|
Paul, there's nothing wrong with C&P's, I don't think, as long as they are relevant. The first post had to do with the GOP's rules regarding early hours for voting and such. I'll happily concede that both parties do things (like drawing district lines) to maximize winning probabilities. We need to keep them from doing that. I don't think either side has a monopoly on that kind of corruption, do you? Ask any fair-minded CT voter how Malloy got elected governor in a very close race - due to "irregularities", the voting booths in one town - Bridgeport - were kept open far later than scheduled. Guess which candidate 99% of the Bridgeport voters supported in that election?
As to the second...you have a former judge (appointed by Reagan), who is now a professor at the University of Chicago Law School (one of the most liberal places on Earth) telling a story. I don't know this man's politics, I have no idea if he has an agenda. But nowhere in there did it say (unless I missed it) WHY voters get disenfranchised when they are required to show an id. Why? What's the big deal? We have to show photo id's all the time in our every day lives. Can someone try to articulate why any meaningful number of people would be discouraged to vote by having to show an id?
For many years, Connecticut (also one of the most liberal places on Earth) had some of the toughest voting registration requirements - you had to register months and months ahead of time to vote. I don't recall anyone saying that the CT legislature was trying to keep poor blacks from voting.
Lots of liberals claim the photo id requirement is designed to suppress turnout. Liberals say it. I'm sure they believe it. But I haven't heard one support that theory.
Spence says his mother did not have an id. She needed one for probate purposes. Did she throw her arms up in the air and become disenfranchised? No. She went out and got an id. End of story.
What is the big deal about requiring an id? I just don't see it...I cannot believe it's a controversial topic.
|
Threaded Mode