Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
Bham Shooter
Posts: 609 Senior Member
US Rep. Terri Sewell opposes Alabama photo voter ID law
Bham Shooter
Posts: 609 Senior Member
http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2011/09/us_rep_terri_sewell_opposes_al.html
The lone Democrat in Alabama's congressional delegation said Thursday that the state's new law requiring a voter to carry photo identification was a tactic to discourage people from voting and should be challenged in court.
"It's about suppression, not protection," said Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Birmingham.
The Alabama Legislature this year, under new Republican control, took Alabama's voter ID law one step further by requiring people to show not just documentation but also photographic proof of their identity before being allowed to vote. The new law takes effect in 2014 and was promoted by Republicans as a tool to ensure honest elections.
Sewell said it would be a burden on people who for whatever reason don't have a government-issued photo ID. Her father, for example, has been in a wheelchair for years, doesn't drive and doesn't have a driver's license. Her family will take him to get a photo ID as provided under the law, but not everyone will have the resources to do so, she said.
"He used his Social Security card, and that should be good enough," Sewell said.
Sewell questioned why the U.S. Department of Justice has not challenged the photo ID law. "It's interesting we're not seeing more activism from DOJ on this," she said.
The Alabama Secretary of State's Office and the Alabama Attorney General's Office said there are no legal challenges to the law so far. The law has not yet been submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, which must certify that it does not discriminate against black voters before it can take effect.
The issue came up during Sewell's first seminar at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference. Sewell, who took office in January as the state's first black female member of Congress, assembled a panel of commentators, scholars and politicians to discuss how voting trends have changed in the South since the election of President Barack Obama.
Part of the discussion was about various state laws around the country that Democrats argue are part of a GOP strategy to dampen turnout of black voters, such as cutting back on early voting. In response, Sewell said she would like to see Alabama adopt a policy that allows people to register to vote at the polling station on election day.
"I'm going to promote that," Sewell said.
Much of the discussion at Thursday's panel in a crowded meeting room at the Washington Convention Center was about coalition building, and how African-American voters can partner with other groups, such as Latinos, to help elect progressive Democrats to office.
"It is mind-boggling to me that the Republican Party holds together a coalition that includes traditional conservatives and poor, lower-income white Southerners," Sewell said. "That coalition gave them the Tea Party and it catapulted them to winning back state houses, so coalition building is going to be the key, I think."
The panelists included Will Crossley, Democratic National Committee counsel and director of voter protection; Georgia state Rep. Stacey Abrams, House Minority Leader; Cornell Belcher, pollster and president of Brilliant Corners Research and Strategies; Spencer Overton, law professor at the George Washington University Law School; and Michael Thurmond, former Georgia labor commissioner.
The lone Democrat in Alabama's congressional delegation said Thursday that the state's new law requiring a voter to carry photo identification was a tactic to discourage people from voting and should be challenged in court.
"It's about suppression, not protection," said Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Birmingham.
The Alabama Legislature this year, under new Republican control, took Alabama's voter ID law one step further by requiring people to show not just documentation but also photographic proof of their identity before being allowed to vote. The new law takes effect in 2014 and was promoted by Republicans as a tool to ensure honest elections.
Sewell said it would be a burden on people who for whatever reason don't have a government-issued photo ID. Her father, for example, has been in a wheelchair for years, doesn't drive and doesn't have a driver's license. Her family will take him to get a photo ID as provided under the law, but not everyone will have the resources to do so, she said.
"He used his Social Security card, and that should be good enough," Sewell said.
Sewell questioned why the U.S. Department of Justice has not challenged the photo ID law. "It's interesting we're not seeing more activism from DOJ on this," she said.
The Alabama Secretary of State's Office and the Alabama Attorney General's Office said there are no legal challenges to the law so far. The law has not yet been submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, which must certify that it does not discriminate against black voters before it can take effect.
The issue came up during Sewell's first seminar at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference. Sewell, who took office in January as the state's first black female member of Congress, assembled a panel of commentators, scholars and politicians to discuss how voting trends have changed in the South since the election of President Barack Obama.
Part of the discussion was about various state laws around the country that Democrats argue are part of a GOP strategy to dampen turnout of black voters, such as cutting back on early voting. In response, Sewell said she would like to see Alabama adopt a policy that allows people to register to vote at the polling station on election day.
"I'm going to promote that," Sewell said.
Much of the discussion at Thursday's panel in a crowded meeting room at the Washington Convention Center was about coalition building, and how African-American voters can partner with other groups, such as Latinos, to help elect progressive Democrats to office.
