Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[actaeon277]

Quick, someone get CM some eye candy!

 

[oldpink]

More.

Unbelievable GOP Statements on Voter Suppression | BillMoyers.com

Bill Moyers?
ROTFLMFAO

 

[oldpink]

How is it that I have voted in all general elections since I first became eligible to vote in 1986, with the exception of 1994 (I could have easily done so, but I just skipped it for my own reasons), including all four years that I was in the Navy, first when based in Great Lakes, IL, then again when based in Norfolk, VA?
Hell, I even voted when I was in school in Bloomington...THRICE.
That's a combined five times voting absentee, yet somehow I was able to accomplish this supposedly onerous task.
Also, I would point that the inherent flaw of early voting is with the people who vote in primaries for a candidate who gets eliminated before election day.
What recourse do you have if you voted already, only to have your first choice candidate already out of the running, and you have no option to vote for a second or third option?
Oh yeah, you're SOL.
Great thinking, all you totally freewheeling voting advocates.

 

[GREEN607]

Quick, someone get CM some eye candy!

 

[oldpink]

It would be greatly amusing, if it weren't so infuriating, how Dems continue to ***** and moan about our voter ID law, ten years after SCOTUS found our law constitutional, with that notorious far right firebrand, Justice John Paul Stevens writing the majority opinion.
Please, tell me more about what an imposition a law is that was designed to prevent people from having their legitimate vote neutralized by illegitimate votes.

 

[eatsnopaste]

https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting

 

[jfw46544]

I'll just leave this here.

https://truethevote.org/category/news

 

[Kutnupe14]

https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting

I'll just leave this here.

https://truethevote.org/category/news

Examples of why voter identification should be required, right?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And what about maintaining adequate polling locations, and/or extending polling times? Are you opposed to that?

1. There are more than adequate polling locations in Indiana. I can vote in a grocery store (and have before) where I live.

2. You have 12 hours to vote, just on election day. With early voting you have hundreds upon hundreds of hours to vote. That's more than enough.

 

[phylodog]

Examples of why voter identification should be required, right?

My belief is that requiring voter identification makes sense to prevent (or attempt to) fraud. The integrity of our system should be important to everyone. What are your reasons for opposing it?

Serious question. I'm not trying to bait you but I have yet to see or hear what I felt was a legitimate reason against requiring ID.

 

[Kutnupe14]

My belief is that requiring voter identification makes sense to prevent (or attempt to) fraud. The integrity of our system should be important to everyone. What are your reasons for opposing it?

Serious question. I'm not trying to bait you but I have yet to see or hear what I felt was a legitimate reason against requiring ID.

I find it ironic that gun owners would be, of all people, for voter identification. Requiring ID hurts far more people who wish to legitimately and legally vote, than those who wish to commit fraud. But identification is simply "common sense voter laws," right? So essentially, the premise is, "because some will do bad, let's penalize everybody." I think we can agree that instances of people doing illegal things with firearms FAR exceeds people committing fraud to vote. And yet, the application of "common sense gun laws," is viewed as distasteful to gun owners because it adds an additional hindrance to those who act legally. So tell me the difference. Why not aggressively enforce current voter laws, rather than add an additional step which has a significant bearing on legally eligible voters? It would seem there's a fair amount of hypocrisy concerning the matter.

 

[Woobie]

I find it ironic that gun owners would be, of all people, for voter identification. Requiring ID hurts far more people who wish to legitimately and legally vote, than those who wish to commit fraud. But identification is simply "common sense voter laws," right? So essentially, the premise is, "because some will do bad, let's penalize everybody." I think we can agree that instances of people doing illegal things with firearms FAR exceeds people committing fraud to vote. And yet, the application of "common sense gun laws," is viewed as distasteful to gun owners because it adds an additional hindrance to those who act legally. So tell me the difference. Why not aggressively enforce current voter laws, rather than add an additional step which has a significant bearing on legally eligible voters? It would seem there's a fair amount of hypocrisy concerning the matter.

What is this significant impact voter ID laws has? List your disenfranchised here. And your premise is weak. Of all the gun laws I find overreaching, providing an ID while filling out a 4473 isn't topping the list.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Why would anyone be against this? Voter ID aside, Indiana polls should be open later than 6pm, and polling places uniform in number, in comparison to populace. Certainly polling places shouldn't be drastically cut due to "budgetary" concerns.

Doesn't the county set polling places? Polling places are open for 12 hrs. 6am-6pm. If you can't make it in during those hours, you can vote absentee. And if a county can't afford x number of polling places, why shouldn't they be allowed to only have y?

...you'd be wrong if you assumed I didn't look further into the issue.

Any links so we can check out the issue? I tried a quick google search and only thing I can find is fed law to reinstate the section of the VRA that was cut by SCOTUS.

You guys are pulling a Sharpton, and leaning on the "racism" crutch, despite it not being mentioned by any of the proponents.

Maybe we're just hearing the "dog whistle"

And what about maintaining adequate polling locations, and/or extending polling times? Are you opposed to that?

What do you consider adequate polling locations? My county has a total of 9. Yes 9. And as I stated above the polls are open 12 hrs on election day, I see no need to extend that. Especially when you add in early/absentee voting. How many hours do you think they should be open.

Well, I guess I know who's in the pro-voter suppression crowd. Meh... last gasps, I guess.

Why do you say those that are for voter ID, or against the other things you mentioned are for voter suppression?

