America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
Jesse jackson rides again
Published on August 9, 2005 By Moderateman In Democrat
August 06, 2005
40 Years After Passage, Voting Law Is in Dispute
Liberals oppose law requiring identification to vote:

yep time for jesse to continue making victims of the blacks and minorities, God forbid they have real identification to prove who they are. Only jesse can make a reasonable request turn into racist behavior

Today marks the 40th year of the Voting Rights Act, and civil rights activists poured into sticky-hot Atlanta for a march that harks back to the thunderous demonstrations and rallies that led to the act's signing on Aug. 6, 1965.
But black, Hispanic and Asian American leaders who plan to link arms in front of the Georgia Capitol said this protest is no historic reenactment. They are fighting a law passed by the state's Republican-controlled legislature in March that requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo identification before going to the polls, as opposed to the 17 types of picture and non-picture ID they currently use. Georgia officials say the changes -- which experts say will make the state's screening measures the strictest in the nation -- are needed to prevent fraud.


This is what is currently allowed as ID to vote in Georgia:

(1) a valid Georgia driver's license;
(2) a valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification;
(3) a valid United States passport;
(4) a valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;
(5) a valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any employer of the elector in the ordinary course of such employer's business;
(6) a valid student identification card containing a photograph of the elector from any public or private college, university, or postgraduate technical or professional school located within the state of Georgia;
(7) a valid Georgia license to carry a pistol or revolver;
(8) a valid pilot's license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authorized agency of the United States;
(9) a valid United States military identification card;
(10) a certified copy of the elector's birth certificate;
(11) a valid social security card;
(12) certified naturalization documentation;
(13) or a certified copy of court records showing adoption, name, or sex change;
(14) A copy of a utility bill;
(15) A bank statement (will be kept confidential);
(16) A government check or payment with name and address; or
(17) A government document that shows the name and address of the elector.

It's not hard to imagine the hodge-podge of leftist groups providing fake utility bills allowing a group of fringe dwellers to vote repeatedly.

Awareness of the legislation was raised this week with the release of memos written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. from his days as a young aide in Ronald Reagan's Justice Department. Those memos revealed that Roberts forcefully advocated a policy that would shorten the law's reach. The policy sought to bar only voting rules that discriminated intentionally, as opposed to barring rules that have a discriminatory effect.
This is code for "Roberts doesn't want the downtrodden to vote".

As Congress deliberates reauthorizing the act, which is set to expire at the end of next year, some conservative critics argue that two key provisions should be modified, if not dropped altogether. One of those provisions, Section 5, requires states to draw minority-controlled congressional districts if black and Hispanic voters dominate certain residential areas.
Section 5 also required election officials in nine states, mostly in the South, to submit any voting rules changes that might affect minorities to the Justice Department for pre-clearance.


Just let it die.

That is why Georgia's new identification requirement awaits a decision by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who could approve or challenge its implementation in the coming weeks. Rural black voters, many of whom are too poor to own cars, have said they can't get to one of the state's 56 driver's license offices to get a photo ID. Black legislators stormed out of chambers to protest the change.
Union thugs deploy each election day to drive society's victims to the polls. Why can't they be deployed to drive these losers to get a photo ID?

Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, recalled going to a senior citizen center there and seeing Chinese immigrants lined up to vote during the presidential election in 1996.
White poll workers didn't understand their Cantonese language, or even the way they pronounced their names. Finally, one worker asked if they could step aside "so that we could first help regular voters," Feng said.

"The law is still needed," she said.



Posted by joey at August 6, 2005 08:01 AM


Comments (Page 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Aug 12, 2005
And evading the issue again.


you're the one trying to diminish the fact of 11 states enacting laws to keep blacks from voting for nearly 100 years to several incidents of mob violence in south boston 30 years ago. just as ridiculous as comparing auschwitz to a couple nitwits painting a swastika on a synagogue.

the issue is a state deciding it needs to impose the strictest voter identification requirements. quit evading the question i've asked at least four times already.

why did georgia republicans decide this legislation was necessary now?
on Aug 12, 2005
to resist a law that makes perfect sense


it only makes sense...and hardly perfect sense at that...if theres something that justifies stricter id laws.

i've yet to hear what that is.
on Aug 12, 2005
it's not the id. its the idea that georgia--where they used to make black people correctly guess how many jellybeans were in a gallon jar in order to be able to register to vote and get their heads stove in for attempting to actually cast a ballot--feels the need to pass the most restrictive law in the nation a mere 40 years later.

sorta like germany requiring everyone to register as an aryan or non-aryan in 1985.


