Photo ID to vote

• LJ

  

  Bigdogg;722929 wrote:Not quite convinced yet pal, the article you cited concerned voter registration fraud. as you apparently are uninformed, HB 159 doesn’t prevent the kind of things like that. Second, Ohio’s existing law already prevents multiple votes. Oh, and HB 159 doesn’t change the law for identification requirements for absentee ballots!

  I proved you wrong. Admit it.
  

  To those who want to argue that is is not discriminatory or if you can't afford a ID you shouldn't vote, have fun in court with that one. Even FFT wouldn't take that one.

  No one is arguing that, that is why the state is giving the IDs for free if you can't afford it. Way to argue a point no one ever made.
• Ty Webb

  

  I don't see why anyone would have an issue with this
  
  It's a good idea
• sleeper

  

  I'll go one step further and mandate some sort of test that needs to be taken before you are allowed to vote. Maybe 5 questions that ask basic things such as "How many stars on the on the US flag?" or "What branch of government is the president in?". Really basic, make it multiple choice, and if you don't get 4/5, you don't get to vote. Now, THAT would eliminate a shitload of the democratic base.
• fish82

  

  sleeper;722946 wrote:I'll go one step further and mandate some sort of test that needs to be taken before you are allowed to vote. Maybe 5 questions that ask basic things such as "How many stars on the on the US flag?" or "What branch of government is the president in?". Really basic, make it multiple choice, and if you don't get 4/5, you don't get to vote. Now, THAT would eliminate a shitload of the democratic base.

  LOL...sadly, it might not bode well for a portion of the Pub base as well.
• Bigdogg

  LJ;722935 wrote:I proved you wrong. Admit it.
  
  
  No one is arguing that, that is why the state is giving the IDs for free if you can't afford it. Way to argue a point no one ever made.

  
  And it's better to blindly support a piece of crap legislation that 1. Will not address voter fraud 2. Cost taxpayers money unnecessary. 3.Be eventually ruled unconstitutional. I could say I was surprised that you support this specific legislation but I doubt you would understand the irony of it all.
• LJ

  

  Bigdogg;722971 wrote:And it's better to blindly support a piece of crap legislation that 1. Will not address voter fraud

  Oh? It won't make you prove you are who you are?

  2. Cost taxpayers money unnecessary.

  I'm ok with that

  3.Be eventually ruled unconstitutional.

  By who? 8 states already have this. I highly doubt it will be. It doesn't prevent anyone from voting. If this was unconstitutional so would registering to vote.

  I could say I was surprised that you support this specific legislation but I doubt you would understand the irony of it all.

  Or I could say that you are just talking out of your ass because you have nothing. The irony of it all is that this harms as many rights as registering to vote. Please tell us how unconstitutional that is and how much uness. taxpayer $$ that spends.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  LJ;722978 wrote:Oh? It won't make you prove you are who you are? I'm ok with that By who? 8 states already have this. I highly doubt it will be. It doesn't prevent anyone from voting. If this was unconstitutional so would registering to vote. Or I could say that you are just talking out of your ass because you have nothing. The irony of it all is that this harms as many rights as registering to vote. Please tell us how unconstitutional that is and how much uness. taxpayer $$ that spends.

  
  FTW
• Bigdogg

  LJ;722978 wrote:Oh? It won't make you prove you are who you are?
  
  I'm ok with that By who? 8 states already have this.
  
  
  I highly doubt it will be. It doesn't prevent anyone from voting. If this was unconstitutional so would registering to vote. Or I could say that you are just talking out of your ass because you have nothing. The irony of it all is that this harms as many rights as registering to vote. Please tell us how unconstitutional that is and how much uness. taxpayer $$ that spends.

  
  1. Correct it doesn’t change the law for identification requirements for absentee ballots.
  2.This will make Ohio’s the most narrowest identification requirements in the nation.
  3. I did not know having a opinion that was different then yours was "talking out of your ass"
• LJ

  

  Bigdogg;723021 wrote:I did not know having a opinion that was different then yours was "talking out of your ass"

  
  I believe saying that something will be ruled unconstitutional (as it is obviously not) and saying that I wouldn't understand some false irony that you claim to see would
  
  Oklahoma is just as strict BTW
  
  So again, tell me how this is more unconstitutional than requiring you to register to vote?
• Ty Webb

  

  BigDogg,take this from someone who knows about getting owned on here...
  
