The House stole our Votes !!!

[galloglas]

Edit to repair link

in the name of Illegal Immigration!

WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.

The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.

House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.

Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."

more at--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060920/ap_on_go_co/immigration

[ixion]

1. to stop fraud: LOSE DIEBOLD

the rest is just pandering to the base of fascist repukes. :grr:

[midnight]

15. That seems like the cheapest and easist route to me.

[mom cat]

17. PAPER ONLY ... NOW!

[In Truth We Trust]

30. Hand Counted Paper Only.......... NOW!

[Greeby]

2. Roll call: 4 Dems sold their people out

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll459.xml

Dem yays:
Bean
Marshall
Peterson (MN)
Taylor (MS)

Repuke nays:
Bass
Bradley (NH)
Young (AK)

Not voting:
Case
Cubin
Evans
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Moore (KS)
Ney
Strickland

[acmavm]

3. I don't see this voter ID thing standing I don't give a rat's ass who

signed on for it.

Where's the ACLU? Have they got the paper work ready to file?

I would certainly think so.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. so you think John Roberts is going to overturn it?

If so, then I'll have some of what you're drinking.

[acmavm]

29. Then we have us a Constitutional crisis folks. In the true definition of

the word.

Our is supposed to be the government of the people by the people for the people.

This cannot be allowed to stand.

[galloglas]

31. I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT !!

We need to think very carefully about this. It's like walking on thin ice, ice that could crack at any second.

We must stay very alert. Think very hard about what could come, and what to do about it if it does.

[nicknameless]

4. K/R

[orwell]

5. Wasn't Georgia voter ID law...

...declared unconstitutional today?

If so, how can this pass muster?

[galloglas]

6. Yes, it was!

And yesterday (I think) Florida's was declared unconstitutional, and Missouri's just six days ago!

I think what we are seeing is that the GOP cannot count on the courts to be bullied. So they are taking things into their own hands, adding a National Law to disenfranchise, coupled with the Diebold Cheat-o-Matics, and saying (in effect) "Go to Hell!"

Then they will wait to see what we will do?

This seems analogous to "frog boiling". Raising the temperature of the water until we (frogs) jump, or are slowly cooked. I think we've not much time.

We need to find a way to make the huge and wonderful demonstrations in Mexico City's Zocalo Square look like a Sunday School picnic, IMHO.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[orwell]

7. Unconstitutional...

...is unconstitutional, either at state or federal level.

Sounds like an election year stunt to me.

This will be DOA...

[galloglas]

9. What if it passes the Senate??

It has already passed the House of Representatives, almost a straight party-line vote, so it certainly did NOT die upon arrival.

It will probably hit the Senate next week (oh, say next Tuesday). Is there less likelihood it will pass there?

They have the votes in the Senate.

If they do not have the sixty votes to bring it to the floor for a vote, do you think they will be less likely to use the "Nuclear Option" now than they were on Samuel Alito's nomination.

I agree it is unconstitutional. But only the Supremes can judge it to be so. And we know they have four solid Dominionist votes in their hands right now.

But a bigger question.

On what grounds could it be brought in front of the SCOTUS before the November elections? The SCOTUS is the ultimate court of appeal. There can be no appeal of a law until it becomes effective, no sooner than the signing by the POTUS.

In that event, unless I am mistaken, the only relief would to nullify all elections in the US and do it all over again. Given the horrific decision of the SCOTUS re: Florida in 2000, could we really expect that to happen??

If not, what is our next move?

I expect the GOP will be expecting to serve "boiled frog" to the citizens of this Republic. But, I hope to bloody hell I'm wrong.

How do the rest of you see this??

[BillORightsMan]

10. Slow Wheels of Justice

Good points, galloglas, but I think the Senate has its hands full right now trying to make torture legal and keep the NSA domestic spying program going via DeWine's and Specter's efforts. (We dodged a bullet in the House-passed H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act" because the Senate never took it up. FYI info on 4167 HERE)

So we have to have the Senate drop what they're doing (ie trying to save gwb&co from being tried for war crimes), fast track the Hyde bill, be assured they DO HAVE the 60 votes, pass it, have the House-Senate committee reconcile it AND have gwb fly in to sign it to make it The Law of the Land.

