https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/0 ... /23692610/


I find this very trimly and a good move by Democrats to prevent further denial of voting rights.

Good they announce it with enough time for voters to get their proper ID. Now, let's hope Republicans do not move the goal posts as they love to do....

seb146 wrote:

Good they announce it with enough time for voters to get their proper ID. Now, let's hope Republicans do not move the goal posts as they love to do....

Exactly, give people the time who have issues going to voting places that are moved for nefarious reasons. Why vote in your neighborhood when you can vote 30 miles away. An excellent move for Seniors and the poor.

WarRI1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Good they announce it with enough time for voters to get their proper ID. Now, let's hope Republicans do not move the goal posts as they love to do....

Exactly, give people the time who have issues going to voting places that are moved for nefarious reasons. Why vote in your neighborhood when you can vote 30 miles away. An excellent move for Seniors and the poor.

And I would collect a cadre of drivers to make sure these folks get to the polls. Say, e.g. send a blast out to local Black/Latinx Twitter and those who “know.”

Most of these Republican dumbasses have NO idea of the power of the social media “Underground Voter Railroad.”

Unfortunately, we can’t wait for the courts to catch up to this. Boots on the ground now and all that.

The thing is, most Democrats don't want voter ID, so they can cheat and "find" ballots during recounts. They've tried in Florida, they've done it in Chicago and all across the country.

There's nothing wrong with voter ID, but the Democrats hate it because they want to eventually give millions of illegal aliens the right to vote. They don't care about the people, only the votes.

Iloveboeing wrote:

The thing is, most Democrats don't want voter ID, so they can cheat and "find" ballots during recounts. They've tried in Florida, they've done it in Chicago and all across the country.

There's nothing wrong with voter ID, but the Democrats hate it because they want to eventually give millions of illegal aliens the right to vote. They don't care about the people, only the votes.

Wow, talk about a "drink the kool aid" uninformed comment. Quite impressive. You should actually do some comprehensive research (as opposed to one-sided looking for just what you want to support a fake news talking point).

I take it you would also insist on "voter ID", i.e. proof of the identity of the person submitting a vote at the time the vote is cast, for all ballots submitted?

Tugg

Iloveboeing wrote:

The thing is, most Democrats don't want voter ID, so they can cheat and "find" ballots during recounts. They've tried in Florida, they've done it in Chicago and all across the country.

There's nothing wrong with voter ID, but the Democrats hate it because they want to eventually give millions of illegal aliens the right to vote. They don't care about the people, only the votes.

Prove it. Where are the links of Democrats saying they want people voting illegally.

That one woman in Texas who thought she was eligible to vote and cast one ballot and one only? That mass voter fraud? Or "your name is similar to a convicted felon so you can not vote and we can't tell you anything else even though you have been voting for decades" voter fraud?

Oregon has automatic voter registration. When you go to DMV and get state issued ID or drivers licence, you are automatically registered to vote. Your one and only ballot is sent to the address on your ID. Go look at how much voter fraud goes on here. Don't look at "well what if...." or "but what about...." but the actual numbers certified by the county clerk and the Oregon Secretary of State.

Lets do this...based on iloveboeing's vigorous research, he MUST have come to the conclusion that ONLY voters that are registered Republicans MUST present ID to vote. Because they are the only voter block caught committing voter fraud.

bhill wrote:

Lets do this...based on iloveboeing's vigorous research, he MUST have come to the conclusion that ONLY voters that are registered Republicans MUST present ID to vote. Because they are the only voter block caught committing voter fraud.

It's apparent that I have opened a can of worms. I should've thought more before I posted; it was never intended to be "stupid" or "ignorant." I will say no more; we all have different views and I'm not exactly the most diplomatic person.

So, Democrats once again claim minorities in the U.S. are too stupid to be able to get voter IDs, hum? What a surprise.

Btw, not sure if Jimmy Carter has been scrubbed definitively from Democrat history or not, on account of being a white straight dude, but he actually has a foundation who monitors elections n some of the most challenging places possible ("shitholes", as the current U.S. President would say), in extremely challenging conditions (right after civil wars, independence, etc.). Their reports are public for everyone to see. Never once did I notice a reference to any election being unfair because of people being required to prove their identity (in fact, questioning the integrity of elections where enforcement was LAX). But somehow the type of people who constantly try to mention the U.S. is the worst in the world at everything see no issue with it being one of the only countries in the world that does not require voter ID.

