GOP: You either vote with us, or you don't vote at all.

[Demosthenes11]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2011030603423

New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.
"Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."

New Hampshire House Republicans are pushing for new laws that would prohibit many college students from voting in the state - and effectively keep some from voting at all.

One bill would permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there - requiring all others to vote in the states or other New Hampshire towns they come from. Another bill would end Election Day registration, which O'Brien said unleashes swarms of students on polling places, creating opportunities for fraud.

The measures in New Hampshire are among dozens of voting-related bills being pushed by newly empowered Republican state lawmakers across the country - prompting partisan clashes akin to those already roiling in some states over GOP moves to curb union power.

Backers of the voting measures say they would bring fairness and restore confidence in a voting system vulnerable to fraud. Many states, for instance, do not require identification to vote. Measures being proposed in 32 states would add an ID requirement or proof of citizenship, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

"I want to know when I walk into the poll that they know I am who I say I am and that nobody else has said that they are me," said North Carolina state Rep. Ric Killian (R), who is preparing to introduce legislation that would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

Democrats charge that the real goal, as with anti-union measures in Wisconsin, Ohio and elsewhere, is simply to deflate the power of core Democratic voting blocs - in this case young people and minorities. For all the allegations of voter fraud, Democrats and voting rights groups say, there is scant evidence to show that it is a problem.
"It's a war on voting," said Thomas Bates, vice president of Rock the Vote, a youth voter- registration group mounting a campaign to fight the array of state measures. "We'd like to be advocating for a 21st-century voting system, but here we are fighting against efforts to turn it back to the 19th century."

The debate over voter fraud has become a perennial issue since the contested 2000 presidential election. While limited by federal law and court rulings, states have authority over how they run elections. Although elections officials say there are occasional cases of fraud, experts say the battle lines are drawn largely along deeply partisan - and largely theoretical - lines.

"Election policy debates like photo ID and same-day registration have become so fierce around the country because they are founded more on passionate belief than proven fact," said Doug Chapin, an election-law expert at the Pew Center on the States. "One side is convinced fraud is rampant; the other believes that disenfranchisement is widespread. Neither can point to much in the way of evidence to support their position, so they simply turn up the volume."

Implications for 2012

The disputes are taking on national implications. Several states where newly empowered Republicans are pushing voter legislation, such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin and North Carolina, are expected to be battlegrounds in the 2012 presidential race. Democrats say the voters most likely to be affected are core pieces of President Obama's base.
An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.
Blacks account for about one-fifth of the North Carolina electorate but are a larger share - 27 percent - of the approximately 1 million voters who may lack a state-issued ID or whose names do not exactly match the Division of Motor Vehicles database. The analysis found about 556,000 voters with no record of an ID issued by the DMV.

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina had pledged to make a photo ID bill a top priority for their new majority, but they have yet to release a plan, with the caucus deliberating over how restrictive it should be. The issue could present a dilemma for Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue, who would have to choose between signing or vetoing a bill that would be popular with swing voters but that could dampen turnout of voters she needs to win reelection next year.

In Wisconsin, a photo-ID bill backed by the state's new GOP majority would not permit voters to use school-issued student cards. The measure would allow for other IDs, such as passports, but opponents say thousands of students who do not have Wisconsin driver's licenses or passports would face unfair hurdles that would keep many of them from voting.

Republican state Sen. Mary Lazich, who heads the chamber's elections committee, said the legislation is designed to prevent irregularities, such as allegations that votes have been cast by the deceased. She said she hoped to work with university officials to allow student IDs at some point.

Student groups are rallying opposition, distributing fliers on campuses and creating Facebook pages to pressure lawmakers.

"It's no coincidence that some of the groups being targeted and that would be most affected by the bill are more Democratic generally," said Sam Polstein, 19, a University of Wisconsin sophomore from New York who is helping to organize the protests.

Opponents are also using a tea party twist - cost - to try to defeat the bill.

States that require voter IDs also must be willing to pay for them, the result of a court ruling that declared part of Georgia's ID law unconstitutional because people lacking IDs would have to pay for cards themselves - creating, in effect, a poll tax. A legislative analysis shows the Wisconsin measure would cost the state $2.7 million a year.The Wisconsin bill is poised for passage in the state Senate but is stalled because of the legislative standoff between Republican Gov. Scott Walker and state Senate Democrats over his plan to roll back public-sector unions' collective-bargaining rights.

The outcome could be particularly critical in Wisconsin. Though Obama won the state easily in 2008, strategists in both parties expect his reelection contest to be much closer. In 2004, the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), won there by just 11,000 votes, a margin easily covered just by the 17,000 out-of-state students who attend the University of Wisconsin's campus in Madison.

