EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

If one already has a state ID because they are a participating member of society, they will not be inconvenienced.

If one wants to vote and doesn't have a state ID because they are

homeless (where would they get to vote as a resident?)
a recluse/hermit
is in a nursing home with an expired ID
is a dependent that does not drive
is a criminal on the run

...
Help me out, Mitch, who else would not have an ID?

---

SAVE ACT requires "documentary proof of citizenship" to register to vote. It's not "ID." It's a birth certificate with original name. Then marriage certificate, divorce certificate, remarriage etc. before you can be a registered voter. Then you provide ID.

Recently, nephew marries a girl from another country. For my mom to attend, we need a passport. Mom born (home birth) Mississippi early 1900s. When we finally get birth certificate, it has a different birthdate than we always thought was the date. All her "state" IDs don't match the birth certificate. And of course her last name doesn't match the name at birth.

As a young man, I was taken to the polls for all elections because it was important. I was reminded that we fought and died for this right.

So to have guys with no "inconvenience" act like it's no big deal? It matters especially people who aren't computer savvy and women. It's another hurdle.

---

RealID, which all states must go to, will be documentary proof.
Any groups I missed in the no ID list?

---

VaeBear said:

---

I just had to get my driver's license renewed. Had to have my birth certificate because of real id. I couldn't find it. Had to order one from the county clerk online. Took about a week to receive it. Wasn't difficult at all.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

You don't even believe this silliness.

Joe Biden ' Earned your vote' because he intentionally invited millions of unvetted illegals into our country.

Thousands of US citizens have been assaulted, raped, robbed , murdered and killed by illegal drivers…..as a result of your hero's actions.

And you never gave a **** because Joe Biden was giving you what you wanted most.

The permanent destruction of the traditional culture of the United States.

And if thousands of others were harmed it was a price you were willing to pay….as long as the damage didn't happen to a member of your family.

And for the exact same objectives you welcome the votes cast by people who are not entitled to vote.

Everything else you type is just a smokescreen.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

You don't even believe this silliness.

Joe Biden ' Earned your vote' because he intentionally invited millions of unvetted illegals into our country.

Thousands of US citizens have been assaulted, raped, robbed , murdered and killed by illegal drivers…..as a result of your hero's actions.

And you never gave a **** because Joe Biden was giving you what you wanted most.

The permanent destruction of the traditional culture of the United States.

And if thousands of others were harmed it was a price you were willing to pay….as long as the damage didn't happen to a member of your family.

And for the exact same objectives you welcome the votes cast by people who are not entitled to vote.

Everything else you type is just a smokescreen.

---

You are having smoke blown up your hole. In what reality are undocumented people showing up to the polls to vote?

You think a guy who snuck across the border says to himself "I think I'll go vote today?" Them dudes are staying off the radar as much as they can.

This shows how little y'all understand the voting process. It starts way before you go to the poll.

Can't wait for this Trump fog to lift.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

If one already has a state ID because they are a participating member of society, they will not be inconvenienced.

If one wants to vote and doesn't have a state ID because they are

homeless (where would they get to vote as a resident?)
a recluse/hermit
is in a nursing home with an expired ID
is a dependent that does not drive
is a criminal on the run

...
Help me out, Mitch, who else would not have an ID?

---

SAVE ACT requires "documentary proof of citizenship" to register to vote. It's not "ID." It's a birth certificate with original name. Then marriage certificate, divorce certificate, remarriage etc. before you can be a registered voter. Then you provide ID.

Recently, nephew marries a girl from another country. For my mom to attend, we need a passport. Mom born (home birth) Mississippi early 1900s. When we finally get birth certificate, it has a different birthdate than we always thought was the date. All her "state" IDs don't match the birth certificate. And of course her last name doesn't match the name at birth.

As a young man, I was taken to the polls for all elections because it was important. I was reminded that we fought and died for this right.

So to have guys with no "inconvenience" act like it's no big deal? It matters especially people who aren't computer savvy and women. It's another hurdle.

---

RealID, which all states must go to, will be documentary proof.
Any groups I missed in the no ID list?