Pyrex wrote:

So, Democrats once again claim minorities in the U.S. are too stupid to be able to get voter IDs, hum?

No one has made that claim. You are just trying to create a false narrative.

Tugg

You should have to show a valid ID to vote.

NIKV69 wrote:

You should have to show a valid ID to vote.

OK, and for mail in ballots as well of course.

...but how do you do that?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

You should have to show a valid ID to vote.

OK, and for mail in ballots as well of course.

...but how do you do that?

Tugg

Easy. Get rid of mail-in ballots and extend the voting period to something like three weeks.

What's funny about all the R's here arguing about dems cheating with Id laws completely seemed to forget that the NC guy cheated by taking advantage of IDless laws through the mail. Really, the D's on this site should be arguing for stricter voter ID laws.

stl07 wrote:

What's funny about all the R's here arguing about dems cheating with Id laws completely seemed to forget that the NC guy cheated by taking advantage of IDless laws through the mail. Really, the D's on this site should be arguing for stricter voter ID laws.

Well if you are a conspiracy theorist... the Republican's would be smart to engage in widespread voter fraud across the country to create a situation where voter fraud could be proven and demonstrated as an issue and thereby requiring the imposition of voter ID tools to protect the vote. And you would have to apply such rules to everyone and not just one party (that's just how it would have to work).

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Iloveboeing wrote:

The thing is, most Democrats don't want voter ID, so they can cheat and "find" ballots during recounts. They've tried in Florida, they've done it in Chicago and all across the country.

There's nothing wrong with voter ID, but the Democrats hate it because they want to eventually give millions of illegal aliens the right to vote. They don't care about the people, only the votes.

Wow, talk about a "drink the kool aid" uninformed comment. Quite impressive. You should actually do some comprehensive research (as opposed to one-sided looking for just what you want to support a fake news talking point).

I take it you would also insist on "voter ID", i.e. proof of the identity of the person submitting a vote at the time the vote is cast, for all ballots submitted?

Tugg

Amen Brother, slurp the Kool Ade big time.

I have been an alternate election judge in heavily Hispanic majority precincts in my county. The voters I've either talked to or overheard have no issue with obtaining or presenting a government issued photo ID to vote. In fact they seemed to think it pretty condescending to suggest it's a problem. None of the voters I processed had the free voting only ID that is available in Texas. Most had Texas driver's licenses. A few others used federal government employee or military ID's. A few had regular Texas ID cards issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) which is the same agency that issues driver's licenses and firearm carry cards. So why did they pay for a an ID card rather than get a free voting only ID? Well ID's are needed for all sorts of activities like buying alcoholic beverages, entering bars where alcoholic beverages are served, opening bank accounts, going to doctor's offices, boarding domestic flights in the US, or entering secure government buildings.

In Oklahoma you need to have a fingerprint put into the system before they print out your Driver's License. That, to me, is a good approach as it would be very hard to doctor. The only real issue would be the citizens who have had cancer and was administered a chemo drug that eliminated the fingerprints.

Of course that costs money, which cannot be justified tp catch the trivial level of voter fraud. nAnd we don't known which party benefits the most. There was one woman sentenced to 8 years (a Democratic voter) and there was another who was caught voting for the second time for Trump, with no firm knowledge how many times she was going to vote. Since she was white and voting Republican she probably was given a small fine.

I had no problem showing my driver's license but dislike any significant funds spent in a manner that makes it difficult. GOP politicians will a fortune win taxpayer dollars in efforts to block honest citizens. Black folks waiting g hours to vote while voting in my white ares takes 10 to 15 minutes, from parking the car to leaving the parking lot. Then we have shutting down the number of voting places, cutting their hours of voting, ro in the case of one two bit Kansas town, moving the voting location totally out of town. And you worry about the trivial potential off voter fraud?

Ken777 wrote:

There was one woman sentenced to 8 years (a Democratic voter) and there was another who was caught voting for the second time for Trump, with no firm knowledge how many times she was going to vote. Since she was white and voting Republican she probably was given a small fine.

Two years probation and $750 fine for knowingly voting twice.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -probation

Versus

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cr ... 2f4721214c

Ten months in prison for filling out a provisional ballot at a polling place. Why didn't the poll workers do their job? For one ballot?

Ken777 wrote:

In Oklahoma you need to have a fingerprint put into the system before they print out your Driver's License. That, to me, is a good approach as it would be very hard to doctor. The only real issue would be the citizens who have had cancer and was administered a chemo drug that eliminated the fingerprints.