"It is mind-boggling to me that the Republican Party holds together a coalition that includes traditional conservatives and poor, lower-income white Southerners," Sewell said. "That coalition gave them the Tea Party and it catapulted them to winning back state houses, so coalition building is going to be the key, I think."
The panelists included Will Crossley, Democratic National Committee counsel and director of voter protection; Georgia state Rep. Stacey Abrams, House Minority Leader; Cornell Belcher, pollster and president of Brilliant Corners Research and Strategies; Spencer Overton, law professor at the George Washington University Law School; and Michael Thurmond, former Georgia labor commissioner.
Replies
About ID Cards
Identification cards are issued to people who are either unqualified to drive or choose not to drive. They are not issued to current holders of an Alabama driver's license.
The process for applying for an Alabama ID card is much the same as applying for a driver's license. The only difference is that no testing is required.
What You'll Need
To apply for non-driver identification, you must take the following documents to your local driver's license office:
One document that verifies your name and date of birth. This can include your certified birth certificate, passport, and naturalization or citizenship certificates.
Social Security card.
If the first document is not a photo ID, then you must supply one more form of identification. This can include any valid U.S. driver's license, marriage license, Veterans Administration card, Selective Service card, school identification card with photo, a W2 tax form, or divorce decree.
$23 to purchase the non-driving ID.
Renewing an ID Card
Your Alabama ID card must be renewed every four years after the date of issue. You must go in person to your local Drivers License Office, as there are no arrangements in place to renew ID cards by mail or on-line. The fee for each four year renewal is $23.
Replacing an ID Card
To replace a lost or stolen ID card, simply follow the instructions for applying for a new card. Replacement cards cost $18.
I'm betting the whole process takes less than 15 minutes. With groups out there like ACORN and the stories we've all seen in the past about deceased people casting a ballot, why not add a little something to the voting process to make sure there is an honest election? We have to go through the process when buying a gun, which is a constitutional right, all they're wanting you to do in order to elect someone is show a state-issued Photo ID. I bet over 90% of the folks in Alabama have a DL, and getting an ID is even easier.
Jerry
Hey Teach A lot of state saw similar events like you mention during the 2008 presidental election.. Illegal as all get out man!!!!! This is what I don't get:
Women born here in the USA did not get the right to vote until 1920 even though they were US citizens. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution.Then before that we know that the 14th and was ratified and the 15th Amendment passed (1870) that guaranteed black men the right to vote. Now if one looks at Amendment XV section 1:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. What part of CITIZENS don't these smuks that pull this crap don't understand? I don't get it. Has our politicial system sank to the point of being lower than Whale crap?
Now when our founding fathers wrote the BOR and there were only 10 original ones. And now IIRC we have 27? Now where do these folks get off rounding up bus loads of folks who are not US citizens, transporting them to the voting polls and telling US citizens that they have the right to vote? This is 800 kinds of ways WRONG.
What I am saying is Teach I agree with ya 100%. I just thought that I would never have to live to see the day in this country where I: as a US citizen elgibile to vote and have been since age 18 would ever have to consider, ( much less get) a voter ID card just to prove I am a citizen of the USA..... This only goes to prove what I have been saying an knowing for years: Our political system is broken and corrupt and its not getting any better. Our Politcial leaders are leading us on a one way path to death and destruction of a Free and Republic society, and it seems that Know one cares, as long as their "status quo" is not interupted or malested in anyway shape or form... So if I have to get a voter ID card just to vote I guess I will, but I will do it under protest.
What really chaps my hide is the fact: Due due the illegal and illicit activities of others, I have to be inconvienced and purchase something out of mine own pocket just to prove that I am on the up and up and not AN ILLEGAL AILIEN OR ILLEGAL NON-CITIZEN OF THE USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why I am and others being punished for the acts of others who are not even citizens of my USA, and probably never have any intensions of becoming a citizen of the USA?
Sounds like mental slavery to me.
even to go to jail.
You'll just pay for it anyway out of your taxes. I'd rather pay $15 once for an ID than pay for it every year for the foreseeable future from a percentage of my income for myself and everybody else who wants one.
I'm okay with the ID idea. It kind of sucks that we have to, but it seems a necessary evil so that dead people don't vote.
