Florida continues to investigate voter fraud but the DOJ is not supporting the effort.
An initial search turned up as many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be U.S. citizens. (Obama does not vote in Florida )

The Feds should be helping but not this Obama Administration.
U.S. Department of Justice contends that the state is violating federal law.
What more of a violation than voter fraud in this situation?
Every local, state, federal authorities and politician should be making this their duty … Oh! Wait it is their job to stop voter fraud …

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/01/feds-order-florida-to-halt-ongoing-push-to-remove-thousands-voters-from-rolls/

What the hell is going on in this country?

Yes but Romney is no different from Obama, so I'm sure his Justice Dept would be doing the same thing . . . :rolleyes::rolleyes:

While I don't want illegals/ineligible people voting, this thing in Florida has been shown to not exactly be 100% efficient in identifying ineligible voters. What method are they using? Funny Sounding names? To me not letting a us citizen vote is just as bad as letting an ineligible person vote.

At this point, why would this be a federal as opposed to a state issue?

Basically, the Repubs don't care if they disenfranchise some (likely) Democratic voters to ensure "integrity" of the process. And the Dems don't want to disenfranchise any of THEIR voters (in 2000 they had little issue contesting overseas military ballots in FL) and any ineligible voters that might also punch "Dem" is just a bonus.

What a bunch of fucking frauds we have running this country.

I want to disenfranchise dead voters and illegal voters. Everyone else should too. To that end, states are requiring photo ID's in order to cast a vote. How that is controversial, when you need a photo ID to buy alcohol, get on a plane, drive a vehicle, is beyond me.

How is requiring a photo ID disenfranchising legitimate voters? Nevermind, I know the answer- it isn't.

pmoney25;1186739 wrote:While I don't want illegals/ineligible people voting, this thing in Florida has been shown to not exactly be 100% efficient in identifying ineligible voters. What method are they using? Funny Sounding names? To me not letting a us citizen vote is just as bad as letting an ineligible person vote.

I suppose I'd be screwed, too, going to my polling place and not taking proof of eligibility documents with me. But really does this have to be rocket science? Eligible voters should be able to prove as such without too much difficulty. The sticking point is being given sufficient notice.

Truthfully I'm a bit of a loss as to how someone would "survive" without sufficient documentation of eligibility (birth certificate, SS card, driver's license, etc...) because the need for that documentation comes up in a lot of instances. I can envision a few scenarios where you haven't needed that documentation for years and years, but then a long history of being a registered voter should address that. If you haven't been registered for at least 5-10 years, then most likely you have and needed such documentation recently for a job move, new residence, etc...

gut;1186880 wrote:Truthfully I'm a bit of a loss as to how someone would "survive" without sufficient documentation of eligibility (birth certificate, SS card, driver's license, etc...) because the need for that documentation comes up in a lot of instances.

* To operate an automobile.
* To register a vehicle.
* To open a bank account.
* To cash a check
* To purchase or lease a house, condo, or apartment.
* To obtain a loan for a mortgage, car or anything else of substance.
* To start a job (needed for government reporting requirements).
* To apply for government aid or benefits, such as unemployment, social security, etc.
* To play or coach an organized sport, such as Little League.
* To be an adult leader in a Boy/Girl Scout Troop.
* To enter the military.
* To board an airplane or ship.
* To visit a foreign country.
* To purchase a gun.
* To make an in-store purchase using a check.
* To purchase alcohol.
* To visit a school campus, college, or company.
* To serve on a jury.
* To obtain a library card.
* To deposit garbage in the local dump.

...just to name a few.

But - oh no's - if we ask for valid ID to prove citizenship at the polling places we're racist bigots.

The fact that the "progressives" in this once proud country object to it is not surprising.

It's not about maintaining integrity, honesty, and validity in our representative democratic republic...the great beacon of freedom the whole world has come to covet.

It's far more important to gain and maintain political power even if we have to "earn" it by hook, crook, and/or invalid votes.

And we all know where a vast majority of illegal votes lean, don't we?

Perfect ! Who side is this Obama Administration on. Thank God I declaried early NOT MY PRESIDENT
Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division need to be fired also .....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/12/justice-department-sues-florida-over-purging-voter-rolls-as-expected/#ixzz1xdbrRf6y


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/12/justice-department-sues-florida-over-purging-voter-rolls-as-expected/

yes states have no record of denying citizens their right to vote. there is a reason why the federal government is involved in protecting voters.

isadore;1198848 wrote:yes states have no record of denying citizens their right to vote. there is a reason why the federal government is involved in protecting voters.

gosh a ruddies- the federal government's interference with states' legitimate efforts to purge their voter rolls of dead citizens, people who have moved to another state, and illegals is the OPPOSITE of protecting voters.

and gosh does Florida have an extended history of denying many of its citizens the right to vote. why yes it does. and what action started to end that process, why gosh a ruddies it was the intervention of the federal government.

and what do Republican election official in Florida think of the new election laws
"All 67of Florida's Democratic, Republican and independent county elections supervisors have joined together to oppose and stop Scott’s attempts to suppress the vote. "
http://ed.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/12/12189957-breaking-justice-department-sues-florida-over-voter-purge

ccrunner609;1198957 wrote:^^^MSNBC ca call it "suppressing" the vote......its not true. Everyone that is legally eligible to vote can vote.

that is why all the election supervisors oppose it.

isadore;1198965 wrote:that is why all the election supervisors oppose it.

