Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[chipbennett]

I see what you did there.... and I knew someone would eventually go there, so I purposefully worded it as "the right to choose how one will be governed," which is most assuredly a right.

Yes, and no. Anyone who is a citizen of the US is governed under the rule of law, in a constitutional republic. We do not have a unilateral right to change or replace that system of governance. Doing so requires a very significant super-majority of the governed.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Should a law have the ability to deny one a right?

How does this law deny someone a right? Although I personally don't consider voting a right, to me it's a privilege of citizenship. A right to me is something that applies to everyone, everywhere regardless if that right is being infringed upon. The privilege to vote in a US election does not do so. That privilege cannot be withheld due to race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex or age 18 and over and failure to pay a tax. That is it. Felons can be barred from voting, so can those without ID. And a host of other reasons. In IN if you are currently in jail or any reason, you are barred from voting.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How does this law deny someone a right? Although I personally don't consider voting a right, to me it's a privilege of citizenship. A right to me is something that applies to everyone, everywhere regardless if that right is being infringed upon. The privilege to vote in a US election does not do so. That privilege cannot be withheld due to race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex or age 18 and over and failure to pay a tax. That is it. Felons can be barred from voting, so can those without ID. And a host of other reasons. In IN if you are currently in jail or any reason, you are barred from voting.

Ah utopia. I wish to live there some day too. For you to understand the question you're asking, you have to admit some hard truths.

 

[MarkC]

Don't get caught up in the trap of thinking that the only rights we have are those listed in the BoRs.

Therefore, the Ninth Amendment, specifically stating that the Bill of Rights was not the exclusive list of rights we enjoy:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Don't get caught up in the trap of thinking that the only rights we have are those listed in the BoRs.

I'm not sure how you got that out of his reply. He simply stated it doesn't have the same protections as certain other rights.

Ah utopia. I wish to live there some day too. For you to understand the question you're asking, you have to admit some hard truths.

Nope, I don't live in utopia. Some people may not be able to vote because of this law. It does not mean they are denied the right to vote under it. What hard truths?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Don't get caught up in the trap of thinking that the only rights we have are those listed in the BoRs.

I acknowledged that a few posts up.

 

[oldpink]

The Texas DPS issues driver's licenses, non-driving IDs, and election certificates, and charges no fee for the latter.

Being required to have a (free) ID discouraged some people from voting? I couldn't care less. Voting is as much a responsibility as it is a right. I hold no sympathy for those who choose to remain low-information.

Further, I don't want people who are too stupid or lazy to go pick up their free ID totally polluting the election process with their stupid and lazy votes.

 

[oldpink]

One could say all rights carry responsibilities. But a free citizen isn't bound to responsible as long as his actions are legal; especially concerning ones right to choose how they will be governed.

Okay, how is it not an imposition to produce photo ID and undergo a background check via FBI before I can walk out of a gun store with the firearm of my choice, but simply having a valid photo ID, with no background check required, to vote is suppression?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Okay, how is it not an imposition to produce photo ID and undergo a background check via FBI before I can walk out of a gun store with the firearm of my choice, but simply having a valid photo ID, with no background check required, to vote is suppression?

It IS an imposition. One shouldn't have to prove worthiness to observe defense of self and property.

 

[oldpink]

It IS an imposition. One shouldn't have to prove worthiness to observe defense of self and property.

How come you're not railing on about background checks to get a gun the way you've been doing with this specious "voter suppresion" argument, then?

 

[Kutnupe14]

How come you're not railing on about background checks to get a gun the way you've been doing with this specious "voter suppresion" argument, then?

Because I'm on a pro-gun website. It would seem like it's a given.

 

[oldpink]

It was decided as constitutional, so I'll use the left's favorite phrase to tell others to shut up when they don't like the way that something goes: It's the law of the land.
Get over it.

 

[jamil]

I see what you did there.... and I knew someone would eventually go there, so I purposefully worded it as "the right to choose how one will be governed," which is most assuredly a right.

Don't get caught up in the trap of thinking that the only rights we have are those listed in the BoRs.

It IS an imposition. One shouldn't have to prove worthiness to observe defense of self and property.