By the time any appeal could make it to the Supremes, Nov. 7 will have come and gone. And now that we know the US Congress gets to pick their own members and swear them in BEFORE the votes are even COUNTED AND CERTIFIED, the appeal will be moot, since all election laws have strict timelines for recount or challenge (that's how they stole 2000 - they ran the clock out - worked in 2004 too).

As for our next move?

STORM THE BASTILLE!!!

jmho

:patriot:

[freedomfries]

13. K & R

[galloglas]

16. As for our next move?

STORM THE BASTILLE!!!

Well, that's how I read it. So it means at least the two of will be there.

The trajectory of the GOP path seems that, if not this year with HR #4844, it will eventually lead us to that final choice.

[galloglas]

27. What happens next week??

The three "good GOP Senators" caved on torture?

They have plenty of time now to pound that sucker (companion to HR 4844) down.

See you on the barricades!

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. the law would not take effect until 2008!

And, yes, I think the Senate leadership is a lot less likely to threaten the Nuclear Option on this issue. There they had some sort of excuse -- the premise that somehow the Senate owes the president a vote on a nomination. But the Senate obviously doesn't owe itself a vote on legislation. I'm not convinced this bill would have majority support in the Senate anyway. The House got nowhere with its version of the immigration bill.

[galloglas]

18. The Senate vote

Still, the original bill, written in March, carried an effective date of 2006 (as I understand it). We have a November trainwreck scheduled, and the GOP, after the fact, may tout this bill as a "cure" for what is now coming our way.

They may claim, after the coming disaster, that #4844 is just the law needed to correct the problems of 2006. Which would make HR 4844 (or whatever joint resolution may come from the Senate) the HAVA of 2008.

I can just see, two years ahead, an electoral scenario so screwed up nationally that the GOP would attempt to "postpone" elections. If so, how long would Bush remain President.

Sounds absolutely crazy. But, then again, so does the POTUS.

And, supposedly, he would call the shots.


I'm not convinced this bill would have majority support in the Senate anyway.

If not, it would be because some GOP Senators turned out to be true patriots, and not loyal lackeys. Something we have not seen until this month, with Sens. McCain, Warner, and Graham coming out against the President's proposed interrogation/torture rules.

The House got nowhere with its version of the immigration bill.

Or perhaps they did.

The sudden wave of xenophobia that swept the House this spring was quickly put to the side, but only after the populace had been whipped into a frenzy.

Though the House may have dropped it then, a certain segment of the population is still inflamed about the issue.

Consider, perhaps, that the real objective of the House leaders this spring was to stir that latent cauldron of bubbling Macaca-ism in the states.

All that, in order to blindside the general public with HR 4844 this fall, before public opinion could see this for what it is... a bill to disenfranchise those with lesser means, disabilities, the aged, etc.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. interesting times

I don't think your nightmare scenario is likely to unfold, but then again, I didn't think the torture scenario was likely, either. We will see.

However, I will question whether "the populace" was "whipped into a frenzy" in the spring. The Gallup Poll indicates that the percentage of Americans who called to reduce immigration decreased from last December (51%), to April (47%), to June (39%). Obviously that isn't a perfect measure of xenophobia, but it bears consideration. (You are probably right that some segment of the population is still inflamed.)

I think typically the best way to blindside the general public with a bill is just to pass it. No need to distract people with other issues; they are distracted already.

[galloglas]

28. Well, if you wake up screaming, then

the "Nightnare Scenario" may just be happening.

"I think typically the best way to blindside the general public with a bill is just to pass it."

With the POTUS getting his way with the Senators, they have plenty of time next week to do exactly what you stated.

[elehhhhna]

21. Hey! If they make it retroactive they can annul Clintons presidency!

lol

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. well, a quibble on "unconstitutional"

The Georgia law was voided under the Georgia Constitution and GA case law. That case doesn't translate directly to the U.S. Constitution.

Still, it's hard for me to see how a federal court could uphold the constitutionality of a law that trammels an important right and seems to have little rational basis. So I think your conclusion is right.

[elehhhhna]

19. If people are turned away at the polls there will be riots. Bank on it.

Small dustups to full blown acts of violence will break out on election day.

Then Martial law is a distinct possiblility.

[AtLiberty]

8. Admit it, Henry Hyde --

The only way you can stop the blue wave in your district is to disenfranchise voters one way or another.

[fasttense]

14. But a free ID clause may not make this bill so difficult for the poor

"In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them."