---

Again, most states are not going exclusively to REAL ID. Many people will still not have it.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

VaeBear said:

---

I just had to get my driver's license renewed. Had to have my birth certificate because of real id. I couldn't find it. Had to order one from the county clerk online. Took about a week to receive it. Wasn't difficult at all.

---

Because your name at birth is your name and you're lucky that your county has digitized records.

My bet is that this will hurt rural voters more than urban voters.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

If one already has a state ID because they are a participating member of society, they will not be inconvenienced.

If one wants to vote and doesn't have a state ID because they are

homeless (where would they get to vote as a resident?)
a recluse/hermit
is in a nursing home with an expired ID
is a dependent that does not drive
is a criminal on the run

...
Help me out, Mitch, who else would not have an ID?

---

SAVE ACT requires "documentary proof of citizenship" to register to vote. It's not "ID." It's a birth certificate with original name. Then marriage certificate, divorce certificate, remarriage etc. before you can be a registered voter. Then you provide ID.

Recently, nephew marries a girl from another country. For my mom to attend, we need a passport. Mom born (home birth) Mississippi early 1900s. When we finally get birth certificate, it has a different birthdate than we always thought was the date. All her "state" IDs don't match the birth certificate. And of course her last name doesn't match the name at birth.

As a young man, I was taken to the polls for all elections because it was important. I was reminded that we fought and died for this right.

So to have guys with no "inconvenience" act like it's no big deal? It matters especially people who aren't computer savvy and women. It's another hurdle.

---

RealID, which all states must go to, will be documentary proof.
Any groups I missed in the no ID list?

---

Again, most states are not going exclusively to REAL ID. Many people will still not have it.

---

"All 50 states and the District of Columbia are now issuing REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and identification cards
. While some states previously resisted, all now participate, meaning there are no states completely "not going" to REAL ID. However, some residents in all states may choose not to obtain one. "

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

If one already has a state ID because they are a participating member of society, they will not be inconvenienced.

If one wants to vote and doesn't have a state ID because they are

homeless (where would they get to vote as a resident?)
a recluse/hermit
is in a nursing home with an expired ID
is a dependent that does not drive
is a criminal on the run

...
Help me out, Mitch, who else would not have an ID?

---

SAVE ACT requires "documentary proof of citizenship" to register to vote. It's not "ID." It's a birth certificate with original name. Then marriage certificate, divorce certificate, remarriage etc. before you can be a registered voter. Then you provide ID.

Recently, nephew marries a girl from another country. For my mom to attend, we need a passport. Mom born (home birth) Mississippi early 1900s. When we finally get birth certificate, it has a different birthdate than we always thought was the date. All her "state" IDs don't match the birth certificate. And of course her last name doesn't match the name at birth.

As a young man, I was taken to the polls for all elections because it was important. I was reminded that we fought and died for this right.

So to have guys with no "inconvenience" act like it's no big deal? It matters especially people who aren't computer savvy and women. It's another hurdle.

---

RealID, which all states must go to, will be documentary proof.
Any groups I missed in the no ID list?

---

Again, most states are not going exclusively to REAL ID. Many people will still not have it.

---

"All 50 states and the District of Columbia are now issuing REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and identification cards
. While some states previously resisted, all now participate, meaning there are no states completely "not going" to REAL ID. However, some residents in all states may choose not to obtain one. "

---

Like I said.

---

• U.S. passport or passport card
• DHS Trusted Traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
• U.S. Department of Defense ID, including IDs issued to dependents
• Permanent resident card
• Border crossing card
• Enhanced Driver's License (EDL) or Enhanced Identification Card (EID) from states that issue them (currently Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington)
• An acceptable photo ID issued by a federally recognized Tribal Nation
• U.S. Merchant Mariner Credential or Transportation Worker Identification Credential

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

If one already has a state ID because they are a participating member of society, they will not be inconvenienced.

If one wants to vote and doesn't have a state ID because they are

homeless (where would they get to vote as a resident?)
a recluse/hermit
is in a nursing home with an expired ID
is a dependent that does not drive
is a criminal on the run

...
Help me out, Mitch, who else would not have an ID?