Of course that costs money, which cannot be justified tp catch the trivial level of voter fraud. nAnd we don't known which party benefits the most. There was one woman sentenced to 8 years (a Democratic voter) and there was another who was caught voting for the second time for Trump, with no firm knowledge how many times she was going to vote. Since she was white and voting Republican she probably was given a small fine.

I had no problem showing my driver's license but dislike any significant funds spent in a manner that makes it difficult. GOP politicians will a fortune win taxpayer dollars in efforts to block honest citizens. Black folks waiting g hours to vote while voting in my white ares takes 10 to 15 minutes, from parking the car to leaving the parking lot. Then we have shutting down the number of voting places, cutting their hours of voting, ro in the case of one two bit Kansas town, moving the voting location totally out of town. And you worry about the trivial potential off voter fraud?

As of 2016 my county has vote anywhere on election day. All the polling places are linked to the courthouse by a wireless terminal used to check in voters. If you use a Texas DPS issued ID, the terminal will as can the barcode and bring up all the voter info and print out a slip of paper with the voter name" precinct, the type of election, plus a signature line which the voter signs. The voter then goes to the clerk running the ballot box sever and hands over the slip with voter info. The clerk enters in the precinct number into the sever and generates a code that is printed on another slip of paper and handed to the voter. The voter then goes to an available voting machine, enters the code, picks a language, makes selections and casts the ballot and leaves the polling place.

The Obama administration singled out the county for the DOJ to harass. They insisted that all polling places must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It would have cost a fortune to retrofit all the buildings previously used for voting. The county clerk along with the Republican and Democratic party chairs came up with a list of about 85 locations around the county that was agreeable to everyone. Changes in Texas election law in the late 80's allow multiple precincts to consolidate voting at one location. This is quite useful, because there are lots of small precincts. In the past quite a few of those precincts had their voting location in people's private homes. With vote anywhere on election day, it's just a variation of the same consolidation except that every voting location can generate ballots for any precinct. Each voting location has an Election Judge from one party and an Alternate Judge from the other. The transit authority gives free rides to anyone wanting a ride to a polling place on election day.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

In Oklahoma you need to have a fingerprint put into the system before they print out your Driver's License. That, to me, is a good approach as it would be very hard to doctor. The only real issue would be the citizens who have had cancer and was administered a chemo drug that eliminated the fingerprints.

Of course that costs money, which cannot be justified tp catch the trivial level of voter fraud. nAnd we don't known which party benefits the most. There was one woman sentenced to 8 years (a Democratic voter) and there was another who was caught voting for the second time for Trump, with no firm knowledge how many times she was going to vote. Since she was white and voting Republican she probably was given a small fine.

I had no problem showing my driver's license but dislike any significant funds spent in a manner that makes it difficult. GOP politicians will a fortune win taxpayer dollars in efforts to block honest citizens. Black folks waiting g hours to vote while voting in my white ares takes 10 to 15 minutes, from parking the car to leaving the parking lot. Then we have shutting down the number of voting places, cutting their hours of voting, ro in the case of one two bit Kansas town, moving the voting location totally out of town. And you worry about the trivial potential off voter fraud?

As of 2016 my county has vote anywhere on election day. All the polling places are linked to the courthouse by a wireless terminal used to check in voters. If you use a Texas DPS issued ID, the terminal will as can the barcode and bring up all the voter info and print out a slip of paper with the voter name" precinct, the type of election, plus a signature line which the voter signs. The voter then goes to the clerk running the ballot box sever and hands over the slip with voter info. The clerk enters in the precinct number into the sever and generates a code that is printed on another slip of paper and handed to the voter. The voter then goes to an available voting machine, enters the code, picks a language, makes selections and casts the ballot and leaves the polling place.

The Obama administration singled out the county for the DOJ to harass. They insisted that all polling places must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It would have cost a fortune to retrofit all the buildings previously used for voting. The county clerk along with the Republican and Democratic party chairs came up with a list of about 85 locations around the county that was agreeable to everyone. Changes in Texas election law in the late 80's allow multiple precincts to consolidate voting at one location. This is quite useful, because there are lots of small precincts. In the past quite a few of those precincts had their voting location in people's private homes. With vote anywhere on election day, it's just a variation of the same consolidation except that every voting location can generate ballots for any precinct. Each voting location has an Election Judge from one party and an Alternate Judge from the other. The transit authority gives free rides to anyone wanting a ride to a polling place on election day.