If this remains intact after the Senate is done with it, it may help the poor.

I'm not sure why the other laws were struck down but I never understood why the voter registration card that the state issued me is practically useless. Everyone here in TN gets a voter registration card after they have registered, why can't the state use these cards as ID? The state registered me. They must have known I was a citizen at the time or why register me to vote?

[elehhhhna]

20. Are you trying to apply logic? Dang Democrat Party. Always thinkin'.

[galloglas]

22. How Free are the "Free IDs"

We discussed this thought of yours on this thread. Its title is

The Economics of ShowMe Vote Suppression !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x449427

Read it if you can. It clearly shows how the "Free IDs" are still no answer to the disenfranchisement.

The poor and disadvantaged of New Orleans were given the same "freedom" to evacuate the city as the wealthy were. But it is harder to exercise that "freedom" when one is travelling on shank's ponies.

Likewise, there is (was) no cost for the "Free Photo Voter ID" in Missouri. So, no problem, until you look at the realities.

Missouri law took four forms of ID.

Driver's License, Military ID, or Passports. How many sick, elderly and poor are currently serving in the Armed Forces? Travelling on a current Passport? Or even still driving?

In Missouri, there were four months allowed to get 200,000 people the necessary IDs, in order to vote in November.

You said: Everyone here in TN gets a voter registration card after they have registered, why can't the state use these cards as ID? The state registered me. They must have known I was a citizen at the time or why register me to vote?

We in Missouri also have those mailed to our homes, usually a week or two before the election. Seems they could be used, no?

Well, among the specific items NOT accepted as ID (per the MO. SoS) were those self-same voter ID cards.

Why? If there is any answer other than to prevent Democratic votes votes, no one knows what it is.

And the IDs could only be gotten from Driver's License Bureaus, many of which were sold to the kin and cronies of GOP Gov. Matt Blunt. Think they would stay open late to accomodate those who need the new IDs.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. R U providing a free birth certificate or passport to get the ID?

Because to get the Government issued photo id, you will
have to provide proof of citizenship.

A drivers license won't do it.

Get your birth certificate out.
Don't have one - then get your passport or papers.

Most people do not have the documentation to prove they are citizens.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

32. Don't feel so bad about drinking Jim Baker's Kool-Aid. Jimmy Carter

had several pitchers full on the Carter-Baker Commission for electoral reform. "Voter ID" is fast-tracked for enectment into law because Jim Baker (architect of the Florida 2000 post-election strategy for Republicans) sneaked it past Jimmy Carter into the 2005 Final Report.

The only Carter-Baker Commission member looking out for voters was a GWU law professor. And Jimmy Carter's foundation focuses specifically on worldwide election administration! See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2184544&mesg_id=2185783 for my idea on how to stop these sneaky GOP vote suppression schemes, which have THOUSANDS of subtle variations.

[eomer]

33. "The right to vote is just that: a right and not a license."

Here are a couple of excerpts from a decision by Missouri Circuit Judge Richard Callahan, in which he ruled that a new photo ID requirement in Missouri was unconstitutional under the Missouri Constitution. His explanation of how such a requirement would have a disparate impact on certain classes of citizens makes sense to me.

Because of our societal custom of women modifying or changing their name in marriage, these documentation requirements will have a greater disparate effect on women rather than men, regardless of their affluence. However, an even greater disparate effect will occur on poor women because of the financial burden entailed in acquiring certified copies of all the supporting documents. The fact that the state does not charge for the nondriver license itself (if obtained for the purpose of voting) does not avoid the constitutional issue or economic reality that voters will have to "buy" numerous government documents to get the "free" photo ID to qualify for the privilege of voting. While a license to drive may be just that: a license and not a right. The right to vote is just that: a right and not a license.

The photo ID burden placed on the voter may seem minor or inconsequential to the mainstream of our society for whom automobiles, driver licenses, and even passports are a natural part of everyday life. However, for the elderly, the poor, the under-educated, or otherwise disadvantaged, the burden can be great if not insurmountable, and it is those very people outside the mainstream of society who are the least equipped to bear the costs or navigate the many bureaucracies necessary to obtain the required documentation. For these reasons, this court concludes that the voting restrictions imposed by SB 1014 impermissibly infringe on core voting right guaranteed by the Missouri Constitution.

[Kurovski]

23. Kick(nt)