New Hampshire bill

In New Hampshire, the measure that covers college students also targets members of the military who are temporarily stationed in the state. But there are no major military installations there, and GOP lawmakers have reserved their criticisms for the voting behavior of students - leading even some college-age Republicans to fight back.
"There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College. But, he added, "this doesn't help if the Republican Party wants to try to win over people in the 18-to-24 age range."
After posting O'Brien's comments about college students on the Internet, state Democratic Party officials accused the GOP of pushing the legislation to rig elections. Voting rights advocates have noted that the courts have affirmed the rights of students to vote where they live.

A spokeswoman for O'Brien said he had not endorsed specific legislation but had spoken out in favor generally of tightening state voting laws.

Same-day registration "coupled with a lax definition of residency creates an environment in which people may be claiming residency in multiple locations," O'Brien said in a written statement from his office. He added that changing the law "is not an idea targeting any particular political party or ideology."

Still, the sponsor of the measure, state Rep. Gregory Sorg, addressing a packed public hearing room late last month, focused his ire directly at the college set.

Average taxpayers in college towns, he said, are having their votes "diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group . . . composed of people with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce."

Their "youthful idealism," he added, "is focused on remaking the world, with themselves in charge, of course, rather than with the mundane humdrum of local government."

Tonight, we march

[Alleya]

Goddamn kids and their stubborn refusal to lose hope in democracy.

[Cleverness]

I don't agree with it but they did make some good points here and there, like the ID to vote thing. Whenever I go with my family to vote we never have to show ID, just say our name and address and sign in the book where our name is listed before going over to do the actual voting. That is an actual fraud opportunity if one were actually interested in buying someones vote. I used to bring my passport first couple of times expecting them to ask me to show ID but now I don't bring anything since it's not necessary.

But trying to keep college kids from voting is fucking stupid. If/when this falls through they are fucking themselves real good for the next elections.

[Acturus]

Yeah, the intent of this to me is no different than the constant re-zoning of districts to preserve elected officials' voter base. The party in power uses its power to stay in power. Shut. down. everything.

One bill would permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there - requiring all others to vote in the states or other New Hampshire towns they come from. Another bill would end Election Day registration, which O'Brien said unleashes swarms of students on polling places, creating opportunities for fraud.

I agree with both of these points. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if an area if you aren't a resident, college student or otherwise. When I was at school, I couldn't vote for Orange or Seminole county elections. I used absentee ballots or trips home to exercise my right. And election day registration is a horrible thing. I take personal issue with anyone who votes without taking the time to educate themselves first, and the thought of registering next door to the voting booth on the day that you are expected to vote. I say registration can happen maybe as close as 30 days before a general election, but same day just seems stupid to me.

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina had pledged to make a photo ID bill a top priority for their new majority, but they have yet to release a plan, with the caucus deliberating over how restrictive it should be. The issue could present a dilemma for Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue, who would have to choose between signing or vetoing a bill that would be popular with swing voters but that could dampen turnout of voters she needs to win reelection next year.

In Wisconsin, a photo-ID bill backed by the state's new GOP majority would not permit voters to use school-issued student cards. The measure would allow for other IDs, such as passports, but opponents say thousands of students who do not have Wisconsin driver's licenses or passports would face unfair hurdles that would keep many of them from voting.

Maybe other states are different, but in Florida, you can get a Florida ID card. You don't need a driver's license. You just need an approved photo ID to say you are who you say you are when they cross your name off the voter list. Again, I have no problem with this.

States that require voter IDs also must be willing to pay for them, the result of a court ruling that declared part of Georgia's ID law unconstitutional because people lacking IDs would have to pay for cards themselves - creating, in effect, a poll tax. A legislative analysis shows the Wisconsin measure would cost the state $2.7 million a year.

I can't comment on whether or not there is a fee for a Florida ID card. I assume there is, because there's a fee for a driver's license. But it's not a hard stretch of the imagination to say that the fee associated with a driver's license could be considered a poll tax as well, using standard government logic.


*****

I'm sure the rhetoric is completely villianizing poor college kids, which is unfair. But Republicans are a party that doesn't understand anyone other than corporate business owners, so it's hardly surprising either.

But if the measures described in the article above are true examples of what's going on, then I don't see the big fucking deal with aligning voting with residency, and requiring photo IDs on election day.

[archibaldcrane]

And election day registration is a horrible thing. I take personal issue with anyone who votes without taking the time to educate themselves first, and the thought of registering next door to the voting booth on the day that you are expected to vote. I say registration can happen maybe as close as 30 days before a general election, but same day just seems stupid to me.