I did have a lady that had divorced and remarried who has BOTH of her ID's...the old and the one with her new married name. Interestingly, she came in and voted under her new name and then returned later and tried to vote again under the old name. I recognized her and confronted her about having already voted. She had stated the first time that she wasn't sure which name she would be under in the polling book. I remembered she had been listed in it under both as she reregistered and the clerk's office had not caught that she had a previous registration under a different name. I turned her away and flagged it in the book so it would get corrected. She would have voted a second time if we had not been paying attention. It was slow enough when she came through that I happened to be standing behind the clerk overseeing things both times.

That should result in an arrest and if convicted, 30 days in jail.

From my reading of the code, up to 2.5 years. I'm pretty sure it would be a level 6 felony.

IC 3-14-2-12
Voting or applying to vote in false name and own name
Sec. 12. A person who:
(1) knowingly votes or makes application to vote in an election
in a name other than the person's own; or
(2) having voted once at an election, knowingly applies to vote
at the same election in the person's own name or any other
name;
commits a Level 6 felony.

Along with possibly a class A misdemeanor.
IC 3-14-2-4
Registering to vote more than once
Sec. 4. A person who recklessly registers or offers to register to
vote more than once commits a Class A misdemeanor.

I called it in to the clerk's office and made sure they had her info. When I confronted her, she acted shocked that I was accusing her of trying to vote a second time but when I pointed out where she had already signed the poll book, she didn't have much to say and left quietly. I had no authority to detain her and had her name and address, etc. so figured it was up to the clerk to address the situation.

Could you have called local/county/state PD and reported the crime?

Right, it been steered into a thread about voter identification, racism, and minorities. Despite the OP not mentioning a specific unfair restriction, and the subject making the statement listing elderly, poor, and minorities as the groups affected.
But hey, just another day on INGO to complain about minorities.

I don't see anyone complaining about minorities. And the ones I see calling racism are those against voter ID.

This seems like a good opportunity to give something and get something in return. We'll agree to voter ID laws; they can agree to expand early voting. There's a word for that sort of legislative agreement, though I haven't heard it in so long that I'm having trouble recalling it....

IN already has voter ID, so... What would those who want to expand early voting be willing to give up to get it?

 

[amboy49]

I, too, can't seem to process the theory that having an acceptable ID creates a hardship. For cry'in out loud, I had to show a photo ID to get a library card. If an ID card can be issued at no cost to the "voter" where is the hardship ? Can't get the DMV you say ? Then how are they going to get to the polling place ?

 

[GREEN607]

I find it ironic that gun owners would be, of all people, for voter identification. Requiring ID hurts far more people who wish to legitimately and legally vote, than those who wish to commit fraud. But identification is simply "common sense voter laws," right? So essentially, the premise is, "because some will do bad, let's penalize everybody."

Kut- You and I agree FAR more than we disagree, judging by your posts throughout this General Political forum. That being said, I will point out one thing that may shine some light on 'the other side' of this issue, for you.

One member here posted this previously, and I absolutely agree with the observation.

The MAIN POINT of having this ID law, is to prevent fraudulent voting, period. Why is that important? Because, any person whom is able (under a 'no ID scenario') to 1) vote twice, -OR- 2) vote when they are not eligible to do so.... thereby could be essentially voiding or 'neutralizing' my vote. Of course that would only exist in the case that they voted differently than I. But I don't believe any of us here want to see people voting, when they don't have a right to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What is this significant impact voter ID laws has? List your disenfranchised here. And your premise is weak. Of all the gun laws I find overreaching, providing an ID while filling out a 4473 isn't topping the list.

The significant impact? I don't know, voter turnout?

 

[HoughMade]

I have to drive 5 miles to get to my polling place. I feel like I'm being suppressed.

Name a city where anyone is 5 miles from their polling place.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut- You and I agree FAR more than we disagree, judging by your posts throughout this General Political forum. That being said, I will point out one thing that may shine some light on 'the other side' of this issue, for you.

One member here posted this previously, and I absolutely agree with the observation.

The MAIN POINT of having this ID law, is to prevent fraudulent voting, period. Why is that important? Because, any person whom is able (under a 'no ID scenario') to 1) vote twice, OR 2) vote when they are not eligible to do so.... thereby could be essentially voiding or 'neutralizing' my vote. Of course that would only exist in the case that they voted differently than I. But I don't believe any of us here want to see people voting, when they don't have a right to.

I get that, but some would say it to disenfranchise particular groups. And I think both have merit. The firearm analogy is solid. Some would say the main point of common sense gun laws is to keep guns out of the hands of the ineligible, other would say it's to keep guns out of the hands of everybody. Voter fraud is FAR less common than firearm crime... FAR, FAR less. Firearm owners don't believe that they should have to prove anything to express a "right," so why should the right to choose how one is ruled be any different? And before you say because of those who abuse the system, ask yourself if the onus should be on the law abiding to prove their worthiness to express said right. The law is there, concerning voter fraud, as are the penalties. Enforce the law, make the attempt to defraud the electorate distasteful... but after 150 years of the system working, let's not create additional hoops for the law abiding to jump through, to observe a right.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have to drive 5 miles to get to my polling place. I feel like I'm being suppressed.

Name a city where anyone is 5 miles from their polling place.

Name me an 95 year old person with breathing machine that could make that 5 mile walk.

 

[GREEN607]

Kut......... You say "enforce the law", to prevent voter fraud?

I believe that's what the 'ID required' rule is a serious attempt to do?!