The SQ lawsuits are starting.

[CoffeeBean]

I have literally written more than a thousand legal briefs and I cannot recall ever mentioning international law.

In 99% of cases this will have no effect whatsoever, but I do think it calls into question the ability to enforce a choice of law provision based on international law.  Why potentially frustrate the the freedom to contract?  

[CoffeeBean]

I'm simply puzzled and amused at the resistance of some in wanting to ensure inelligible people can't vote.

The SQ does not prevent ineligible people from voting - but it does prevent eligible people who do not have all the accoutrements from exercising the right to vote.  

God forbid that I lose my license the day before an election, or have it suspended or revoked so that I don't have it on election day.  

Guess that person's vote doesn't count anymore, but we really don't want those type of people voting anyway (because they're probably democrats) (shhh!!!)    

[Conan71]

The SQ does not prevent ineligible people from voting - but it does prevent eligible people who do not have all the accoutrements from exercising the right to vote.  

God forbid that I lose my license the day before an election, or have it suspended or revoked so that I don't have it on election day.  

Guess that person's vote doesn't count anymore, but we really don't want those type of people voting anyway (because they're probably democrats) (shhh!!!)    

The law would make it terribly inconvenient for someone to try and vote as me, as it would require they steal and alter one of my photo ID's or my voter registration card.

As far as losing your license? That's why you have a county election board-issued voter ID card.  If your license were suspended or revoked, you can purchase a state-issued ID which you will need to cash a check at your bank or for other financial transactions.  I personally have three pieces of ID I could use to go vote based on the new law.  I keep my voter ID card in my sock drawer and only take it out on election day in case I'm asked for it.  You make it sound like some sort of undue hardship to present indentification when it's not.

[CoffeeBean]

The law would make it terribly inconvenient for someone to try and vote as me . . . You make it sound like some sort of undue hardship to present indentification when it's not.

I vote first thing in the morning, so the law as it stands would already make it terribly inconvenient, if not impossible, for someone to vote as me. 

But my point has less to do with hardship and more to do with circumstance.  Whether my vote is counted should not depend upon some misfortune that leaves me without an ID on election day.  There are better solutions available that would not jeopardize my right to cast a ballot, including the availability of a comparison signature already in the roll book when you arrive at the polling place, similar to the way that banks compare signatures on check. 

It seems like people are more interested in erecting barriers than finding a solution that preserves both the ability to vote and the integrity of the result.       

   

[nathanm]

I'd pointed out yesterday that if I were so inclined I could vote 20 to 30 times on election day going precinct to precinct without an ID.  There really would be no point to it for me, simply saying that without an ID it's very possible.  I'm simply puzzled and amused at the resistance of some in wanting to ensure inelligible people can't vote.

Nathan- I have to show my ID all the time going in and out of prospective customer's facilities, as well as signing a permanent log book.  It translates to $$ in my pocket so I have zero problem with it.  Same with a clerk wanting to see my ID with a debit card.  It helps protect me from fraud even though their intent is to protect their employer.  One thing I don't do is give out my phone number when asked by a store clerk.  A clerk at Gordman's wanted it a few weeks ago and it was not in context of wanting to hook up I'm quite sure since FMC was with me.   

How about instead of making it harder for eligible people to vote, we train the poll workers to not show you the book so you can just pick out a name? 

Regarding being IDed at customer facilities, I'm not terribly interested in working with people who are that paranoid. We all make choices about what we're comfortable with, and that's one that I've made. And showing a clerk my ID provides no advantage to me (all my banks have a zero liability on fraudulent charges policy), yet increases the chances of being a victim of identity theft (in a very small way, but still). They want ID, they don't make a sale.

I have on a couple of occasions pulled it out, making sure to cover the photo with my thumb as I showed it to them, just to see what happened. They don't care. It's completely useless as "security". I did that once at Best Buy with a friend of mine and he was laughing his donkey off at the ridiculousness of the whole charade.