You're an idiot. I assume you're young, right? Do you move around alot, maybe every year or more? Different polling place, different address, different registration? Yeah, it's a pain in the fucking ass to have to re-register at your new address every single time. Just because you're registering at your new address on the day of the voting doesn't mean you don't know anything about the election - where did you draw together that twisted retard logic?

Same-day registration makes voting easier. Voting - participating in democracy - should be easy. It shouldn't involve a bureaucratic mess.

But if the measures described in the article above are true examples of what's going on, then I don't see the big fucking deal with aligning voting with residency, and requiring photo IDs on election day.

Because there isn't rampant voter fraud, and millions of people won't be able to vote when they otherwise legally could with these measures.

[Senoska]

I agree with both of these points. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if an area if you aren't a resident, college student or otherwise. When I was at school, I couldn't vote for Orange or Seminole county elections. I used absentee ballots or trips home to exercise my right. And election day registration is a horrible thing. I take personal issue with anyone who votes without taking the time to educate themselves first, and the thought of registering next door to the voting booth on the day that you are expected to vote. I say registration can happen maybe as close as 30 days before a general election, but same day just seems stupid to me.

I will agree with you only if you agree people living in other countries and counties shouldn't have the right to vote either. The troops included.

I for one think old people should not be allowed to vote period. They fuck things up for people when they're going to die within the term anyhow. Fucking old people

Spoiler: show

/troll

But no seriously, if you're a citizen, you should get a vote. Regardless of the circumstances. You live here, your voice matters, you get a say. Vote fraud has happened in this country a total of 0 times (Excluding bush... derp..). So should we really worry this much and strip people of their voice for something that is likely never going to happen? This is selling fear to strengthen your control, the true republican way.

I for one enjoy all these republican fuck ups. The next election is going to be a duzy. The republican party is dying and this only shows that to be the case.


edit: For the record, if this came some how a national law, this would be fuel for something on the scale of an armed revolt. You're literally taking away people's rights who don't agree with you. That simply crosses the line in my book. I would absolutely not stand for that shit. What little power we have, us who vote exercise. I would gladly fight at any cost for peoples votes to count. What an outrageous premise this is.

[Correction]

I agree with both of these points. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if an area if you aren't a resident, college student or otherwise.

Imagine ballot measures that would jack up local sales taxes by 1% and reduce bus access between college and outlaying areas on weekends.

Oops you're not a 'resident' haha you can't vote on it.

[Talint]

Love those republican cojones. They're really trying to destroy as many democrat voting blocs as possible.

[Ksandra]

This is the dumbest....I really can't even put it in words.

[Senoska]

Related Video

[quannum]

knowing what happened in the past is for pussies too

[ZarakiKujata]

This is a good start, but couldn't we institute some sort of voter test at the booth? Or maybe a poll tax?

/thread

[Conrad]

The youth vote is highly overrated. The under 30 crowd is such a small percentage of the voting public that to block their votes, while denting the Democratic totals much more than the GOP, is not going to do much.

That said, it's highly unconstitutional, and will never go anywhere as soon as someone invokes the threat of the judicial system, assuming it even gets passed at all.

[Acturus]

You're an idiot. I assume you're young, right? Do you move around alot, maybe every year or more? Different polling place, different address, different registration? Yeah, it's a pain in the fucking ass to have to re-register at your new address every single time. Just because you're registering at your new address on the day of the voting doesn't mean you don't know anything about the election - where did you draw together that twisted retard logic?

Same-day registration makes voting easier. Voting - participating in democracy - should be easy. It shouldn't involve a bureaucratic mess.

I did move around a lot, but my permanent address never changed. Last time I checked, that was pretty par for the course for college kids. I didn't have the option to directly vote on local issues, but I could still vote on state and national issues.

Also, the same logic that can be applied to researching issues and voter options in an area where you aren't yet registerd can be applied to taking the time to register in advance. Door swings both ways.

And let's be fair. Most smart rules have hardship clauses or unusual circumstance clauses. If you just moved into an area, then there should be allocation for last-minute registration. That's a given, and if that isn't taken into account, then I do have a problem with this type of legislation.

Because there isn't rampant voter fraud, and millions of people won't be able to vote when they otherwise legally could with these measures.

Again, in the short time I've been a voter, I've had to abide by both of these measures. I don't consider them unfair or unjust, and you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with the fact that "millions of people" would actually be displaced by this in states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, or New Hampshire.

From my admittedly limited perspective, this works without causing undue stress or beurocracy. Unless there's something special about these states that is different than my state, I'm having a hard time being convinced of how evil this is based on what's been reported.

Imagine ballot measures that would jack up local sales taxes by 1% and reduce bus access between college and outlaying areas on weekends.

Oops you're not a 'resident' haha you can't vote on it.

