Fair isn't the right word. Should the old woman have been allowed to vote, of course she should. This is an example of an over bloated government not knowing how to get out of their own way. Bottom line, you could dig through the slop and find a handful of examples of why this is bad or how unfair this or that was. I don't care who is doing it or why, this is something that needs to be done and needs to be done right but I have little faith that the government will actually accomplish either. People get old, they need the assistance of family and loved ones to get stuff like this done. They took the easy way out and put an ad in the paper and got what they needed. Good ol Jimmy should have been able to help her out without having to make a public spectacle of it.
thats what i mean, how many cases are like this that dont make the paper, at that point its not being applied correctly, if they made an exception for her just because it was publicized, how many valid situations will go overlooked and that person doesnt get to vote. Allow many forms of identification is my problem. not this "voting id"
People have to have legitimate citizenship proof to get registered, but only personal identification to vote if they are on the registered list.
Nothing to do with illegals? I disagree amigo. Why did the Washington Post provide this "helpful" little chart? http://popist.com/s/29a00ce/ And then why did La Raza and The Chicago chapter of Asian Americans Advancing Justice help it along by tweeting and re-tweeting it? Because they have an inmigrant agenda and they want/need politicians who support and will vote in favor of more immigration, illegal and otherwise. I got carded twice in the last month and I don't look anywhere near 21. If a bartender, cashier, or server can make independent choices to require me to adhere to the law, why in hell shouldn't we require valid ID for someone to cast a vote?
i know you read very well and smart as a whip, but not so much with this post. that article doesnt prove your point in any sense.
I understand your point. But modern identity theft had made identification more complicated than it once was. Any ID without a photo is suspect and increasingly any ID without counterfeit protection measures like watermarks and holograms is liable to be stolen easily. Soon ID cards may require computer chips to further enhance legitimate identification. States generally make it easy to get ID without having to drive and any special cases like you noted should be fast-tracked to get around hurdles easier than it turned out for the woman in question. I agree wholeheartedly that efforts to disenfranchise rightful citizens should be made public, remedied, and disposed of. The question becomes less about the type of acceptable ID, but whether voting is important enough to require legitimate identification. I think it is.
My point to you is that illegal immigration and all the politics that go with it are very much behind a huge segment of people who DON'T want ID requirements. I live right smack in the middle of the largest illegal immigrant population in the country and all the costs that go with it. Having illegals go to the polls to vote with no ID ensures the financial stream and lackluster attention to a massive problem. La Raza wants California to be annexed to Mexico. Seriously, they do. They want to make sure illegals know where they can vote, just as the Asian group in Illinois. Nobody is innocent in their motivations on this. Nobody.
