McDonnell Signs Voter ID Law, Issues ...

McDonnell Signs Voter ID Law, Issues Executive Order - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sport...

There are 100 comments on the NBC29 Charlottesville story from May 18, 2012, titled McDonnell Signs Voter ID Law, Issues Executive Order - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sport.... In it, NBC29 Charlottesville reports that:

The NBC29 newsroom received the following release from the Office of Governor McDonnell: Governor McDonnell Signs SB 1 and HB 9 and Issues Executive Order Governor Directs State Board of Elections to Send Every Virginia Voter a Free Voter Card Between Now and Election Day Governor: "We will be sending every voter in Virginia a free voter card ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29 Charlottesville.

Shine On

Powhatan, VA

#21 May 18, 2012
Sure, please send out MORE ID CARDS with NO PHOTOS!

Then I'll have four: my two new ones for this year and the two for the mystery man who has never lived here in the 15 years this address has existed.

Called the county voter office and got the brush-off. Can't imagine what that poor civil servant must have thought of me trying to report some registration irregularity.
yepper

Charlottesville, VA

#22 May 18, 2012
Grand standing it is. Brought to you by a contender for vice puppet. Funny how we lose our rights day after day by our own government and say nothing but stand up and holler about voting rights for others. This country has gone to heck in a hand basket.
Va Citizen

Lexington, VA

#23 May 19, 2012
Some of you people just don't get it. The intent here is to stop the illegals from voting and seeing that dead people don't vote. I approve of what the governor is doing and I hope that the general public will see the light. In addition to your voter registration card, you will also have to present a photo id for identity. Just as your driver's license is protected, so should you voter registration be.
heh

Charlottesville, VA

#24 May 19, 2012
Va Citizen wrote:
Some of you people just don't get it. The intent here is to stop the illegals from voting and seeing that dead people don't vote.
No it's not.

There is not one instance of a dead person voting or an illegal voting resulting in a fine, arrest, conviction, etc. which this voter ID law would have prevented. Not ONE!

There is no such problem, none, NADA.

“Don't Drink The Obama Kool-Aid”

Since: Aug 09

You don't need to know, Va.

#25 May 19, 2012
heh wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not.
There is not one instance of a dead person voting or an illegal voting resulting in a fine, arrest, conviction, etc. which this voter ID law would have prevented. Not ONE!
There is no such problem, none, NADA.
I guess since there is not one instance of a person being convicted of being a dead person that dead people do not exist. Is that right?
TL in Cville

Charlottesville, VA

#26 May 20, 2012
I can't think of a better way to uphold the Constitution than allowing those who are eligible to vote to do so.

And prevent those who cannot vote from doing so.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#27 May 20, 2012
TL in Cville wrote:
I can't think of a better way to uphold the Constitution than allowing those who are eligible to vote to do so.
And prevent those who cannot vote from doing so.
Those that connot vote, already can't; all this does is discourage some that are eligible from.
Blackhawk57

Waynesboro, VA

#28 May 20, 2012
This is just pure common sense and should have been a requirement many years ago. Thanks Bob McDonnell!
Get Real

United States

#29 May 20, 2012
Failing to see how it discourages anybody from voting...if anything, those this law offends would be motivated to vote for somebody that would reverse the law; and it would motivate those that are for the law to vote in order to keep it.

Anybody that would be discouraged by this probably shouldn't vote anyways (because they would be lazy, ignorant, hand-out wanting fools, and I'd prefer they stay home).
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#30 May 20, 2012
Blackhawk57 wrote:
This is just pure common sense and should have been a requirement many years ago. Thanks Bob McDonnell!
How is spending millions of dollars implimenting redundant systems that may discourage eligible voters from voting common sense? Are you a government worker, on welfare, or a politician?
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#31 May 20, 2012
Get Real wrote:
Failing to see how it discourages anybody from voting...if anything, those this law offends would be motivated to vote for somebody that would reverse the law; and it would motivate those that are for the law to vote in order to keep it.
Anybody that would be discouraged by this probably shouldn't vote anyways (because they would be lazy, ignorant, hand-out wanting fools, and I'd prefer they stay home).
http://www.nbc29.com/story/18483056/new-laws-...

"It's going to be more burdensome for the voter, and actually more burdensome for the electoral board because we're going to have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of provisional ballots that we're going to have to go through," Iachetta said
Get Real wrote:
I'd prefer they stay home.
Does that really sum it up? Is that how you define democracy? The framers would define it as tyranny.
Get Real

United States

#32 May 20, 2012
I believe the framers wanted the citizenry legally entitled to participate to do so. It is likely (in my opinion, as a history major that focued on colonial and early American history) they would not take issues with mechanisms in place to ensure that only those legally entitled to vote were able to do so.