That's a fair hypothetical statement, but there are going to be fair hypothetical statements no matter what choices are made. Sales tax was the one thing that came to mind in reading this, and I'll be honest, I have no realistic ideas about that type of situation.

Honestly, in a perfect world, Americans should be filling out voter registration papers the day that they turn 18, and the day that they sign up for a mailbox, newspaper, and utilities at a new residence (my expectation is that they should also be allowed to do so as well).

I'm willing to have my mind changed about this, but from what I'm reading, I don't see the big deal, and I don't see the big deal because I've spent time abiding by these "limitations" without any personal hardship.

[archibaldcrane]

Voter-ID programs are legal, many states have them (as long as there is a free option for getting the ID). Also, eliminating same-day registration is legal, many states don't have same-day registration.

[Cantih]

The youth vote is highly overrated. The under 30 crowd is such a small percentage of the voting public that to block their votes, while denting the Democratic totals much more than the GOP, is not going to do much.

This, so fucking sadly.
In college, I was the ONLY person I knew who voted. I'd put the rate at 1 in 20 for students, and that's not even worst case.

[archibaldcrane]

Again, in the short time I've been a voter, I've had to abide by both of these measures. I don't consider them unfair or unjust, and you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with the fact that "millions of people" would actually be displaced by this in states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, or New Hampshire.

From the OP:

Blacks account for about one-fifth of the North Carolina electorate but are a larger share - 27 percent - of the approximately 1 million voters who may lack a state-issued ID or whose names do not exactly match the Division of Motor Vehicles database. The analysis found about 556,000 voters with no record of an ID issued by the DMV.

That's in one state alone - over half a million that could not vote in an election tomorrow if there was an ID-requirement.

But the point of all this is that these changes aren't designed to make elections more fair, stop fraud, etc. - They are purely designed to disenfranchise likely democratic voters. This is a political move that intentionally puts more hurdles between citizens and democracy, furthering the distance between the populace and the elected officials, and in that way selling the country even further to the wealthiest of Americans.

[foopy]

sorry, this is off topic, but it reminded me of a slightly related article.

wanted to see what you guys thought of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-z..._b_830237.html

This article was co-authored by Dan Cady is an assistant professor of history at California State University, Fresno. He publishes on the history of the American West, music, and religion.

The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and...-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

What's the deal?

Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can't stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself -- his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill -- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain.

And this is nothing new. At the end of World War I, the more rabid, and often less educated Evangelicals decried the influence of the Social Gospel amongst liberal churches. According to these self-proclaimed torch-bearers of a religion born in the Middle East, progressive church-goers had been infected by foreign ideas such as German Rationalism, Soviet-style Communism, and, of course, atheistic Darwinism. In the 1950s, the anti-Social Gospel message piggybacked the rhetoric of anti-communism, which slashed and burned its way through the Old South and onward through the Sunbelt, turning liberal churches into vacant lots along the way. It was here that the spirit and the body collided, leaving us with a prototypical Christian nationalist, hell-bent on prosperity. Charity was thus rebranded as collectivism and self-denial gave way to the gospel of accumulation. Church-to-church, sermon-to-sermon, evangelical preachers grew less comfortable with the fish and loaves Jesus who lived on earth, and more committed to the angry Jesus of the future. By the 1990s, this divine Terminator gained "most-favored Jesus status" among America's mega churches; and with that, even the mention of the former "social justice" Messiah drove the socially conscious from their larger, meaner flock.

In addition to such historical developments, there may very well simply be an underlying, all-too-human social-psychological process at root, one that probably plays itself out among all religious individuals: they see in their religion what they want to see, and deny or despise the rest. That is, religion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition -- its teachings, its creeds, its prophet's proclamations -- and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook. They see in their faith what they want to see as they live their daily lives, and simultaneously ignore the rest. And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus's message -- a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.

Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't.

[Bingbong]

From my admittedly limited perspective, this works without causing undue stress or beurocracy. Unless there's something special about these states that is different than my state, I'm having a hard time being convinced of how evil this is based on what's been reported.

Since it's being initiated by a Republican, and this is BG, the evil is inherent, and beyond the scope of actually needing proof.
Absentee ballots get counted just like all the other votes. So do provisional ballots once the voters identity is figured out, if you ever have a problem voting, just ask for a provisional ballot on that day.
I'm all for same day registration, starting at 8:01pm local time.
Providing ID, I see both sides, so there's a valid argument to be had but I agree with needing to show ID, prolly because I've had an active ID since I was 16, and it's never been an issue...
I even went to college, and kept it with me the WHOLE time.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm all for same day registration, starting at 8:01pm local time.

Why do you intentionally want it to be harder to vote?