All that really tells me is they aren't paid for their OT. Govt workers who oppose working harder. Shocking, I know.

I don't necessarily disagree this may be a little too "11th hour". But it's appalling that in order to prevent some legal voters from being disenfranchised, you allow illegal votes which harms the rights of legitimate voters.

It should not be difficult to prove you have a legal right to vote if your eligibility is in question. Implicit in this opposition is that we have a constitutional right to somehow NOT be required to show proof of eligibility. And that is just flat wrong.

what we have is an effort to intimidate and disenfranchise legal voters.

isadore;1199186 wrote:what we have is an effort to intimidate and disenfranchise legal voters.

If they are legal voters than they already had to show proof of ID to register. The DEMS have acted incredibly stupid over the last 4 or 5 years but is the absolute dumbest thing I've ever heard of. You need to prove who you are in all jurisdictions to register, in many you have to bring ID to the voting center. As Believer astutely mentioned above you can't exist in American society without ID, and you certainly can't register to vote. Proving who you are when you show up doesn't disenfranchise anyone other than someone that is planning to cheat the system - if you lose your ID there are ways of submitting a provincial ballot in many jurisdictions.

This should be a bipartisan no-brainer. Unfortunately one major party doesn't have brains - why do the DEMS oppose this?

The whole process is seen by Florida REPUBLICAN election supervisors as an unfair effort to suppress the vote based on flawed information.

isadore;1199410 wrote:The whole process is seen by Florida REPUBLICAN election supervisors as an unfair effort to suppress the vote based on flawed information.

Link? Site? What flawed information? This shouldn't be an issue. Period! It isn't in Virginia, you have to show ID to vote on the computers...no ifs, ands or buts. If for some reason your wallet was stolen, or for some other reason lose your ID you must fill out a paper ballot and sign an affidavit with CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES if you lie about it.

What is wrong with this scenario? This is the strangest debate in American politics, if you can't prove who you are, you shouldn't vote. How is this disenfranchising anyone?

Manhattan Buckeye;1199468 wrote:Link? Site? What flawed information? This shouldn't be an issue. Period! It isn't in Virginia, you have to show ID to vote on the computers...no ifs, ands or buts. If for some reason your wallet was stolen, or for some other reason lose your ID you must fill out a paper ballot and sign an affidavit with CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES if you lie about it.

What is wrong with this scenario? This is the strangest debate in American politics, if you can't prove who you are, you shouldn't vote. How is this disenfranchising anyone?

The database relies on some outdated driver's license information, and a number of the people on the list of possible non-citizens have since proven their citizenship, according to the state's election department. Opponents of the purge argue that the efforts disproportionately targeted Latinos and Democrats.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57450812/justice-dept-sues-florida-over-voter-purge/

isadore;1199186 wrote:what we have is an effort to intimidate and disenfranchise legal voters.

mmmmmm......no.

isadore;1199485 wrote:The database relies on some outdated driver's license information, and a number of the people on the list of possible non-citizens have since proven their citizenship, according to the state's election department.

Great. I guess they shouldn't have any issues showing their valid drivers license's at the polling places then. Apparently they had to prove at some point to the state election department they are citizens. No harm in requiring that ID to be produced at the voting booth then.

“
Florida has asked county election officials to remove up to 2,600 voters who may be registered illegally. But the federal government’s suit says the state’s list is “outdated and inaccurate.”
“
Using driver’s license data, the state compiled a list of 182,000 voters who it said might not be citizens. It winnowed that list to 2,600 and asked county supervisors to contact each person on it. Those who could not prove their citizenship within 90 days would be removed from the voter rolls.
But county officials halted the effort on May 31. A lawyer for the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections found that most people on the list who had been contacted so far were legal voters. Among those contacted were recently naturalized immigrants and at least one who was a decorated war veteran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/us/justice-department-sues-florida-over-voter-purge.html

isadore;1200204 wrote:A lawyer for the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections found that most people on the list who had been contacted so far were legal voters. Among those contacted were recently naturalized immigrants and at least one who was a decorated war veteran.

Bear with me here....

So, these "legal" voters, whom conceivably could not prove they had the right to vote, have proven so? In other words, they provided said documentation so what's the problem?

Second question: Why is it a lawyer finding that these people are legal voters instead of, you know, the election supervisors tasked with the job? As far as the lawyer validating their right to vote - well, OJ's lawyers said he was innocent and I guess they were correct. Not like lawyers ever lie or anything.