Further, the framers would certainly count tyranny as a government that taxes to the hilt those who have worked hard and earned financial comfort, while over 50% of the nation does not pay income tax at all. They would also define it as tyranny, for a government to provide cradle to grave benefits to those who are capable of working, but do not.

Lastly, they would count as tyranical, a government that incurrs so much debt, that it shackles the nation to other countries, and buries (for generations) its citizens in debt.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#33 May 20, 2012
Get Real wrote:
I believe the framers wanted the citizenry legally entitled to participate to do so. It is likely (in my opinion, as a history major that focued on colonial and early American history) they would not take issues with mechanisms in place to ensure that only those legally entitled to vote were able to do so.
Further, the framers would certainly count tyranny as a government that taxes to the hilt those who have worked hard and earned financial comfort, while over 50% of the nation does not pay income tax at all. They would also define it as tyranny, for a government to provide cradle to grave benefits to those who are capable of working, but do not.
Lastly, they would count as tyranical, a government that incurrs so much debt, that it shackles the nation to other countries, and buries (for generations) its citizens in debt.
Link to over 50% not paying income tax? The framers wouldn't approve of any income tax, any welfare, nor would they support a standing army.

But here, don't take my word for it:

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
~Benjamin Franklin

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime,
abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest
breaks up the foundations of society."
~Thomas Jefferson

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."
~Thomas Jefferson

you clearly posted this:
Get Real wrote:
(because they would be lazy, ignorant, hand-out wanting fools, and I'd prefer they stay home).
But lets get to the root of your post. This law will not ensure nor prevent voter fraud, it will only prevent something that has not been proven to exist. According to our resident election official, and according to the article, it changes very little at a great cost.

Before the law was passed, if you did not have ID; you wrote a provisional ballot, now if you don't have an ID, you write a provisional ballot.

AND I QUOTE:

"The bill forces voters who don't show ID to cast a provisional ballot to be counted after the election only if voters can validate their identity with local registrars.

With the bill, a McDonnell executive order directs the State Board of Elections to send out new voter ID cards statewide at a cost of about $1.3 million."

You are a proponent of incurring debt to fix a problem that does not exist, but will discourage some from making the effort to vote, which is something you encourage. In other words, you are supporting spending tax dollars to build a redundant system that discourages legitimate voters from voting.
Get Real

United States

#34 May 20, 2012
Just Google 2011 American's who are exempt from income tax, and you'll see a plethora of articles and sources (including the Tax Policy Center)detailing who paid and who didn't. BLUF on that - flat tax for all persons and business with no exemptions = fair tax.

Now onto other items...the framers did agree with a systems of taxes - their heartburn was over taxation without representation. They laid the foundation for Congress to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. Decent roll-up on Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendm...
Get Real

United States

#35 May 20, 2012
Oh yeah...I can't help that you believe the law is redundant, costly, etc...I believe the cost is worthwhile and will be effective. Those that don't have their ID cast a provisional ballot - if they can't prove their identity to the local registrar, then their ballot is not counted. Makes sense to me.
As for the horrible, terrible burden of having to prove your identity - TOUGH!! The cost of liberty and freedom is high...those that aren't willing to pay the price neither deserve liberty, nor would they be able to keep or maintain it, save for the few that are willing to do both for the many.

Sweet quotes...some of my favorites. None of them apply to this law though. If you believe they do, then those great men would not have had a problem being led by a monarchy choosing for them. Instead, they risked everything to enjoy the liberties that (you are correct) our government has been steadily reducing through its nanny state policies.
Get Real

United States

#36 May 20, 2012
Oh yeah...and for incurring debt - Virginia has a balanced budget amendment that requires it's annual budget to be balanced (something our Federal government should do). So this bill doesn't cause Virginia to have debt; it requires it to choose what other service(s) it cuts in order to pay for it.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#37 May 20, 2012
Get Real wrote:
Just Google 2011 American's who are exempt from income tax, and you'll see a plethora of articles and sources (including the Tax Policy Center)detailing who paid and who didn't. BLUF on that - flat tax for all persons and business with no exemptions = fair tax.
Now onto other items...the framers did agree with a systems of taxes - their heartburn was over taxation without representation. They laid the foundation for Congress to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. Decent roll-up on Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendm...
It's less that 50%, and that number is dishonest because it counts the retired.
I've read the arguments on flat tax. There's two reason that it'll never pass, one because in order for it to be effective, it'll have to be high enough that it would actually increase taxes on the wealthy, while taking more disposable income from the less wealthy, creating a larger wealth gap. The other is it reduces economic incentives that specific taxes create. If you do the math, you'll realize that if you taxed the lowest 40%(and it's actually more than that) 100% of their income you would generate roughly 3% less revenue than if you taxed the upper 1%, 1% more of their income.