---

SAVE ACT requires "documentary proof of citizenship" to register to vote. It's not "ID." It's a birth certificate with original name. Then marriage certificate, divorce certificate, remarriage etc. before you can be a registered voter. Then you provide ID.

Recently, nephew marries a girl from another country. For my mom to attend, we need a passport. Mom born (home birth) Mississippi early 1900s. When we finally get birth certificate, it has a different birthdate than we always thought was the date. All her "state" IDs don't match the birth certificate. And of course her last name doesn't match the name at birth.

As a young man, I was taken to the polls for all elections because it was important. I was reminded that we fought and died for this right.

So to have guys with no "inconvenience" act like it's no big deal? It matters especially people who aren't computer savvy and women. It's another hurdle.

---

RealID, which all states must go to, will be documentary proof.
Any groups I missed in the no ID list?

---

Again, most states are not going exclusively to REAL ID. Many people will still not have it.

---

"All 50 states and the District of Columbia are now issuing REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and identification cards
. While some states previously resisted, all now participate, meaning there are no states completely "not going" to REAL ID. However, some residents in all states may choose not to obtain one. "

---

Like I said.

---

Not really.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

You don't even believe this silliness.

Joe Biden ' Earned your vote' because he intentionally invited millions of unvetted illegals into our country.

Thousands of US citizens have been assaulted, raped, robbed , murdered and killed by illegal drivers…..as a result of your hero's actions.

And you never gave a **** because Joe Biden was giving you what you wanted most.

The permanent destruction of the traditional culture of the United States.

And if thousands of others were harmed it was a price you were willing to pay….as long as the damage didn't happen to a member of your family.

And for the exact same objectives you welcome the votes cast by people who are not entitled to vote.

Everything else you type is just a smokescreen.

---

You are having smoke blown up your hole. In what reality are undocumented people showing up to the polls to vote?

You think a guy who snuck across the border says to himself "I think I'll go vote today?" Them dudes are staying off the radar as much as they can.

This shows how little y'all understand the voting process. It starts way before you go to the poll.

Can't wait for this Trump fog to lift.

---

Any state that provides driver's licenses to illegals…..opens the door for them to vote.

California and Illinois just to name two.

And you know this .

Just such a ridiculous hyper partisan you throw up any lie or excuse merely to win an election.

Who you hurt as a consequence…..you don't care unless it affects you or your daughter.

Can't wait till some drunk , uninsured illegal , smashes into your wheels.

Maybe then your self centered fog will disappear.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

If one already has a state ID because they are a participating member of society, they will not be inconvenienced.

If one wants to vote and doesn't have a state ID because they are

homeless (where would they get to vote as a resident?)
a recluse/hermit
is in a nursing home with an expired ID
is a dependent that does not drive
is a criminal on the run

...
Help me out, Mitch, who else would not have an ID?

---

SAVE ACT requires "documentary proof of citizenship" to register to vote. It's not "ID." It's a birth certificate with original name. Then marriage certificate, divorce certificate, remarriage etc. before you can be a registered voter. Then you provide ID.

Recently, nephew marries a girl from another country. For my mom to attend, we need a passport. Mom born (home birth) Mississippi early 1900s. When we finally get birth certificate, it has a different birthdate than we always thought was the date. All her "state" IDs don't match the birth certificate. And of course her last name doesn't match the name at birth.

As a young man, I was taken to the polls for all elections because it was important. I was reminded that we fought and died for this right.

So to have guys with no "inconvenience" act like it's no big deal? It matters especially people who aren't computer savvy and women. It's another hurdle.

---

RealID, which all states must go to, will be documentary proof.
Any groups I missed in the no ID list?

---

Again, most states are not going exclusively to REAL ID. Many people will still not have it.

---

"All 50 states and the District of Columbia are now issuing REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and identification cards
. While some states previously resisted, all now participate, meaning there are no states completely "not going" to REAL ID. However, some residents in all states may choose not to obtain one. "

---

Like I said.

---

Not really.

---

Well, it's a good thing they're not bringing back literacy tests.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

If one already has a state ID because they are a participating member of society, they will not be inconvenienced.

