It happened.)

Quote:
Quote:This Arizona proposal would seem to require people to register to vote in person. That's a big change. That means figuring out where the Board of Election is, perhaps driving downtown and paying for parking, then going in person to fill out a card, then presenting proof of citizenship.

again, your factual basis is? why have libraries and other agencies been conveniently excluded from your analysis of the horrible possibilities this minimal requirement will inflict? by statute, the arizona bmv's will accept and encourage voter registration with issuance and renewal of drivers' licenses. are you going to argue that requiring driver's licenses is a republican plot to keep democratic voters off the road?

Let's not get caught up in a side issue.

Presently, people may register to vote by mail. This is an additional convenience that encourages more people to register by making it easier.

By allowing registration by mail, the law leaves open a common Democratic get-out-the-vote strategy: registering people to vote by walking neighborhoods (usually poor, transient ones), signing people up to vote and then mailing in the cards for them.

The Arizona proposal would seem to eliminate this strategy.

Net result: Fewer citizens will be registered. Fewer citizens will vote.

It's that simple.

Quote:
Quote:All I can do is suggest that some people do not believe they are in an economic position to call off work and go downtown between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on a week day and invest the time it takes to register to vote in person.

it is staggering the liberties you take. factual basis for claiming registration will be available only from 9-5 on weekdays? and only downtown?

Well, some boards of election (or DMVs or welfare offices) might open at 8 a.m. and close at 4:30.

Also, occasionally, boards of elections have been known to stay open past 5 once in a while -- usually right before the close of the registration period preceeding an election.

But, by and large, if one wants to register to vote, one should go to the board of elections between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

Boards of elections are typically located in the downtown of the county seat.

Quote:you register to vote one time only. you act like it's a weekly event.

It's more common than "one-time only" -- especially if one moves around frequently, as many poor families sometimes do.

I've registered to vote about every two years since I graduated from high school.

Quote:
Quote:I can also point to the practical result: If this thing happens in Arizona, fewer eligible voters will be registered to vote, meaning fewer people will vote.

And that's the concern of Democrats.

.

hooey. the concern of democrats is it will disproportionately effect democratic voters.

You are trying to parse something that need not be parsed.

Democrats want more people to vote and they believe it favors them in elections for more people to vote.

Quote:if i were inclined to make wild statements on the subject, i'd say that they really worry about losing all those illegal voters, both the living and the dead ones, who everone knows overwhelmingly vote democrat.

The right wing spin on this does feed quite a few standing myths about Democrats.

But it doesn't make any of them true.
01-27-2005 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #19
 
JTiger Wrote:
Quote:By and large, Democrats want people to vote. The more, the better. This leads Democrats to champion policy changes to make it easier to vote -- longer polling hours, same day registration, early voting, and a bunch of other things.

We see how that worked out in the last election for John Kerry.
Good point.

Turnout was enormous in Ohio -- and, yet, Bush won. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and it has many Democrats scratching their heads.

One concept that is getting quite a bit of buzz lately is the idea of political micromarketing.

Karl Rove is a genius at it. He cut his teeth in direct mail, and that's pretty much what he was born to do.

The beauty of direct mail is that it allows for an infinite amount of targeting -- if one has sophisticated enough data.

One crude example was this flyer...

[Image: gopflyer_web.JPG]

... that was mailed to certain homes in Arkansas proclaiming that liberals will ban Bibles (a similar flier was mailed to homes in West Virginia).

This isn't a message that can be used broadly. Hand these things out in downtown Pittsburgh, and people will just laugh at you because its so absurd.

But this kind of trash can work wonders...with sophisticated enough data.

It may be that Republicans had Democrats whupped in terms of this kind of technology. I've heard several Democrats say that.

On the other hand, the election was so close in my state of Ohio that there are a million ways to look at it.

If Ohio didn't have a proposal on gay marriage on the ballot, it is quite possible Bush's 112,000-vote margin would have evaporated. (It was clearly put there to motivate Christian conservatives to get out and vote, and it seemed to work).
01-27-2005 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
 
"If you elect Bush, black churches will burn"

{With chains dragging imitating James Byrd} If you elect Bush, this will happen.

Yeah Schad, you can squash that "holier than thou" attitute right now. :rolleyes:
01-27-2005 11:14 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.