The Arizona law was approved by voters in 2004 as Proposition 200 on that year’s general election ballot. It requires voters to produce specified types of identification when casting ballots at polling places and to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote either for the first time or in a different county.
Preiss was born in 1910 in Clinton, Ky., before birth certificates were issued. She said she no longer has a driver's license and never had a passport.
"You can see my mother's not a national threat," said her son Nathan Nemnich. "Been voting since 1932." Nemnich produced the files documenting his attempts to get her registered.
"A delayed birth certificate," he said. "You have to have witnesses. Everybody's dead."
When the family tried to get school records from Tennessee, they found out the school no longer exists.
State Rep. Russell Pearce spearheaded the law and said it protects the integrity of the voting system.
"To get a movie, you have to prove who you are," Pearce said. "To go rent a car, you have to prove who you are. That's part of life." - KPHO.com
Wow! You have to prove who you are to see a movie in Arizona? I bet the ticket prices there are really high, what with all the background checks and all. But it is worth it, I'm sure. Now, not only are Arizona's elections secure, but also its borders and theaters.
What's next?
Pardon me, but you need an ID before you can eat that taco."
Posts: 17193 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Wow! You have to prove who you are to see a movie in Arizona? I bet the ticket prices there are really high, what with all the background checks and all. But it is worth it, I'm sure. Now, not only are Arizona's elections secure, but also its borders and theaters.
He said, "To get a movie...," not "To get into a movie..."
He was not talking about going to a movie theater. He was talking about renting a movie on video at a rental store. And it's no big deal. I've been showing my ID to do that since back in the days when you could choose from VHS, Betamax or Laserdisc at the video stores. I still do it to this day. Heck, I'll bet even you had to show an ID to get a video card at your local video rental place. And I'll bet you never even put up a fuss about it.
You're right, John; I made a mistake. (See how easy it is to admit it?) And I do feel so much safer knowing that the government of Arizona is carefully checking 97 year-old women to make sure they are who they claim to be. Who knows, one of them could be bin Laden in disguise! (It looks as if by the time we catch the guy responsible for 9/11, bin Laden may not needs much in the way of a disguise. He's already 51.)
Posts: 17193 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Please indicate where, in any thread, I ever said that I was against showing an ID in order to vote. I will be very surprised if you can.
John, it's an old trick, one the Right has used often here, and elsewhere, but it just doesn't work. (In fact, I don't think it has worked since Ray Bolger died.) But if you think it's fair to put words in someone's mouth, then perhaps you could explain why you think it's wrong to allow 97 year-old female citizens to vote. Is it old people you are against, or women?
Posts: 17193 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Do you see the word "apparently" followed by the question mark in my post? That clearly indicated that I was assuming - and qualifying that said assumption could be wrong - based on my reading of your own statements and sarcasm within this thread, that was where you stood. If I was wrong about that, I'll admit I was wrong and apologize. One way or the other, quit beating around the bush and just come out and state whether you think individuals should show an ID before they vote or not.
Speaking of putting words into someone's mouth, could you please show me within this thread where I said I am "against" old people or women voting. I will say that I think 18 year olds are too young to vote. I'd have no problem raising the voting age to 21.
I wonder if anyone else will notice that John avoided answering the questions about why he apparently thinks it's wrong to allow a 97 year-old female citizen to vote, or whether it is old people or women that he is against. -------- You're right, John; this is fun. No wonder you guys on the Right do it all the time.
Posts: 17193 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I think a person should have to show an ID before they vote.
I have no problem with women voting.
I have no problem with the elderly voting.
I know that this situation involving Shirley Preiss is the exception and not the rule. Even so I believe that provisions need to be within a Voter ID law to deal with these rare circumstances.
No matter what you may believe or say, I am not on the "Right." Just because I may disagree with the "Left" does not automatically put me on the "Right." The world is not that black and white.
Yep. Bush and the (former) republican Congress were the absolute worst in fiscal discipline in the history of this country. They were the biggest spenders of all time - and that doesn't even include anything to do with the military or the War Against Islamofascism, that's just domestic spending including "entitlement" programs republicans claim to be against. They talk a good talk, but don't walk the walk.
Does that make you happy Dorain? How about the fact that Bush and the republicans were 100% wrong on the Terri Schiavo case? Bush (and the republicans who crafted it) violated the Constitution by signing an ex post facto law into effect.