If one wants to vote and doesn't have a state ID because they are

homeless (where would they get to vote as a resident?)
a recluse/hermit
is in a nursing home with an expired ID
is a dependent that does not drive
is a criminal on the run

...
Help me out, Mitch, who else would not have an ID?

---

SAVE ACT requires "documentary proof of citizenship" to register to vote. It's not "ID." It's a birth certificate with original name. Then marriage certificate, divorce certificate, remarriage etc. before you can be a registered voter. Then you provide ID.

Recently, nephew marries a girl from another country. For my mom to attend, we need a passport. Mom born (home birth) Mississippi early 1900s. When we finally get birth certificate, it has a different birthdate than we always thought was the date. All her "state" IDs don't match the birth certificate. And of course her last name doesn't match the name at birth.

As a young man, I was taken to the polls for all elections because it was important. I was reminded that we fought and died for this right.

So to have guys with no "inconvenience" act like it's no big deal? It matters especially people who aren't computer savvy and women. It's another hurdle.

---

RealID, which all states must go to, will be documentary proof.
Any groups I missed in the no ID list?

---

Again, most states are not going exclusively to REAL ID. Many people will still not have it.

---

"All 50 states and the District of Columbia are now issuing REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and identification cards
. While some states previously resisted, all now participate, meaning there are no states completely "not going" to REAL ID. However, some residents in all states may choose not to obtain one. "

---

Like I said.

---

Not really.

---

Well, it's a good thing they're not bringing back literacy tests.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

Since we have no proof that anyone has ever stolen your car, I guess you should just leave the keys on the front seat, right?

There is an entire party that is dedicated to insuring that voter fraud is never discovered. Meanwhile over a dozen democrats in Texas have been found to have engaged in various forms of voter & election fraud.

Voter ID laws won't just reduce illegals from voting, but also many other types of voter fraud that the dems are engaged in every cycle.

Edit: in case you want to claim that is not a true story.... here's a link to the news report about it

15 suspects, including former Texas House candidate, charged in state-led vote harvesting investigation, DA says https://share.google/yW4UijFXy0mC2LmrF

Dems in Texas have been engaging in voter/election fraud since at least the 60s. LBJ was famous for having more votes in some counties that the actual population of that county. LBJ used the exact same tactic that was used in 2020. You wait until almost all the votes have been counted on election night, and then you "discover" boxes of ballots. The dems need to know how many fake votes are needed before they start "discovering" those boxes.

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

Yet, we don't see any data on the recounts to support that. If they could overturn a State, they would. Especially this Administration. As Barr said, the level of fraud is the same you will get no matter what system you have.

I don't want to get into an argument. So far we have not seen data supporting the cheating besides supposition because people disagreed with the outcome. GA was counted 3 times.

If the GOP wants something done in the 13 States that don't require ID, then they need to get it done not run to the Fed.

To put into perspective, go to the Heritage Foundation, that should be Right wing enough. Read the cases from 2024. The highest amount I can find is one lady did 70. Even with all the scruitny, there are not that many cases. The fraud rates are miniscule.

Heritage Database | Election Fraud Map: Explore the Data | The Heritage Foundation

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

It's really simple when you look at the demographics of people without driver licenses or other forms of state issued ID:

*Poor
*Young
*Minority


These demographics typically vote Democrat, which is why they don't want another barrier for people who already aren't motivated to vote.

The Republicans want to add this barrier so less people vote Democrat. They don't care about voting security and if the roles were reversed they would be fighting it like the dems. There is no proof of any material non citizen voting fraud as determined by Trump's special committee he put together in his first term.

This isn't about priciple, it's about winning elections. But I'm gonna assume this question wasn't asked in good faith so flame away.

---

False. Just flat out false.

And before you come back with some study by some leftist organization an ID is needed for just a bout everything in America.

So these groups you claim don't have an ID suddenly have it for these other activities some how?

To enroll your kids in public schools you must present an ID. And yet there is not a huge group of poor, minority and young parents who just don't enroll their kids..... How does that work?????

Drive cars..... buy alcohol, tobacco, go to clubs, buy paint, etc. They can do these things and yet don't have ID to vote????