Oh for christs sakes.....it's not JUST black folks that are being asked to provide ID, it's EVERYONE. No-one is being asked to pay for their ID, and they're even bringing the ID to people's doorsteps...why is there all this furour?! This isn't about race, color, creed or preference....why do some folks feel the need to make it such?!
on Aug 12, 2005
And since you have to be 18 to vote, only those who are over the age of 58 would have any memory of it. Not to mention that for the past 40 of those years, it was not occurring.


yeah and since you hadda be alive in 1863 to be a slave, no blacks under the age of 143 could have any memory of it. not to mention that slavery had been outlawed for 141 of those years.

in 40 years, it's very likely there wont be any wwii vets. does that mean it'll be okay for germany to rewrite their history books and allow the national socialist party to exist legally again?
on Aug 12, 2005
This isn't about race, color, creed or preference....why do some folks feel the need to make it such?!


until someone can explain why georgia republicans felt it necessary to limit the types of id voters can use, it could be anything.

for forty years voting has been encouraged everywhere in the united states by making it easier for people to vote. why is georgia reversing that trend?
on Aug 12, 2005
it only makes sense...and hardly perfect sense at that...if theres something that justifies stricter id laws.

i've yet to hear what that is.


What is so wrong with making sure people are voting legally and ethically? Isn't that exactly what brought the plague of Bush the Younger down on us in the first place?
Maybe if stricter laws had been in place in 2000, GW wouldn't have stolen the election, right?
on Aug 12, 2005
Are you trying to tell me that the average 25 year old in Georgia today has EVER been threatened with sheets and hoods and beatings for trying to register to vote or visiting the polls?


no i'm trying to explain why people like john lewis and other black georgians who put their lives on the line in the mid-60s are liable to be concerned about the passage of the 'most restrictive voting requirements in the nation.'

sorta like mm may feel about the us entering into trade agreements with hanoi.
on Aug 12, 2005
What is so wrong with making sure people are voting legally and ethically?


how does requiring a special id ensure anyone is doing anyhting legally? there are zillions of illegal workers with bogus greencards.

Maybe if stricter laws had been in place in 2000, GW wouldn't have stolen the election, right?


it wouldnt have hurt if some floridians stopped trying so hard to disenfranchise black voters because they're black
on Aug 12, 2005
All it's about is the efforts of blacks and other minorities to resist a law that makes perfect sense


what makes you think blacks and other minorities are the only people living out in the country in georgia? or perhaps you believe only blacks and minorities commit vote fraud?

if anything, you should be supporting their efforts. more and restrictive government is bad government right?
on Aug 13, 2005
This isn't about race, color, creed or preference....why do some folks feel the need to make it such?!


until someone can explain why georgia republicans felt it necessary to limit the types of id voters can use, it could be anything.

for forty years voting has been encouraged everywhere in the united states by making it easier for people to vote. why is georgia reversing that trend?


You still haven't addressed the pertinent point here...It is NOT just for blacks, it's for EVERYONE in Georgia! And if it's for all voters in the state of Georgia then I fail to see how that's racial?
on Aug 13, 2005
i didnt say it was. mm's original article made that claim and mm ran with it.

if you'd read what i type instead of what you wanna assume i'm saying, you'd notice things like the two sentences you just quoted:

until someone can explain why georgia republicans felt it necessary to limit the types of id voters can use, it could be anything.

for forty years voting has been encouraged everywhere in the united states by making it easier for people to vote. why is georgia reversing that trend


notice i said 'people' and 'voters' without any other qualifier.

and a few comments above that, i asked why someone saw this as a black issue.

what makes you think blacks and other minorities are the only people living out in the country in georgia? or perhaps you believe only blacks and minorities commit vote fraud?


either everyone here is too lazy to find an interview with a georgia legislator (or even a bunch of em) explaining why this new legislation was necessary...or else it dont exist.

if republicans are so concerned about voter fraud, why have they paid $722,000 to defend a party operative who's about to be convicted of sabatoging the democrat's new hampshire senatorial candidate in 2004?
on Aug 13, 2005
Maybe they are enacting these laws now because they are LONG overdue


long overdue? as i've pointed out at least four times, the trend has been in the other direction, making it easier for people to vote. just for you i'll translate...it means more restrictive requirements can't be overdue; they used to be the law but now they're not.

I'd like to see EVERY state follow suit.


notta doubt in my mind YOU would.

You're the one that started putting all sorts of sinister racial connotations on it.


go back and read the original plagiarized-by-'joey' article and the first couple comments. looks to me like yall were the ones making this into a racial issue.

And the rest of us are telling you you're full of shit.


i consider the source.
on Aug 13, 2005
Lets see FREE ID

EVERYONE must have it.

COME to your home to issue it.

I do not see why jesse jackson made this into a racial putdown, but that's what he does, continue to make blacks victims.
on Aug 13, 2005
i consider the source.


As we consider the other side this is coming from.
on Aug 13, 2005
long overdue? as i've pointed out at least four times, the trend has been in the other direction, making it easier for people to vote. just for you i'll translate...it means more restrictive requirements can't be overdue; they used to be the law but now they're not.


And hence why democrat bastions are rife with fraud. They (at least some places) are trying to correct this. And much to your chagrin, this is not denying anyone the ability to vote, only for the deceptive to vote multiple times. But then that is an anathema to the democrats since that is the only way they win elections these days.
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6