Wednesday, March 4, 2009

TAKING AWAY THE RIGHT TO VOTE

State Senator Jane Orie (R) has announded that she wants voters to have to provide a photo id when voting.

Perhaps everyone up in Cranberry has a driver's license or state identification card. In urban areas alot of folks for one reason or another do not.

Now if the state wants to provide a FREE photo id to all residents, perhaps we can require them to produce it when voting?

So the state sells us the identification cards required to vote? Sounds like a poll tax to the HUDDLER.

POST GAZETTE ARTICLE

10 comments:

Lady Elaine said...

More red meat for the right. BAAAAHHHHHH

Matt H said...

I am not sure where I stand on this one.

I would rather someone show ID at the polling place to prove it is them.

I could show up at various polling sites on Election Day and vote under someone elses name.

Matt H said...

Everyone should have a photo ID. I don't know many people 18+ who vote and don't have a photo ID.

Maria said...

I know many people 18+ who vote and don't have a photo ID: people in their 70s, 80s and 90s who no longer drive (or maybe as city residents never did).

Also statistically, African Americans are less likely to have photo ID as are the poor.

Maybe you missed the story of the elderly, retired nuns who were denied their right to vote this past November because they had no photo ID. They had been voting all their lives but they lived in a state/county that passed one of these stupid laws.

(story here)

Anonymous said...

"I could show up at various polling sites on Election Day and vote under someone elses name."

But being on the committee it that not your duty? To vote for dead people?

Lady Elaine said...

Maria is right on. It disenfranchises a segment of the population--those who object to having their picture taken for religious reasons, those who are suspicious of the government watching over them and who they vote for, minorities, and the elderly population.

Sure, there are ways to get an ID without having to drive--an ID from a discount store, from work, or from the state, but again, if you are in a segment of the population who are suspicious or who do not have access to those places, it leaves them unable to then vote.

As far as going to polling places and voting Matt, they require a signature and a polling person is supposed to do due dilligence in making sure the signature matches. And usually those poll workers know their neighbors. Although there has been a sharp increase in registering voters, and hopefully they vote, I have faith in that process.

Anonymous said...

26,000 people lost their jobs for union organizing last year?

This reminds me of the old SNL skit where they said that "In New York City, a man is mugged every 12 seconds . . . this is that man" and then interviewed the guy while he was repeatedly mugged.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Matt H said...

"As far as going to polling places and voting Matt, they require a signature and a polling person is supposed to do due dilligence in making sure the signature matches."

Doesn't happen.

Anonymous said...

That is also why each party is entitled a poll watcher to oversee the board of elections, and they also have the right to challenge a person's right to vote.

Anonymous said...

I do something simple. If Matt endorses or agrees with something - I do the opposite. Try it, it's really the best way when you think about it.