---

The voting IDs have a cost. The opposition to the SAVE act isn't about ID but about disenfranchisement. It requires that you prove citizenship through your birth certificate.

A woman who marries and takes her husbands name now has the added step of birth certificate and marriage license. The best ID is passport but that's $130.

If this is important, the state (government) should cover the cost.

---

lol. The "added" step of providing documents you already have…


Oh please.

---

Conservatives are always ok with "common sense" ****s that in inconveniences other people.

You'd never support roving agents stopping white guys to check if they have guns but are silent when iHispanics are randomly stopped and grabbed then forced to prove citizenship. Should we have roving forces to enforce the tax code?

Conservatives hate the idea of a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun (background checks) or restriction of magazine size. But it's no big deal to dig up documents "they should have" to prove they are citizens.

Sorry, history tells us this isn't about voter ID. If so, we'd provide everyone a valid voter id when they register for the selective service. For Free.

It doesn't affect you. That doesn't mean there's not an effect.

---

lol.

What a stupid waste of an argument.

Most of what you said is fantasy and has nothing to do with this.

Then you bring up the selective service…. Which not everyone registers for. Especially women.

You would be surprised how many do not do it.

People need an ID for so many things in life that it is impossible to be a functioning adult in our society that has a car, job, house or apartment, buys things, etc. without one.

---

So, what inconveniences a re you willing to accept from government?

Are you willing to have to buy insurance to own a gun? Will you accept random citizenship verification to enforce immigration law? Will tie your right to vote to your wife's right to vote? Will you push for free ID?

What you willing to delay?

It's easy to tell others it's no big deal.

---

lol. More deflections not based in reality.

Again. Everyone has an ID. It is impossible to participate in today's society without one. There are just too many times a person needs an ID to function for them to not have one.

---

I don't hear you saying we should pay for it. It's not ID. It's a non problem looking for a solution.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/noncitizens-are-not-voting-federal-or-state-elections-heres-why

---

No functioning adult can participate in society without an ID.

Everyone has one. To claim otherwise is flat out lying.

You need an ID to enroll your children in school. And yet we don't have a huge wave of poor kids not getting enrolled.

You need an ID to get a job, government benefits, buy things, etc.

And yet people do all of those things daily.

The claim that people don't have an ID is a false one.

---

What inconveniences are you willing to endure? I'm reminded how whinny conservatives became when asked to wear masks. Unlike illegals voting, covid was real.

---

Since we have no proof that anyone has ever stolen your car, I guess you should just leave the keys on the front seat, right?

There is an entire party that is dedicated to insuring that voter fraud is never discovered. Meanwhile over a dozen democrats in Texas have been found to have engaged in various forms of voter & election fraud.

Voter ID laws won't just reduce illegals from voting, but also many other types of voter fraud that the dems are engaged in every cycle.

Edit: in case you want to claim that is not a true story.... here's a link to the news report about it

15 suspects, including former Texas House candidate, charged in state-led vote harvesting investigation, DA says https://share.google/yW4UijFXy0mC2LmrF

Dems in Texas have been engaging in voter/election fraud since at least the 60s. LBJ was famous for having more votes in some counties that the actual population of that county. LBJ used the exact same tactic that was used in 2020. You wait until almost all the votes have been counted on election night, and then you "discover" boxes of ballots. The dems need to know how many fake votes are needed before they start "discovering" those boxes.

---

As is typical in this climate, we create non existing problems then solve them while real problems remain unsolutioned.

I'm not opposed to ID. I'm opposed to intentional voter suppression disguised as securing the vote. Our histories are different. To me, this is another literacy test. To you, this is preventive maintenance. I'll meet you at prevention, let the tax payers pay.

And it is an inconvenience. It took me significant time and navigation to get a copy of my mom's birth certificate. (And I'm a seasoned IT professional). Also, my SIL is delayed getting "RealID" because she married out of HS. Changed name. Divorced. Changed name. Remarried. Changed name. She, too is a professional woman. School Superintendent.

This isn't "simple" as it's being portrayed.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I'm surprised how many of you aren't screaming about states sharing their election data with the Feds. Texas did. It will be abused.

---