Müs wrote:
Lenas wrote:
Müs wrote:
I should be able to vote for who I want, where I want, as many times as I want.
No.
STOP OPPRESSING ME!!!
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9069 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax |
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... d-law?lite Quote: New Hampshire's list of acceptable IDs as of 2013 is actually more restrictive than the set of IDs Texas would have accepted under that state's voter ID law, which a federal court blocked last week.
|
|
| Author: | RangerDave [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax |
Article wrote: So why the difference? It seems New Hampshire's decision to also make it possible for voters without the proper ID to cast a regular ballot, provided they sign an affidavit and have their picture taken, allowed enough leeway. Important context for those who don't click through. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Doesn't seem like a "poll tax" to me. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: Doesn't seem like a "poll tax" to me. We previously established that voter ID laws are in fact poll taxes. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I see no establishment of fact there. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: I see no establishment of fact there. If it is on the interwebz, it is indeed a fact. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Vindicarre wrote: Doesn't seem like a "poll tax" to me. It is. If you are required to have anything that costs time or money to vote, its a "poll tax", and ∴ unconstitutional. |
|
| Author: | NephyrS [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Reference RD's post. First reply in the thread. This law allows people to vote without IDs, if they sign an affidavit and get their picture taken. Hence, there's no involved required cost, at all. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax |
Signing something and getting your picture taken is a poll tax now? Give me a **** break. No one has any reason to get mad about this. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax |
Lenas wrote: Signing something and getting your picture taken is a poll tax now? Give me a **** break. No one has any reason to get mad about this. What if having my picture taken is against my religion? I should be able to vote for who I want, where I want, as many times as I want. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax |
Oh how little legal history you know ... Poll Taxes themselves were not inherently unconstitutional or problematic: they've existed without problem in every state at one point or another. "Disparate Impact" originated from poll tax disputes and the argument that Southern states used literacy tests and other poll verification methods to keep minorities from voting. We're still having this argument; only, this time, it's the Democrats asserting the South still uses the practices and that only negligible voter fraud occurs (never mind who actually committed the known fraud in the last election cycle). As it stands ... There are no Constitutional provisions on how the States should handle their elections until the previously mythical, but still undefined, 'right to vote' shows up in the 14th Amendment. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Müs wrote: Vindicarre wrote: Doesn't seem like a "poll tax" to me. It is. If you are required to have anything that costs time or money to vote, its a "poll tax", and ∴ unconstitutional. I guess when people sign their name at the polling place, or even when they fill out the ballot, not to mention going to the polling place, it's a poll tax, as these things all take time. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax |
Müs wrote: I should be able to vote for who I want, where I want, as many times as I want. No. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax |
Lenas wrote: Müs wrote: I should be able to vote for who I want, where I want, as many times as I want. No. STOP OPPRESSING ME!!! |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Federal Court Upholds NH Poll Tax |
Müs wrote: Lenas wrote: Müs wrote: I should be able to vote for who I want, where I want, as many times as I want. No. STOP OPPRESSING ME!!!
|
|
| Author: | Raell [ Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I saw 'poll tax' and thought about a new tax on strippers... |
|
| Author: | RangerDave [ Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Raell wrote: I saw 'poll tax' and thought about a new tax on strippers... That's this thread: /viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9067. 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|