  
  You're getting owned,and it would serve you well you well to just shut up and save yourself the embarrassment
• Mr. 300

  

  All for it, and Writer hit the nail on the head. This hurts the voting block of the dems.
• Belly35

  

  Black and white photos must be Ok I see some guys in the post office cut out picture from the most wanted posters.
• Bigdogg

  LJ;723024 wrote:I believe saying that something will be ruled unconstitutional (as it is obviously not) and saying that I wouldn't understand some false irony that you claim to see would
  
  Oklahoma is just as strict BTW
  
  So again, tell me how this is more unconstitutional than requiring you to register to vote?

  Did not say registering to vote was. You seem confused. We are talking about showing a state issued ID to vote. Here is what Ohio has to avoid. Lots of state are in courts now. Google is your friend Again, I support voter ID if it is done the right way.
  
  http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/Court_declares_voter_ID_unconstitutional_20090917
• LJ

  

  Bigdogg;723043 wrote:Try this. Here is what Ohio has to avoid.
  
  http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/Court_declares_voter_ID_unconstitutional_20090917

  
  
  
  http://www.theindychannel.com/news/24092831/detail.html
  

  The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's voter identification law in a 4-1 decision Wednesday, saying the Legislature has the power to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Google is only your friend when you find the latest article.
  
  Wow.
• fish82

  

  Writerbuckeye;723060 wrote:Google is only your friend when you find the latest article.
  
  Wow.

  He's not having a very good day. It's a shame everyone here missed his Huddle meltdown...it was impressive.
• Bigdogg

  Having a great day A.J. Sleep tight! Why don't you tell us all how you gave out your address to everyone? Not too bright. Thanks for the information. Had to unblock you here, it was way too much fun!!!!!
• Bigdogg

  LJ;723050 wrote:
  
  http://www.theindychannel.com/news/24092831/detail.html

  
  Yep, and still stupid waste of taxpayers money. If free IDs cost Indiana 10 million how much will it cost Ohio? Lets see how much per fraudulent vote will that cost.....Your right, well worth it. Not to mention, maybe it Kasich's way of focusing like a laser on creating more jobs at the election polls
• LJ

  

  Bigdogg;723199 wrote:Yep, and still stupid waste of taxpayers money. If free IDs cost Indiana 10 million how much will it cost Ohio? Lets see how much per fraudulent vote will that cost.....Your right, well worth it.

  [video=youtube;zJv5qLsLYoo][/video]
• queencitybuckeye

  Bigdogg;723199 wrote:Yep, and still stupid waste of taxpayers money. If free IDs cost Indiana 10 million how much will it cost Ohio? Lets see how much per fraudulent vote will that cost.....Your right, well worth it. Not to mention, maybe it Kasich's way of focusing like a laser on creating more jobs at the election polls

  
  You forgot "I was wrong. I said something that was factually untrue".
• Bigdogg

  Which part was that? The part where it's a waste of taxpayer money or that it is facing Constitutionally issues in every state and will eventually end up in the USSC
• Bigdogg

  LJ;723205 wrote:[video=youtube;zJv5qLsLYoo][/video]

  
  Sorry, L.J I don't swing that way. I like women. But it's OK if you don't.
• LJ

  

  Bigdogg;723218 wrote:Sorry, A.J I don't swing that way. I like women. But it's OK if you don't.

  
  Who the fuck is A.J.?
  
  I hope that didn't go over your head.....
  
  
  BTW, I am not confused, I believe you are. Can you please tell me how registering to vote is constitutional in your eyes and having to show state ID is not?
• Bigdogg

  LJ;723221 wrote:Who the fuck is A.J.?
  
  I hope that didn't go over your head.....
  
  
  BTW, I am not confused, I believe you are. Can you please tell me how registering to vote is constitutional in your eyes and having to show state ID is not?

  
  Sorry watching basketball and plotting a trip to West Chester. I fixed it. Other then being a waste of money I don't see it as being necessary to show a pictured government ID to vote. I think a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck in lieu of a photo i.d. would be just fine. I am just not in favor at making laws to correct things that are not problems. Felt the same way when they were passing laws about burning the Flag. That's it.
• LJ

  

  Bigdogg;723235 wrote:Sorry watching basketball and plotting a trip to West Chester. I fixed it. Other then being a waste of money I don't see it as being necessary to show a pictured government ID to vote. I think a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck in lieu of a photo i.d. would be just fine. I am just not in favor at making laws to correct things that are not problems. Felt the same way when they were passing laws about burning the Flag. That's it.

  You didn't answer my question. You claimed it would be ruled unconstitutional. What makes you think this is any more unconstitutional than registering?