Vampires in the voting booth

I was glad to read recently that the Supreme Court has realized that vampires are the only creatures that can’t be photographed and permitted Indiana’s photo ID requirement for voters to stand. For far too long these blood suckers have used documents sans pictures to pass as human and try to sway government for the benefit of the undead. Indiana passed the photo law after multiple voting, which is easy for shape-shifters, almost created a “free blood bank” in Gary, Indiana - a hotbed of vampirism. Now if the other states will follow suit we have a chance to drive these descendents of Dracula back to the caskets they came from. Or we could just close the polls before sunset.

eldergent's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 9:42pm.

No one should be denied the right to cast a vote. Should there be a question regarding their fitness, their vote should be cast with an opportunity to verify later. What if you lost your ID on the way to vote, or had it stolen?


Submitted by thebeaver on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 9:47pm.

What if you had your i.d., but were run over by a beer truck on the way to vote?

What if you had your i.d., but had a heart attack on the way to vote?

What if, what if, what if.

Lets just be glad that cooler heads prevailed in the Supreme Court and that all people will have to prove that they are who they say they are before they get to vote.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 10:04pm.

People who have previously registered to vote should be allowed to cast a vote. Should it be challanged, the vote should not count and an opportunity is given to comply with the regulations. The cooler heads voted for disenfranchisement, period.


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 10:17pm.

that way; David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. As for the "challenging" execise are you saying if an ID is not presented then the vote is held in situ until ID is verified?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 10:56pm.

The phrase I was too lazy to look up. Yes, that is what I meant.


NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 10:26pm.

I liked the lower court's ruling upholding it before the appeal to the Supreme Court where the judge stated that it didn't matter if those affected happened to seemingly be only Democrats, nor did it matter what the intent was of the Repubs who are pushing voter ID requirements in a lot of states.

This is a Democrat problem, not a voting rights issue.


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 10:55pm.

Disenfranchisement or disfranchisement is the revocation of, or failure to grant, the right of suffrage (the right to vote) to a person or group of people. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly through means such as intimidation.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. It is a big word. The picture ID is not the problem. Taking away the right to vote is.

How could it not be a voting rights issue?


NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Sat, 05/03/2008 - 6:20am.

No one's right to vote was taken away. This is not the same as a ruling that "you've been convicted of a felony, you are not allowed to vote any longer." Applying the condition of identification to voting is not the same as taking away the right to vote. Over 20 states already require a form of identification for voting pre-Supremes ruling, and all this ruling did was confirm that requiring a picture ID as identification is constitutional.

Now, the application of this post-ruling COULD be used to try and disenfranchise voters if a state puts up barriers on how a picture ID can be obtained, the cost, the timing, etc., but the ruling in and of itself doesn't take away anyone's right to vote.


carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sat, 05/03/2008 - 8:59am.

If someone is registered to vote, then they have a right to cast that vote. Verifying that the vote was cast legally and having it be counted is what the ID issue should be all about. The potential for abuse of the right to vote is far lower when a vote is cast that is subject to verification, vs denying the vote in the first place.

LATER:
Correction: The Indiana law does allow for a provisional ballot to be cast that must be verified within 10 days, during working hours. The problem with the ID law is the burden that it places on people to get a photo ID, which may seem trivial to most but not to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Another unfunded mandate perhaps? It is as NUK states, a Democratic problem, and therefore, it will behove the party to assist people in getting the required ID.


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 9:53pm.

a picture ID should be required for something as important as this.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.