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
Your answer has a gigantic "loophole". Let's take NY City as an example. Do you seriously believe that the people at the polling place can identify, by sight alone, every person in the city of New York? That would be a requirement to stop fraudulent voting by someone registering in multiple voting precincts with voter registrations from multiple fictitious addresses. The possession of a voter registration card alone is not proof that the person is who they say they are.
Another caveat. During a Terry Stop by police, not having a photo I.D. is going to have you in a position of getting much more attention than you would get than if you produced a photo I.D. It is also impossible to get anywhere with local, state, federal offices, or banks, or potential employers, or a huge number of other entities without a photo I.D.
You are not being denied the right to vote by requiring photo I.D. at the polling place; you are just being required to prove you are who you say you are. Or are you O.K. with someone else voting for you?
― Douglas Adams
:applause:
Then there is my first name, we do not even have to go to the middle one.
I can see the situation where a LEO has stopped someone on the streets. They don't know who they are stopping nor do LEO know who or what they might be up against, until some concrete ID of that person has been established. Thats just plain being safe. I am not OK with someone else voting for me. Thats 900 kind of ways wrong!!!!!!!!! What I am against is non-US citizens trying to vote because they haven't earned the right to do that, and will not have the right to vote until they become US citizens.....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:that: Not only that, I am tired of being pusnished either through an 'out of pocket expense' or a constitutional right being diluted or erroeded away due to the illegal activities of others, especially when it was caused by some scum-bag lobbist or politician.
To answer your question DCortez given the present time period one can't do much of anything without some form or picture ID. Kind of makes me wonder what was used from 1600 to the day where some politician or, what have you, decided to make everyone have a photo ID for everyday purposes.....Personally I don't have a bank account of any type and I don't have credit cards of any type either, and I won't for the rest of my life. I do however have a valid NM state issued DL. As stated before by Al, driving is a privilege, and a means for states to collect taxes and fees. It won't be long in this country that we will start hearing from those in Aurthority: Your Photo ID sir/mam, and "Your Papers Please"
I found out something a few years back and that is: It is illegal to posess a state DL and a state issued ID card at the same time.. Now I wonder why that is? They both have your picture on them. Instead of making US citizens pay for a constitutional right out of pocket why can't the voting places use:
certified birth certificate,valid U.S. driver's license,marriage license, Selective Service card, school identification card with photo, W2 tax form, and a divorce decree ( from 2 previous's). These things I have already or have already bought and paid for... Why can't we use these, instead of having to "purchase out of pocket" an additional "Right to vote photo ID card"?
I used my CCW license as a photo I.D. the last time I voted; the people doing the checking in at the polls passed it around, and asked about the process for getting one. Gotta love that! And I also got to vote!:roll2:
― Douglas Adams
― Douglas Adams
Thanks tennmike!!!!! and just so everyone knows I ain't no "day laborer living under the radar":rotflmao: .. Well not yet anyway... Hope it doesn't come to that!!!
I more so than often rattle more than use organized thoughts when writing. Nothing new for me, heck everyone here knows that!!!!!!!!:rotflmao: Hey tennmike check out this scenerio:
Take a case lets say that my grandma is 88yrs old or so, and never had a DL,because Grandpa has always done the driving. Grandpa has always done the voting. Now lets say that Grandma would like to start voting. She will either need a DL( which probably won't happen at her age) or some type of state issued photo id card with her current adress on it. What I am getting at is will the voting precint allow grandma to use her Birth certificate, (if she even has one) and would they allow her to use a SS card. chances of Grandma having a SS card might be rare too... since she has never worked officially, Grandpa did it all...... We know she won't have a draft card like I got. The point is in this case will grandma have to purchase a state photo id card just to excersice her "constitutional right to vote"? which in this case means, an "out of pocket expensive" to excerise a constitutional right? This will make a good dicussion.... I think anyway.
You brought up SS card, and that will require documentation to apply for, and get, a SS card. You don't have to have a SS card, either, but you can't access SS services without a SS card. You're continuing to ignore the fact that a photo I.D. card is not a luxury item; it is becoming a necessity to do anything that deals with local, state, federal agencies, and banks, and just about any other function in life. If Grandpa dies first, and Grandma doesn't have a SS card, it will still require that she go through the process to get a SS card before she can access Grandpa's SS account and draw on it. The law is the law, has been in place for over half a century, and shall be complied with to access the services.
Back when I was growing up, you didn't have to have a SS card until you turned 18 y.o. I applied for my SS card, and registered for the draft, on my 18th birthday. Difference between then, and now, is that I didn't have to have a mound of paperwork to prove who I was and how old I was. I used my non-photo Driver's License for both. Simpler times back then. I do remember having to use my birth certificate for the DL application when I was 16, though.