Voting is indeed described as a right in article XV. So we should all just acknowledge that now. Voting is a right. However the constitution also defines eligibility for that right, which gives government the power to enforce the eligibility requirements. As a comparison of the 2A was used, in THAT language the only eligibility is "people", which makes proving that rather simple.

To vote, you must indeed prove your worthiness since eligibility is defined in the US constitution and in state constitutions. You must be a US Citizen. You must be at least 18 years old. You must be a resident of the state in which you are voting. States have the power to enforce other residency restrictions. They get to define what "residency" means. In which districts you may vote, and how long you must have lived there.

Having "eligibility" rules defined in law gives government the power to enforce that eligibility. Requiring proof of citizenship, age, and residency is absolutely allowed by the constitution.

And I do admit shenanigans have happened and do happen. But on both sides. Republicans tend do all they can to suppress the vote of people who tend to vote democrat. Some of the voter ID laws from other states do tend to make it harder for the poor to vote.

However, democrats do all they can to remove any enforcement of voter eligibility for the people they know tend to vote democrat. And democrats also try to suppress votes of groups they know tend to vote Republican. In the infamous 2000 Florida election debacle democrats tried to use technicalities to disqualify absentee ballots from overseas men and women in the military. Yes. Both sides are very poopy. They both try to exploit rules to give their party advantages over the other.

Some panty bunchers on INGO like to pretend that democrats are saints and that only republicans are evil. Well they're both evil. But the voter ID law in Indiana is not evil. It requires that people must use a state ID to prove their eligibility. With the infusion of illegal immigrants, refugees from other countries, I'm good with this law. We have a right to vote and we have a responsibility to ensure election integrity. And there are several means defined in our voter ID law to mitigate the inconvenience.

Saying this is voter suppression is delusional at best and dishonest at worst. Attempting to paint it as unconstitutional is flat out overstating things. Especially since it was upheld in SCOTUS by a rare non-partisan decision. As oldpink said, it's the law of the land. Get over it.

 

[Lowe0]

Further, I don't want people who are too stupid or lazy to go pick up their free ID totally polluting the election process with their stupid and lazy votes.

What about someone who's working two jobs, and can't schedule time away from both to wait for the bus, wait at the BMV, etc.? Are they unworthy of the right to vote?

 

[KLB]

What about someone who's working two jobs, and can't schedule time away from both to wait for the bus, wait at the BMV, etc.? Are they unworthy of the right to vote?

They can vote early or absentee.

 

[chipbennett]

What about someone who's working two jobs, and can't schedule time away from both to wait for the bus, wait at the BMV, etc.? Are they unworthy of the right to vote?

Indiana offers both absentee-by-mail and absentee-in-person options:

Secretary of State : Election Division: Absentee Voting

 

[2A_Tom]

Let us just call it a right and let anyone vote anywhere they like. After all, refugees, immigrants and aliens have to live under the elected officials too. They deserve the opportunity to select who will make and enforce the laws they have to live under.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They can vote early or absentee.

Without an ID.... which of course doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[jamil]

What about someone who's working two jobs, and can't schedule time away from both to wait for the bus, wait at the BMV, etc.? Are they unworthy of the right to vote?

Unworthy? Kinda overstating things aren't you?

Given the many accommodations for voting that Indiana allows, I assume you're talking about someone who can't make it to the BMV to get an ID? Branches now have extended and weekend hours. I just don't see this as a problem. However, one problem I do see that would tend to prevent people from getting an ID is not having the required documentation to prove their identities.

Having gone through that myself, I can see where that process could be improved. I went through a service and paid something like $75 to get the out-of-state documentation I needed. It was simple for me, but the simple way is not free. Since it is a requirement to prove eligibility, I can conceded that the government could make an easier way that is free, for the people who can't afford the easy way. If I have to subsidize the poor I'd rather subsidize that than some other things that violate my principles.

But, I absolutely support states' need to require that people prove their eligibility. I don't want my vote canceled by someone who isn't eligible.

 

[amboy49]

Let us just call it a right and let anyone vote anywhere they like. After all, refugees, immigrants and aliens have to live under the elected officials too. They deserve the opportunity to select who will make and enforce the laws they have to live under.

It will take a little more to convince me "they DESERVE" the opportunity. Am hoping your statement is implied PURPLE. Didn't know just saying it makes it a "RIGHT !"