[we vs us]

These SQs are curious exceptions to the conservative hatred of big government.  Let's enact some laws that address remotely possible hypotheticals, but which might have to be litigated (for awhile!), and which in general are about reducing some of our freedoms by adding regulation, rather than increasing our freedom by decreasing regulation. 

It's funny how laissez faire -- how Reaganesque even-- us libs are with personal freedom, eh?

And the reasoning that we seem to be slouching towards here -- I support X law because I don't think it would affect me and I am a law abiding citizen in general -- is actually pretty regressive.  I say that because we have our freedoms to protect everyone and every situation, not just the upright lifestyle you live or can imagine.  It's especially for lifestyles you can't imagine, or might imagine but detest.  So long as they live within the law of the land they are as equal as you are. 

That includes people who forget their ID, or lost it, or never had one.  They still get to vote,too. 

[Townsend]

The SQ does not prevent ineligible people from voting - but it does prevent eligible people who do not have all the accoutrements from exercising the right to vote.  

God forbid that I lose my license the day before an election, or have it suspended or revoked so that I don't have it on election day.  

Guess that person's vote doesn't count anymore, but we really don't want those type of people voting anyway (because they're probably democrats) (shhh!!!)    

You don't need your ID.  You sign an affidavit saying you are who you say you are.

[Conan71]

Regarding being IDed at customer facilities, I'm not terribly interested in working with people who are that paranoid. We all make choices about what we're comfortable with, and that's one that I've made. And showing a clerk my ID provides no advantage to me (all my banks have a zero liability on fraudulent charges policy), yet increases the chances of being a victim of identity theft (in a very small way, but still). They want ID, they don't make a sale.

I have on a couple of occasions pulled it out, making sure to cover the photo with my thumb as I showed it to them, just to see what happened. They don't care. It's completely useless as "security". I did that once at Best Buy with a friend of mine and he was laughing his donkey off at the ridiculousness of the whole charade.

Now who's paranoid?  

[we vs us]

Also, in concert with other recent gems (like HB 1804), Oklahoma sure seems to be signaling over and over and really emphatically that we only want to do business with very specific folks.

We're creating quite a friendly business environment, I'd say.

[Townsend]

Also, in concert with other recent gems (like HB 1804), Oklahoma sure seems to be signaling over and over and really emphatically that we only want to do business with very specific folks.

We're creating quite a friendly business environment, I'd say.

This can't be helping.

[Conan71]

Also, in concert with other recent gems (like HB 1804), Oklahoma sure seems to be signaling over and over and really emphatically that we only want to do business with very specific folks.

We're creating quite a friendly business environment, I'd say.

You know what's interesting?  For a state supposedly so bigoted against brown people, hispanic enrollment in public schools is way up. 

[Townsend]

You know what's interesting?  For a state supposedly so bigoted against brown people, hispanic enrollment in public schools is way up. 

How are we doing on pulling new businesses in?  Hispanic or other?

[CoffeeBean]

You don't need your ID.  You sign an affidavit saying you are who you say you are.

The new law maintains the ability to cast a provisional ballot, but doing so will not allow the vote to be counted unless you follow-up and provide ID.  

Not only are we back at square one, but we've now complicated the process to the point where some percentage of voters will be discouraged from voting at all.  

I'm not against preserving the integrity of the vote, but there is a way to do that without creating unnecessary hurdles.      

[Townsend]

The new law maintains the ability to cast a provisional ballot, but doing so will not allow the vote to be counted unless you follow-up and provide ID.  

Not only are we back at square one, but we've now complicated the process to the point where some percentage of voters will be discouraged from voting at all.  

I'm not against preserving the integrity of the vote, but there is a way to do that without creating unnecessary hurdles.      

Something tells me that with the percentage of voters normally showing up at the polls, we didn't have much of a problem with voter fraud.

Possibly election fraud, but most likely not voter fraud.

[nathanm]

At least the election board isn't doing vote caging like they have in other states. And we still get paper ballots. (for the moment) We could be far worse off, election-wise.