Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Voter ID bill to be filed Thursday


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:59 PM

http://www.wral.com/...rsday/12304181/

Raleigh, N.C. — House Speaker Thom Tillis and Republican House leaders will file a voter identification proposal Thursday after what Tillis says has been "a transparent and deliberative process" of seeking public input. "This bill has had more discussion than anything in recent history," said House Elections Committee Co-chairman Tim Moore.

Under the proposal, beginning in 2016, voters would be required to show a photo ID at the polls. The bill would allow "multiple forms of state-issued ID," according to Rep. Tom Murry, R-Wake, including tribal cards, public university IDs and state employee IDs. Private university IDs would not qualify.

Voters without a photo ID will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot but would have to return to their local board of elections with a valid photo ID to have the ballot counted.
Approved forms of IDs that have expired would be accepted up to 10 years from their date of issuance or date of expiration.

For voters over 70, a photo ID that was valid at the time they were 70 will be considered valid indefinitely.

The bill would allow free voter IDs as well as free copies of birth certificates for those who are willing to attest under the penalty of perjury, a felony, that they have a "financial hardship." The definition of "financial hardship" has not yet been provided.

Those who can pay for their photo ID would be required to do so.

People with disabilities as defined in federal law would not be required to show ID.

The bill also makes changes to absentee voting by mail. The forms would be pre-printed, which Tillis says will make the process easier. But beginning in 2014, they will require the submission of a driver's license number, the final four digits of a Social Security number or other federally-approved identification documents like a copy of a utility bill.


In addition...it will open studies to look into things like

The act also directs the State Board of Elections to study the feasibility of creating a statewide digital database of photos, perhaps using facial recognition software, according to Rep. Harry Warren, R-Rowan.



#2 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:13 PM

The provision at the bottom seems big brotherish.

#3 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:17 PM

The provision at the bottom seems big brotherish.


How so.

If we had retinal scans think how much faster we could make the voting process. No one knows who you voted for...just you are who you say you are.

By the way...we've blown by 1984.

#4 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,559 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:19 PM

And it's pretty clear you're gunning for position in the Ministry of Truth.

#5 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

So you don't like gun registration because it makes it easier for the government "round up guns" but you're okay with the government having facial recognition or retinal scanning software for everyone?

Big government is okay as long as it isn't taking your guns? If they have facial recognition software at voting sites, who is to say they won't use it in other ways?

Just seems that your distrust of the government would be consistent, but it's not.

#6 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:29 PM

So you don't like gun registration because it makes it easier for the government "round up guns" but you're okay with the government having facial recognition or retinal scanning software for everyone?

Big government is okay as long as it isn't taking your guns? If they have facial recognition software at voting sites, who is to say they won't use it in other ways?

Just seems that your distrust of the government would be consistent, but it's not.


Wait...you want a gun registry?

But don't want a voter registry?

You do realize we HAVE to have a voter registry right?

#7 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,566 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:30 PM

The provision at the bottom seems big brotherish.



VERY VERY Much so

#8 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,375 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:33 PM

So you don't like gun registration because it makes it easier for the government "round up guns" but you're okay with the government having facial recognition or retinal scanning software for everyone?

Big government is okay as long as it isn't taking your guns? If they have facial recognition software at voting sites, who is to say they won't use it in other ways?

Just seems that your distrust of the government would be consistent, but it's not.


Not sure who the "you" here you're referring to is... I'll assume it's G5. Idk his opinion on "gun registry" I think it's not a bad idea.


A LOT of the voter measures recently, particularly the ones done IN VOTING YEARS are in fact ploys to disenfranchise certain groups... of that I have no doubt.

But, as I've said all along, you have to have ID to do ANYTHING else relating to the gov't. Anything. Not having to show your ID to vote is just silly... I don't think there is massive voter fraud going on... but to get so up in arms about having to do something you already have to do everywhere else is just stupid.


#9 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:34 PM

An old lady's eyes versus a program that does it electronically.

Are you concerned of your picture being stored somewhere? Like the DMV? Passport? Etc?

#10 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,566 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:35 PM

How so.

If we had retinal scans think how much faster we could make the voting process. No one knows who you voted for...just you are who you say you are.

By the way...we've blown by 1984.



Retinal scanners....Seriously?

You can't talk the small Gov line and think something like that wouldn't be exploited to hell.



Same concept applies to Universal Background checks and eventual confiscation.

#11 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:40 PM

Retinal scanners....Seriously?

You can't talk the small Gov line and think something like that wouldn't be exploited to hell.



Same concept applies to Universal Background checks and eventual confiscation.


Retinal is a heckuva lot stable and accurate than facial recognition software and less faulty. In another decade, they'll probably be on everyone's laptops for logon...like some with fingerprint swipers.

How would this be exploited?

In terms of this, what would be confiscated. Where's the harmed party. I can easily be swayed on that fact, but show the true harm. There's no invasion of privacy because your vote is still secret. Voter registration/voter record is public record. DMV already has your pics for other stuff. You refuse to get a license?

#12 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,559 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:44 PM

Retina scans are wonderful and there's no problems whatsoever, only the criminals need to be afraid. I don't get what you guys are so scared o-

*Obama signs a bill involving increased use of retina scans*

WAKE UP SHEEPLE! IF HITLER HAD RETINA SCANS YOU BEST BELIEVE HE'D BE USING THEM! HERE COMES OLD BIG BROTHER TO CONTROL OUR LIVES! YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'M DEFENDING ME AND MINE WHEN THEY COME FOR ME!

#13 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:48 PM

Way to focus on the absurb conclusion...keep reading the thread Delhommey. You sound like a CWG/Panthro-clone.

If the iris scans to vote were somehow linked to outstanding warrant LEA systems, I could see that as a potential 5th amendment violation. But only because of the carrying out of another civil right are you incriminating yourself. Something like scanning driver's licenses to track potential probation violators would not be as there is no civil right infringement. IMO...

#14 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,375 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:49 PM

Not sure how we got from showing ID to retinal scans... but ok...

Those old ladies at my polling place can't TYPE ON A COMPUTER. How are they going run a retinal scan machine???

#15 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 01:57 PM

Not sure how we got from showing ID to retinal scans... but ok...

Those old ladies at my polling place can't TYPE ON A COMPUTER. How are they going run a retinal scan machine???


Joking around...article mentioned studies into facial recognition software. I simply would put more trust in iris scanning, but it's not even part of this bill.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com