I disagree with Bush and the republicans on a great deal of things. Dorain seems (and I could be wrong) to think that if I don't give absolute equal 50/50 criticism of both democrats and republicans, then I must be a republican. Not the case. When the republicans and I differ on an issue, I disagree with them. When the republicans happen to be right on an issue, my agreement with them does not make me a republican. And the republicans just happen to be correct about Voter ID Laws. And this incredibly rare case of a lady not having an ID does not mean the whole idea should be scrapped.
On the face of it, presenting some form of ID when voting seems completely reasonable. I think the objections are based on two things: firstly that impersonation voter fraud is not a big problem in the US, truthaboutfraud.org/pdf, and secondly that the legislation favors Republicans, who - apparently - have disproportionately more driver's licenses, IDs, and organised personal paperwork in general than others.
Isn't this just another round in the gerrymandering games both parties play? It's a solution for which there isn't much of a problem.
Originally posted by newnickname: It's a solution for which there isn't much of a problem.
The only thing that is really not that much of a problem is getting an ID.
The same people on the Left who screamed that the votes in Florida were somehow stolen, now – when offered a solution to help make sure elections are fairer – suddenly scream that there is not that much of a problem? I wish they'd make up their minds.
The only people in the United States who don't have ID (besides the rare cases like the lady mentioned in this thread) are the kook hermits who choose to live in the woods and brush their teeth with twigs. And most of those people don't want to vote anyway. You simply can't function with any degree of normality in the United States today without an ID. And that goes for democrats just as much as republicans. And anyone who truly wants to vote and who does not have an ID should take the necessary steps before Election Day to secure an ID for themselves. Put simply, they need to take some responsibility for themselves. If not, then don't vote, but don't complain about it afterwards.
The same people on the Left who screamed that the votes in Florida were somehow stolen...
That wasn't about voter impersonation fraud, however. Nobody was complaining about shennanigans on the part of voters.
Isn't another argument against the idea that, although video stores can impose what rules they like, it's different for the government; compulsory ID for a basic right like voting is the slippery slope towards compulsory ID cards (and barcodes on everyone's foreheads etc.)?
In France everyone has an official i.d card which they are expected, under law, to carry at all times. That is advanced. Why don't you have that in the States?
Out of interest: What's the purpose of a social security number in the States? Would this old lady not have one? Or does that not prove anything at all? Failing that, does she not have a state [national] pension? She would in Britain and France, and that would prove her entitlement.
Apparently the problem with the little old lady is that Arizona requires proof of citizenship for an Arizona ID, which she, in her particular circumstances, doesn't have:
'Preiss's son, Nathan "Joey" Nemnich, tried to get her an Arizona ID on the basis of her three Texas driver's licenses and her Social Security and Medicare cards, but was rejected. Now the 78-year-old veteran says, "I'm pissed. She's an American citizen who worked her whole life and I want her to vote. ... The sons of bitches are taking away our Constitution."'rawstory.com
I wonder if she could vote by mail - 'The judge also rejected the argument that the requirement to show ID at the polls illegally creates two classes of people because there is no similar mandate for those who decide to vote early by mail.' U.S. judge upholds Arizona's voter-identification laws
It's this insistence on particular kinds of ID - like photo ID - that maybe fuels suspicion about motivations behind the rash of new laws:
'It is estimated that at least 20 million people in the United States do not have a driver’s license. The vast majority of those potential voters are minorities or the elderly — groups who normally vote Democratic. If someone does not have a driver’s license, it is also unlikely that he or she will have a passport. An extreme example of this problem was seen during Indiana’s May 6 primary, when a group of elderly nuns was turned away because they didn’t have driver’s licenses.' GOP cranking up suppression efforts
(Is it true that the elderly tend to be Democrats? I'd have though that grumpy old people, set in their ways, would naturally be more right-wing )
Grumpy old people more right wing? We find that they are grumpy and extreme.'Reactionary' is the word. They are as likely to be old -fashioned left ('I was born Labour and I'll die Labour, but I don't care for these softies like Blair who have forgotten what Labour stands for!') as old-fashioned right ('Everyone nowadays is a sponger.We need more discipline, hang 'em and flog 'em is what I say. It never did me any harm!')
In France everyone has an official i.d card which they are expected, under law, to carry at all times. That is advanced. Why don't you have that in the States?
"Papers, papers, vee most zee yoor papers. Der Führer demantz it." See, Fred, that is how most Americans view the idea of an identity card.
Posts: 7646 | Location: On Vacation | Registered: 06-06-02
then please answer me this: 