Asking that buildings be accessible does not sound like harassment to me. Maybe post a link to what happened?

I would also be worried about hackers and the wireless terminals. I get consolidating some precincts. Some of those west Texas towns are few and far between. But wouldn't that make it an obstacle for voting? Let's say the one and only closest polling place is 40 miles away and you have no car. I would also wonder how long the lines are at the one and only polling place. There are some good ideas here. It sounds like a good start.

seb146 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

In Oklahoma you need to have a fingerprint put into the system before they print out your Driver's License. That, to me, is a good approach as it would be very hard to doctor. The only real issue would be the citizens who have had cancer and was administered a chemo drug that eliminated the fingerprints.

Of course that costs money, which cannot be justified tp catch the trivial level of voter fraud. nAnd we don't known which party benefits the most. There was one woman sentenced to 8 years (a Democratic voter) and there was another who was caught voting for the second time for Trump, with no firm knowledge how many times she was going to vote. Since she was white and voting Republican she probably was given a small fine.

I had no problem showing my driver's license but dislike any significant funds spent in a manner that makes it difficult. GOP politicians will a fortune win taxpayer dollars in efforts to block honest citizens. Black folks waiting g hours to vote while voting in my white ares takes 10 to 15 minutes, from parking the car to leaving the parking lot. Then we have shutting down the number of voting places, cutting their hours of voting, ro in the case of one two bit Kansas town, moving the voting location totally out of town. And you worry about the trivial potential off voter fraud?

As of 2016 my county has vote anywhere on election day. All the polling places are linked to the courthouse by a wireless terminal used to check in voters. If you use a Texas DPS issued ID, the terminal will as can the barcode and bring up all the voter info and print out a slip of paper with the voter name" precinct, the type of election, plus a signature line which the voter signs. The voter then goes to the clerk running the ballot box sever and hands over the slip with voter info. The clerk enters in the precinct number into the sever and generates a code that is printed on another slip of paper and handed to the voter. The voter then goes to an available voting machine, enters the code, picks a language, makes selections and casts the ballot and leaves the polling place.

The Obama administration singled out the county for the DOJ to harass. They insisted that all polling places must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It would have cost a fortune to retrofit all the buildings previously used for voting. The county clerk along with the Republican and Democratic party chairs came up with a list of about 85 locations around the county that was agreeable to everyone. Changes in Texas election law in the late 80's allow multiple precincts to consolidate voting at one location. This is quite useful, because there are lots of small precincts. In the past quite a few of those precincts had their voting location in people's private homes. With vote anywhere on election day, it's just a variation of the same consolidation except that every voting location can generate ballots for any precinct. Each voting location has an Election Judge from one party and an Alternate Judge from the other. The transit authority gives free rides to anyone wanting a ride to a polling place on election day.

Asking that buildings be accessible does not sound like harassment to me. Maybe post a link to what happened?

I would also be worried about hackers and the wireless terminals. I get consolidating some precincts. Some of those west Texas towns are few and far between. But wouldn't that make it an obstacle for voting? Let's say the one and only closest polling place is 40 miles away and you have no car. I would also wonder how long the lines are at the one and only polling place. There are some good ideas here. It sounds like a good start.

I'm in Nueces county which is on the gulf coast. It's not that spread out. The Texas Secretary of State is only allowing vote anywhere on election day (it was already vote anywhere for early voting) in select countoes. Nueces county is the smallest county authorized in the state to have this system. The county clerk had to come up with plans to implement it, and the SOS had to sign off on it. The vendors tech support team came out from California to help implement the system. First the new system was used in place of the old system for early voting, allowing the county clerk's office to get familiarity with it before election day. Then all the election judges and alternate judges were invited one evening to the courthounew system. Then it was used on election day.

In theory having all the polling places be compliant with the ADA sounds reasonable, but individual preexisting buildings don't normally have to be retrofitted till the building is remodeled. That's a whole bunch of locations that would have to be modified at a cost that could be well over $10,000 each. Lots of the locations weren't even owned by the county or other government entity. Some are in churches. Fortunately the county clerk was able to find suitable locations that were already in compliance. One thing for sure, no one will ever be able to put polling places in private homes ever again. One really good effect of consolidating precincts is the decreased cost to hold elections as fewer election judges and clerks are necessary. It's really boring working an election that has less than 100 voters show up in the 12 hour period when polls are open. It also cuts down on the number of poll watchers necessary to deploy.