That's all beside the point; the main problem is spending, so we need reform in a responsible manner that will not create the hardships that blatant austerity is creating in Greece and Spain. Everything needs to be an option, from military, to social programs. At the same time, raising taxes to the Reagan, H. Bush, or Clinton era, also needs to be on the table.

I'm actually a flat tax proponent, even though I would probably be one of those that pay more taxes because I would lose a lot of write offs. It would require massive overhaul, and I don't know what kind of short term damage it would do to the already fragile economy.

I know, it's specifically stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US constitution. It makes no mention of an income tax...

Perhaps that is why the Wilson administration had to pass the 16th amendment, giving the federal government the authority to tax income. Surely a Colonial American History Major is not suggesting that Woodrow Wilson was a framer?

While all of that is off topic, my main premise remains. It is a costly redundant system to where there were already effective administrative controls that prevented anyone from misrepresenting themselves from voting. It also makes voting a hassle for two demographics. One, predominately votes democrat, but they're also the demographic with the lowest voter turnout. The other is predominately republican, and is the demographic that has one of the highest voter turnouts. Those demographic are the poor and the elderly.

'County Resident' our resident election official has set me straight on this. There is no fraud that this bill or these new proceedures would prevent. So while it is expensive, it's needless chest pounding.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#38 May 20, 2012
Get Real wrote:
Oh yeah...I can't help that you believe the law is redundant, costly, etc...I believe the cost is worthwhile and will be effective. Those that don't have their ID cast a provisional ballot - if they can't prove their identity to the local registrar, then their ballot is not counted. Makes sense to me.
As for the horrible, terrible burden of having to prove your identity - TOUGH!! The cost of liberty and freedom is high...those that aren't willing to pay the price neither deserve liberty, nor would they be able to keep or maintain it, save for the few that are willing to do both for the many.
Sweet quotes...some of my favorites. None of them apply to this law though. If you believe they do, then those great men would not have had a problem being led by a monarchy choosing for them. Instead, they risked everything to enjoy the liberties that (you are correct) our government has been steadily reducing through its nanny state policies.
Like our resident election official has pointed out, yes; under the old system, it was pretty much the same way. If you didn't have your ID, you still had to fill out a provisional ballot. Most of us didn't know that because we show our IDs. I forgot my wallet once and was asked to fill one out, along with some testimonial that I would have had to fill swearing that I was who I was. I decided to go home and get my ID. So, nothing has changed in that regard.
You're going to tell me about liberty and freedom, we're not even the highest country on the freedom index, seriously? If you've read through this thread, you'll see that I have my DD-214... If you don't know what that means, don't lecture me on those who have served.
They all apply, since you're the one that wants to disenfranchise those who are eligible to vote.

Ironically, this is just more statism, and you people fall for it. Just like executing citizens without due process, torture, and warrantless surveillance.
&fe ature=related

I didn't leave the republican party, it left me.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#39 May 20, 2012
Get Real wrote:
Oh yeah...and for incurring debt - Virginia has a balanced budget amendment that requires it's annual budget to be balanced (something our Federal government should do). So this bill doesn't cause Virginia to have debt; it requires it to choose what other service(s) it cuts in order to pay for it.
Cool, lets fire the teachers./sarcasm

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/12/report-w...
Get Real

United States

#40 May 20, 2012
@Dude...gotta go (work calls)- good discussion!
Concur with the taxation bits in your last - especially the spending part...no not trying to suggest Wilson being a framer, rather pointing out that the framers did not want taxation without representation (comment sections and getting ready for work don't mix sometimes!)

Looks like we won't change each other's minds on the ID legislation (at least not in this forum).

Respect for the DD214...I have 2 and working on my 3rd right now - I am one of the lucky ones so far (the ISP out here gets sent back through the States).

All the best!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Virginia Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Op-Ed Columnist: The Republicans' Big Senate Mess Mon Retiree 2
News Attorney General warns of pay-for-prayer scam Apr 11 Reality 1
News Multi-Millionaire Mass Murderer for Senate -- H... Apr 9 Patrick 1
News Kaine Brings Re-Election Campaign to Charlottes... Apr 9 Thomas 1
News Trump endorses every West Virginia Senate candi... Apr 7 THOMMY 2
News Israeli monitor: Settlements grew under Trump p... Mar 26 bob 2
News Train carrying Republican lawmakers hits truck ... Feb '18 Quid Non 19