Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

g5jamz

Voter ID bill to be filed Thursday

31 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The provision at the bottom seems big brotherish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The provision at the bottom seems big brotherish.

VERY VERY Much so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • You miss the point. Taylor was here before. We picked him because of what he could do for our wide receivers not because he had some great knowledge no other person had on the staff. Shula and Rivera and Gettleman studied multiple college systems for months before signing Taylor or drafting McCaffrey or Curtis and would have drafted the same whether Taylor was here or not. They liked the way Taylor developed McCaffrey which showed his talent but Stanford's offense wasn't Taylors idea or unique to him. Shula has a connection to Taylor as early as when Shula was at Alabama.  The debate was whether Taylor was chosen to replace Shula because Shula didn't know what to do to run a college offense and if he screwed up Taylor would replace him. And that Taylor was the reason and most influential in getting McCaffrey. I said it wasn't even close to the truth and this plan predated Taylor and was more thorough and we'll thought out. Everything since then just confirms I was right once again like usual.  
    • Assholes should've never taken it away in the first place.  Me and a couple buddies had a hookup and were all hyped up and planned out going to it... then the NBA had to get all political and take it out on the city of Charlotte and the fans -- which made no fuging sense.  Seriously doubt we'll even get the chance to go again.
    • 6'6" 255.  He'll definitely have some good mentors with JP, CJ and the rest of the D-Line crew. 255 he'll need to put some weight on don't you think?