It is a simple fact that one has two choices now, in 2011 going on 2012. One can either comply with the requirements for living in this society and reaping its benefits, or try to live in the 19th century and then piss and moan about not being able to access local, state, federal gov't offices and benefits, do banking, and otherwise live below the radar with no way to confirm their identity. I DO NOT CARE which path one chooses; no skin off my nose either way.
You gave an example; my turn. Back in the early 1990s, a group named EARTH FIRST! blocked the entrance to the nuclear plant I worked at, and spray painted graffiti all over the place. They were duly arrested, hosed down with fire hoses(they hadn't bathed in several weeks and smelled bad enough to gag a buzzard off a gut wagon), and put in orange coveralls, fingerprinted, and placed in jail cells.
During booking process, they refused to give their names, and had no form of identification on them. This had worked for them before, and was one of their tactics to get out of jail. They were given numbers, and on the fingerprint cards they were identified as Jane or John Doe, and were identified by the number on their classy orange coveralls. Some had police records, and were identified in that manner, but not before they went before the county judge. They had hired several attorneys to represent them. They refused again to give their names in court when asked, and disrupted the courtroom shouting and chanting. BAD move. The judge was/is a no nonsense sort of guy. He held them ALL in contempt of court, gave them a 30 day sentence, and told them that if they refused at the end of 30 days to give their names, that he would hold them in contempt of court again, and sentence them to another 30 days in jail.
This is not how they had been treated in the big city; this small town treatment was a new experience for them. They hadn't been freed just to get rid of them. Not cool. Their attorneys worked to get them released, but that didn't happen until they had given their names, been fined for damages, and served their contempt of court sentences. Some of them got to stay a bit longer(as in from 3 months to 11 months and 29 days depending on severity of offense), as the county deputies and TN State Patrol officers had assault charges against some of them. And the same judge heard the cases at trial and handed down their sentences. There was no early release for "Good Behavior"; at that time and place, good behavior was expected of prisoners, or else.
What was the point of the above? Simple really. If they had cooperated, given names and had I.D. on them, they would have been likely just fined and sent on their smelly way. They didn't cooperate, made donkey holes of themselves with both the PD and court, and got the dirty end of the stick. Getting back to the photo I.D. thing, you don't have to have one, but it sure can come in handy when dealing with the authorities of whatever stripe.
All I see going on is a lot of straining at gnats and swallowing camels here. Carry on.
― Douglas Adams
Hey, I've been asked for my DL simply by presenting a credit card, cashing a check, for issuing a store credit, or just to talk to a bank official about my checking accounts. My DL wasn't free. My CCW wasn't free, and getting official duplicates of official records always involves a fee. Grandma's going to have to hustle her butt and join the real world. Her age is immaterial. It's been up to her to CHA (cover her you know what), and she's been negligent, apparently with bad advice from her deceased husband.
One's original SS card is an important document, as is a birth certificate, and it was her responsibility to either preserve both in a safe place, or replace them upon loss or destruction. It wasn't Grandpa's responsibility, it was hers.
Voter fraud is a real-world occurance, it seems to me, and I'm all for tightening the ID rules. Even for poor, old Grandma.
I TOTALLY agree with you about this, but the REAL issue isn't the money... it's voter ignorance/apathy.
Luis
Never heard of ACORN? Got your head in the sand? Here's a story from the WSJ about ACORN. Non-issue? Hmmmm.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html
Campaign finance? Let's see, didn't SCOTUS rule that corporations are also protected by free speech? Oh, well, let's just put an end to all free speech to those with lots of money, and tax them to death, as well. Right?
How about this report from Michelle Malkin's site:
Republicans on the House Administration Committee want to shore up voter registration rules in the wake of a Colorado study that found as many as 5,000 non-citizens in the state took part in last year’s election.
Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, called the study “a disturbing wake-up call” that should cause every state to review its safeguards to prevent illegal voting.
[...]
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican, told the panel that his department’s study identified nearly 12,000 people who were not citizens but were still registered to vote in Colorado.
Of those non-citizen registered voters, nearly 5,000 took part in the 2010 general election in which Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet narrowly defeated Republican John Buck.\
That's just one state.
Let's add Judicial Watch. Ah, ACORN and its affiliates again.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/aug/documents-acorn-and-project-vote-activity-led-dramatic-increase-invalid-colorado-voter