quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm more or less neutral on the issue - the number of people affected is admittedly very small. However, the dissenting opinion (Breyer) in the recent Supreme Court case was intriguing: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

oh yeah - i don't even bother reading dissenting opinions when i do my research (then again it's not often i need to read supreme court opinions). they are more or less irrelevant considering the dissenting opinion is on the losing side of the law. admittedly, some dissenting opinions become relevant, and the dissent usually gives good insight into a differnt view of the law, however, they should rarely be used to support your argument (even though many times they are used to support an argument).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that's not true. fundamental rights may be infringed upon if it meets strict scrutiny. Essentially, satisfying strict scrutiny means: Governments can prohibit a fundamental right if it has a compelling interest, the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of the law, and it is the least restrictive means to achieve that goal. As an example, free speech is prohibited in many instances (in schools, on certain public property, etc...).

Ah, yes, that is true - but in the case of the Marion County case, they weren't able to prove such state interest. The state claimed voter fraud, but was unable to point to a single confirmed case of fraud that took place at the polls. The only fraud confirmed was absentee - which is notably unaffected by the Voter ID laws.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 oh yeah - i don't even bother reading dissenting opinions when i do my research (then again it's not often i need to read supreme court opinions). they are more or less irrelevant considering the dissenting opinion is on the losing side of the law. admittedly, some dissenting opinions become relevant, and the dissent usually gives good insight into a differnt view of the law, however, they should rarely be used to support your argument (even though many times they are used to support an argument).

Which is only why I'm using it to show that there is a compelling argument - not that there is legal precedent.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Can someone explain why nobody asked me for my driver's license or other ID when giving me the ballot today? I was able to cast my ballot without any kind of ID check, in my area (Baltimore MD). In fact, I went to the official Maryland board of elections site (http://www.elections.state.md.us/), I entered my personal info, and I saw this: Do you need to show identification when you vote? NO How is this possible? Why aren't they afraid of voter fraud!? Somebody could have mentioned my name before me and no questions would have been asked.

Haha, if this were to happen here I can guarantee you there would be hundreds of buses coming from Bosnia and Serbia filled with mercenary voters. Hell they try to do that and sneak along every election even though you do have to show your ID card here. They sometimes try to avoid that by using dead people's ID's and stuff like that...

___________________
1+1=10

Yeah, in Canada there's ID's, voting cards, etc. etc. No electronic voting machines. Cant go wrong.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Which is only why I'm using it to show that there is a compelling argument - not that there is legal precedent.

i wasn't suggesting you were citing it as law. I was just cautioning you that it's not always a good idea to cite dissents, especially considering the argument which convinced them wasn't so compelling as to convince at least 4 other justices.

Lol US presidental election = Way for media to make shitloads of cash.

IMO democracy fails, when people vote for things they have no idea about.

The first time I voted, In Nevada in 04', my ID was checked, every time I've voted in CA I've not had it checked. Yesterday they did ask me to verify my current address (just tell them what it was so it matches their records).

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Yeah, in Canada there's ID's, voting cards, etc. etc. No electronic voting machines. Cant go wrong.

nobody seems to care about how we do our elections. Even though we probably do them as efficiently as any country could.

marked paper ballots hand counted = flawless

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

They didn't ask for my ID, but it seems unlikely that anyone could vote in place of a random person. They would have to know the specific voting location where they are registered to, and the precinct, at least where I voted. If I managed to steal someone's voter registration card, then that would be another matter, since all of that info is on the card.

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint They didn't ask for my ID, but it seems unlikely that anyone could vote in place of a random person. They would have to know the specific voting location where they are registered to, and the precinct, at least where I voted. If I managed to steal someone's voter registration card, then that would be another matter, since all of that info is on the card.

If you do that individually, you can probably vote instead of your neighbour since there's a large chance he'll be in the same voting location as you would.

On the other hand, if you have a party organization behind you, it's pretty likely they'll be able to get at least some info on a large number of registered voters. Obviously the situation is ok for now, but there most certainly is a whole lot of space for abuse.

___________________
1+1=10