Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Obenshain wants "Instant Check" for Voter ID

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Obenshain wants "Instant Check" for Voter ID

    Well, at least when challenged on his alleged hypocrisy:

    Virginia lawmakers split bitterly over voter ID rules
    Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere have advocated “voter integrity” bills that would impose stricter ID standards on voters. No fewer than 17 of them have been proposed in Richmond this General Assembly session.

    At a rally on Capitol Square last week, former NAACP director Benjamin Chavis accused Republicans of trying to “lynch democracy.” Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones (D) said the GOP push was all because “there’s a brother in the White House.”

    Republican lawmakers contend that the measures are needed to combat voter fraud and ensure the integrity of the voting system. They note that Virginia’s notorious discrimination at the polls was perpetrated in an era when Democrats had a monopoly on political power. They also point out that Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) has pushed to extend voting rights to felons who have served their sentences.

    “I broaden the kind of ID,” said Sen. Stephen H. Martin (R-Chesterfield). “These puzzling arguments that they’ve been bringing in front of me — I will tell you that one lady came into committee and actually said . . . that we’re targeting blacks because they’re more likely to forget [their identification]. I didn’t even respond.

    A bill that passed in the Senate on Thursday would require a five-day waiting period before a newly registered voter can receive an absentee ballot. Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) mocked the idea because of Republican opposition to waiting periods for gun purchases. The bill’s patron, Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), countered that he’d gladly trade the waiting period for an instant federal check on voters. It passed 21 to 20, with Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) casting a tiebreaking vote.
    Well, if it's good enough for guns ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I've always said that an illegally cast vote is far more dangerous than an illegally owned gun.

    It astounds me that these minority groups are all too eager to keep guns out of peoples hands, but want everyone to be able to vote, without regard to qualification.

    It's completely backwards.

    TFred

  3. #3
    Regular Member sparkman2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia
    Posts
    132
    Correct me if I'm wrong but the US Constitution does not explicitly ensure a persons right to vote. It does however ensures a persons right to bear arms. I don't think this bill has anything to do with race, I think it has to do with making sure that we the people are represented honestly.
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    392
    The whole "show me your papers" aspect of this greatly concerns me. Why is confirming an address and affirming your identity believed to be insufficiently secure?

    Besides, the folks who count the votes have more control over an election result than the ones who cast them. With much of the tabulation process no longer exposed to public view (e.g. the computational paths that exist in the voting machine's software), the only people who know what is happening are the ones who are making it happen.

    This is "feel good" legislation that will have only a negative effect.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Forest
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkman2 View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong but the US Constitution does not explicitly ensure a persons right to vote. It does however ensures a persons right to bear arms. I don't think this bill has anything to do with race, I think it has to do with making sure that we the people are represented honestly.
    actually, the Constitution does grant voting rights. the 15th amendment says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by architect View Post
    The whole "show me your papers" aspect of this greatly concerns me. Why is confirming an address and affirming your identity believed to be insufficiently secure?

    Besides, the folks who count the votes have more control over an election result than the ones who cast them. With much of the tabulation process no longer exposed to public view (e.g. the computational paths that exist in the voting machine's software), the only people who know what is happening are the ones who are making it happen.

    This is "feel good" legislation that will have only a negative effect.
    I'm not quite sure where I sit on this Architect. I'm inclined to agree with you. The only time in my adult life I did not vote was when a bill was passed requiring everyone to have a Voter Card or other ID.
    I objected and they amended it to allow people to sign an affidavit if they didn't show ID.

    I told Bill Bolling if he cast a yes vote I was taking myself off the voter rolls. He did and I did. I re registered the next year but to this day, sign the affidavit rather than show my card.

    I like Obenshain and have a healthy respect for him but I don't like this bill. There needs o be an end to the record keeping and ID'ing.
    Last edited by peter nap; 02-05-2012 at 02:05 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sparkman2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Snazuolu View Post
    actually, the Constitution does grant voting rights. the 15th amendment says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"
    The 15th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, as well as the 19th (sex) and the 26th (age). They do not grant one the right to vote. States are responsible for setting the electoral standards and policies for their state and if you are eligible to vote in that state, you are eligible to vote in a federal election.

    The 2A specifically protects our right to keep and bear arms but yet it is the most controversial of all the Amendments to our Constitution. Imagine the uproar there would be if they wanted everyone going to church to register their religion with the state and allow the state to set rules on what they could preach and from what text they could preach from. Why should our fundamental right to defend ourselves be any different?
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria)

  8. #8
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    If a person intends to vote once during a given election, then I see no problem with "instant checks", etc.,etc.

    Those who wish to "vote early and vote often" are likely the ones who object to having to show ID to vote. Just sayin'.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  9. #9
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    If a person intends to vote once during a given election, then I see no problem with "instant checks", etc.,etc.

    Those who wish to "vote early and vote often" are likely the ones who object to having to show ID to vote. Just sayin'.
    At least "one vote per election" makes more sense than "One handgun a month" -- just goes to show how selfish McEachin really is.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764
    Despite what some politicians would have you think, voter ID laws are not to prevent illegals from voting, or felons from voting, etc.

    It is designed to prevent the unscrupulous political campaign (is that redundant??) from pulling up to a crowd of people, saying "Hey, I'll drive you to the polls on behalf of my candidate. Need a cuppa joe? We have some snacks here. Help yourself." and thus getting votes (for a candidate) from people would would not otherwise have voted.

    In different areas, different parties are likely to do such things. Just so happens AT THIS POINT IN TIME the Republicans believe the Democrats are doing it more.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    Despite what some politicians would have you think, voter ID laws are not to prevent illegals from voting, or felons from voting, etc.

    It is designed to prevent the unscrupulous political campaign (is that redundant??) from pulling up to a crowd of people, saying "Hey, I'll drive you to the polls on behalf of my candidate. Need a cuppa joe? We have some snacks here. Help yourself." and thus getting votes (for a candidate) from people would would not otherwise have voted.

    In different areas, different parties are likely to do such things. Just so happens AT THIS POINT IN TIME the Republicans believe the Democrats are doing it more.
    Straw purchases

    Straw votes

    Walkin' around money


    Seems like corruption is all over the place; yet the Democrats look at the gun community for evil and turn a blind eye most everywhere else. That's not right.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Forest
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkman2 View Post
    The 15th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, as well as the 19th (sex) and the 26th (age). They do not grant one the right to vote. States are responsible for setting the electoral standards and policies for their state and if you are eligible to vote in that state, you are eligible to vote in a federal election.

    The 2A specifically protects our right to keep and bear arms but yet it is the most controversial of all the Amendments to our Constitution. Imagine the uproar there would be if they wanted everyone going to church to register their religion with the state and allow the state to set rules on what they could preach and from what text they could preach from. Why should our fundamental right to defend ourselves be any different?
    i think you need to reread the 15th amendment. it CLEARLY says the RIGHT to vote as well as the fact that NO state can make up their own rules concerning voting. "The RIGHT of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

  13. #13
    Regular Member sparkman2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Snazuolu View Post
    i think you need to reread the 15th amendment. it CLEARLY says the RIGHT to vote as well as the fact that NO state can make up their own rules concerning voting. "The RIGHT of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
    The SCOTUS ruled in Gore vs Bush that there is no federal constitutional right to vote.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
    The 15th is clear to me where it says the "rights shall not be denied" or in other words the states cannot prohibit a person from voting due to their race. Do convicted felons in prison have a right to vote? No. Who decides that? The state.
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •