44 comments

  1. Mad Dog says:

    ugavi,

    I think he’s saying a unform standard and four years of lead time would be a good start.

    Your question should be “do you think there is a need for a photo voter ID issued for a fee through 2 or 3 offices located in metro areas?”

    We already have voter ID standards. Voter registration cards. Poll workers. Poll watchers. … all for the purpose of voter ID (identification).

    Even Iraq had purple fingers for voter ID. Is there a need has already been answered. How to ID is the issue. It’s no longer good enough to be known by reputation, status in the community, etc etc.

    Now we’re all about to become “numbered” in some way, eh?

  2. Ugavi I have been consistent in the comments here in saying that I have no problem with requiring a photo ID, and in fact I think it’s a good goal to work towards. My problem is the suspect nature of the GOP’s ID bill here in Georgia and its insistence that it get done RIGHT NOW 🙂

  3. ugavi says:

    chris,
    I’m pretty new, so haven’t seen you past posts on the subject. We agree that VoterID is needed. If Cathy had been doing her job, we would have education and VoterID programs in place.

    MD,
    I’ll agree that there should be some type of phase in period. Thanks for making one of the points of why we need VoterID. Our poll workers are hardworking folks. They are not trained in signiture verification. Which is about the only way we can currently ensure that the person having a non-photo id is indeed who they say they are.

    The purple fingers in Irag, were to show people who had voted, not confirm that they were registered or valid voters.

  4. Hey Eric, thanks to your hard work in the legislature ID is no longer required to vote absentee. Which is strange, if someone were to theoretically impersonate another voter in person, at least there would be some sort of evidence — the poll workers that signed them in.

    However, when someone commits absentee ballot fraud, there is never any human contact. No ID, no visual contact, no audio contact, no nothing. How’s that for selective outrage?

    Please respond to this comment with a soundbyte.

  5. Mad Dog says:

    Eric Johnson, the Archietect that became a Reale Estat Agent.

    HOw mUch money did you donate to the craxy woman, Nancy Schaefer?

    The closet scientoligist?

    and did Warrior have to bend over for your prize?

  6. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog:

    Comments like that are what give blogs a bad name!

    (but typical of liberal Democrats… change the subject and conduct personal and meanspirited attacks if/when losing the debate)

    –Rob McEwen

  7. Mad Dog says:

    Oh Rob,

    Ya think fancy pants can’t stand the heat in the kitchen?

    When he posed for that campaign picture … the one in the slick business suit with the red boxing gloves … did he think he was Mohammed Ali?

    When conversative are losing in the court room, and they are on this issue, they should take their lumps like … and move on.

    The debate on this blog, who wins, who loses, matters just about as much as my personal opinion of the fine Senator.

    Erewick John’s son.

    But, to continue the Mad Dog legacy, when someone threatens Andre with all kinds of physical harm, etc etc, where were you in defense of proper blogging?

    When Erewick and the GOP Senate stop shoving slop to Schaefer, stop feeding her paranoid delusions, cut the money umbilical, and make her run with whatever financial support she can find in her district…

    I’ll stop posting as Mad Dog.

    You know, I know, and Johnson knows… if we were chosing teams for any type of contest, we had to choose between Jackson and Schaefer, Carol Jackson’s name would be called before Nancy Schaefer.

    So Rob, as much as I respect you, and I do, I do, I don’t agree that ONLY liberal Democrats change subjects in the midst of debate, or conduct personal and meanspirited attacks.

    (On a blog, if you can’t dish it out and take it, don’t blog would seem the first rule)

    Not directing that at Rob.

  8. dingleberry says:

    Mad Dog is right.

    He has posed this question to Senator Johnson several times when it was a timely topic, and the Senator has not answered.

    In other news, the answer to Mad Dog’s question can be found on Senator Schaefer’s latest financial disclosure:

    Eric Johnson, State Senator, $2,000

  9. pvsys says:

    When conversative are losing in the court room, and they are on this issue, they should take their lumps like … and move on.

    The Judicial branch is but 1 of 3 branches of government and ALL branches provide checks and balances against each other, with no one branch being immune to correction by the other branches.

    But liberals forget that since the judicial branch tries so often to accomplish for liberals what couldn’t be done at the ballot box.

    I look forward to the day that the judicial branch gets a real big spanking for overstepping its bounds. There are actualy several good legal formulas for the executive & judicial branches to gang up on the judicial branch and its about time for such corrective action.

    (same goes for States standing up against over-reaching Federal authority)

    –Rob McEwen

  10. Mad Dog says:

    Rob,

    Whenever some one “uses” the court, it seldom undoes the ballot box. That’s just another catch phrase that means nothing.

    The judicial branch is reactive in nature. There has to be a case on the docket before anything happens.

    The various executive offices and legislative branches are always getting their sorry little asses kicked by some judge. AFTER the legislative and executive branches screw things up.

    If the dummies with active roles in government, didn’t find such creative ways to screw up, there would be no action by any judge to correct an imbalance.

    You’re not making sense whenever you imput the judiciary as having an active role in our system.

    It’s an after the fact check on stupidity. Corruption. Tyranny. Abuse of Power.

    “Same goes for States standing up against over-reaching Federal authority” ???

    Another worthless soundbyte. Partisan to the core.

    You want Quitman County searching in Pakistan for bin Laden?

  11. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog:

    Here are some links to various pages which detail specific examples of judicial activism: (I purposely only included pages which gave specific case examples!)

    http://www.conservativematch.com/pl/pages/articles/details.html?ra=1;article_id=313

    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS05D01&f=BC05F01

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/03/29/judicial_activism_or_restraint

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/02/20/arizona_taxpayers_paying_dearly_for_judicial_activism

    >You want Quitman County searching in Pakistan for bin Laden?

    No. But that would be a good example of what would happen if the tables were turned and states started doing to the federal government what the federal govenment is doing for states. Thank you for proving my point!

    Overall, the problem here is when the Federal Government overturns State statues in areas where the Federal Government simply has no jurisdiction. That is what I was referring to.

    For example, every time a Federal judge overturns a state statute and uses any of the 1st 8 amendments to the US Constitution as the primary grounds for such a decision, they are likewise overstepping their jurisdiction as the 1st 8 amendments were intended to apply to the Federal Government, not to States. (of course, various principles of these are rightly incorporated into State constitutions and state law). They mostly are now considered to apply to states via Judges’s proclamations rather than via written constitutional law. (or via an extremely out-of-control broad interpretation of the 14th amendment)

    Other disturbing (but probably legal) examples include where the Federal government funds 5% of a state or local funded operation and then uses this as a means to get their sticky legal hands into the sitution. What this effectively means is that local communities get stuck with “one-size-fits-all” rules coming down from big-brother-federal government.

    –Rob McEwen

  12. Eric, of course it is impossible to show an ID by mail. That is my point.

    On the one hand, you say people must show an ID to vote, at the same time you say if they do it by mail they don’t have to. The reason you must require an ID in person, according to you, is because untold fraud is unfolding at the polls. Now, even though you can’t point to a single instance of election fraud that the photo ID bill would have prevented*, I ask you this: if fraud exists and is being committed, don’t you think those committing it are smart enough to move their operation over to vote by mail?

    I mean, seriously, if it’s just a homeless guy here or there stealing utility bills for kicks, I guess photo ID will put an end to that (if it even exists), if it’s full scale fraud, they’ve already found the new loophole in vote by mail and I guarantee they’ll be exploiting it.

    * – Though there are instances of election fraud in Georgia, every one is either an isolated incident (some neirdowell voting once early and then trying to vote on election day also) or involves complicity from local election officials. In every instance where local election officials were involved, there were already laws on the books they were breaking. So what makes you think that passing a new law will prevent them from breaking that too? Here in lies the rub of voter ID and voting fraud in particular, our elections are really only as secure as the officials that guard them. If the officials are corrupt, there will be no way to stop fraud, and adding another layer of ID will not do anything to stop the type of things that happened in Dodge County in the ’90’s.

  13. pvsys says:

    chrisishardcore:

    It is extremely hard to prove and document many of the types of voter fraud that requiring IDs will prevent!

    And many of these types of fraud do NOT require the involvement of election officials. In fact, some of these types of fraud are next to impossible to catch, even when smart and ethical and hardworking election officials are TRYING to spot them (that is, using the tools and methods legally available).

    The way it works now is that Republicans and others monitor elections (as best as legally possible) and, when doing so, they are accused of “voter intimidation”, most likely from the Democrats who resent that this makes them a little closer to getting caught cheating.

    What I find interesting is that the only times that this type of fraud is ever caught is when it occurs on such a large scale that it starts becoming appearent from pure statistical analysis.

    I provided an example of this in a previous post in another thread on this site regarding a blog post which links to some news articles which PROVE that this sort of fraud happened (on a large scale) in Milwaukee in recent years.

    http://electriccommentary.blogspot.com/2005/01/milwaukee-vote-fraud.html

    As solid as this evidence is which shows that this happened on a large scale in Milwaukee… I’d bet money that there is scant evidence of this happening in Milwaukee on a small-to-medium scale in previous years. But I seriously doubt that this type of cheating in Milwaukee went from zero to exposive all at once… Rather, I think any reasonable person would agree that this probably built up election after election in that area… but I bet in earlier years, it was “below the radar” (but still potentially damaging to election results) because, as I said, until this gets to extreme proportions, this type of fraud is extremely difficult to prove.

    Therefore, your last post is just completely wrong and useless.

    –Rob McEwen

  14. Mad Dog says:

    Quick come back before I start my reading and research.

    When the states ratified the constitution, did they issue a signing statement?

    One that said, we’re not going to agree to all this and everything that comes after except when we want to?

  15. Mad Dog says:

    Rob,

    Looking first at Electric blog.spot. If I’m reading this correctly, the system used and abused is not comparable to the system in Georgia. Correct?

    We don’t allow registration and voting on the same day.

    Using an invalid address for registration would not work to anyone’s advantage in Georgia, since registration cards are mailed. (But, then, no one looks at the card, do they?)

    But, from the article… “While those who register on election day have to present valid identification, it is impossible to check on the spot if the address provided is valid.”

    So whatever passes for valid ID didn’t prevent the errors.

    What would be very interesting to the discussion would be if we found one of those people presenting valid ID for a park, baseball diamond, or golf course.

    It’s interesting reading and thought provoking.

    Certainly proof of clerical error and human error and deception. Out of 277,000 votes … 1200 or less have an unknown address, or invalid address.

    Some 20 percent were just errors? People who lived and worked and had a right to vote, but the information entered into the computer was wrong.

    And, where in the article does it say the voting information is from the 2000 election?

    The article also notes Milwaukee has not purged its list of potential voters in years. Hmmm.

    Several issues, none of them solved by issuing an additional photo ID. Nothing to stop fraud.

    But, like Friedman said, newspapers make for good potty training tools.

    Nothing since this story?

  16. Mad Dog says:

    Conservative watch.

    Is this supposed to show legislation created from the bench?

    Activism by liberal Supreme Court justices?

    If an 18 year old can’t vote, drink beer, or sign a contract, why can we draft them into the military? (Old question from the court).

    As a former 18 year old that had a draft card, no beer, and no credit, … that problem got worked out.

    Roper and Kelo, the two cases cited fail my standards of proof for judicial “activism.”

    In Kelo, the court said the state had the right to set a standard for uses of eminent domain. Affirming state’s rights is bad for your case. I mean the case you’re supporting that judges write legislation.

  17. Mad Dog says:

    The All in the Family Institute:

    Griswold? Griswold is judicial activism? Eisenstadt v. Baird is judicial activism?

    States have a right to interfer in private commercial transactions? (and that helps your case how?)

    Single men can buy condoms. Single women can’t? Only married women can buy … contraceptives.

    Now you know why I call them, all in the family. Lots of shock value. Good for a laugh. Not good in reruns.

    Again, where is the legislation issue?

    It would seem the court was just catching up with society.

    Unless you think society can pass a law that says, married couples are the only couples that may have sex, and then and only then, to produce offspring.

    You might want some better sources than this one. I don’t half the population will find shocking legislative action from the bench in Griswold and Baird et al.

  18. Mad Dog says:

    “The boldest of the bold were four liberal Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court justices who ruled in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health[18] that the commonwealth’s restriction of marriage to male-female unions violated the state constitution. The state legislature requested an advisory opinion from the justices about whether a scheme of civil unions, similar to one adopted by the Vermont state legislature after a like ruling there, would suffice. The four Massachusetts justices, however, over the dissents of three other justices, said, No, civil unions will not do.[19] And so same-sex marriage was imposed on the people of Massachusetts by unelected and electorally unaccountable judges.”

    Still from the Family Council group… this is activism?

    The legislature asked the court for an advisory opinion and you’re using that as proof the court writes legislation?

  19. Mad Dog says:

    Phyllis Schlafly… Rob, you’re dirty making me read this stuff out of respect for you.

    A decade ago, in a case that involved Alabama’s policy about foreign-language driver’s license exams, liberals attempted to induce activist judges to insert the word “language” into the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of “national origin.” The lawyers did persuade a district court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to legislate from the bench and do that.

    Show me the copy of legislation with the word language inserted?

    Shoofly just violated poetic license. Just inflamatory language on her part. No case cited.

  20. Mad Dog says:

    I could make a very good case for making “taxpayers” pay benefits to imported workers hired by illegal employers.

    All in the sematics.

  21. Mad Dog says:

    “‘You want Quitman County searching in Pakistan for bin Laden?'”

    “No. But that would be a good example of what would happen if the tables were turned and states started doing to the federal government what the federal govenment is doing for states. Thank you for proving my point!”

    I don’t see how it makes your point.

    Read, I believe, Federalist 7. But in general Federalist 6 through 10 deal with the need for overarching power to be assigned to the Federal government, or Union as Jay et al called it.

  22. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog,

    Over and over again, you are reading what you want to read, not what is actually there. I know you mean well, Mad Dog, but you are getting so many facts and issues confused it is like you are purposely trying to miss the points of these articles and are trying to read into them what you want to see (much like liberal activist judges read into the Constitution what they want to be there 🙂 )

    I see three possibilities:

    (1) you have either the maturity or the intellect of a 9 year old

    (2) you are being disingenuous and seek to win “debate points” and really don’t care about truth

    (3) your world view can’t handle the truth

    I’d like to think that this is simply a case of choice #3 because you seem too nice for the 2nd option and too smart for the 1st.

    For example, you said:

    Certainly proof of clerical error and human error and deception. Out of 277,000 votes … 1200 or less have an unknown address, or invalid address.
    Some 20 percent were just errors? People who lived and worked and had a right to vote, but the information entered into the computer was wrong

    You seem to make the point that 1200 bad addresses out of 277,000 ain’t that bad, right?

    But such a point is blown out of the water when you spot the following sentence in that blog post:

    Of the 1,242 voters with invalid addresses, 75% registered on site on election day, according to city records.

    I think it defies Occum’s razor to think that anywhere near 75% of the registered voters were not already registered on election day. So obviously the proportion of bad addresses shot through the roof for that very small portion of voters who waited until election day to register… and that is exactly when fraudsters would register, if given the chance to register that late. After all, that provides the least amount of time possible for election workers to throw out bad registrations or for registrations to be challenged.

    And this point is backed up by the following quote from that article:

    A spot check of addresses that came back as invalid found cases where the address in question is a park, a baseball diamond and at or near the W. Wisconsin Ave. bridge. In most cases, though, there simply was no building at that address.

    That wasn’t a long blog post and these sentences stood out in my mind.. but you read only what you wanted to read.

    Regarding the court cases, you have to remember that good outcomes (at least in the opinion of the Judge) doesn’t justify bad jurisprudence. For example, in most cases, a judge’s responsibility is to follow the law even if he/she disagrees with the will and/or intent of the legislature, as expressed in written law.

    For example, Janice Brown did this (correctly, that is) in several California cases where she basically said, “this law is wrong and immoral, but there is no constitutional basis to overrule the legislature on this one” (I paraphrase here… and a good specific example of this was her ruling in Kasler v. Lockyer)

    In the same way… and in contrast… you seem to defy yourself when say there is no judicial activism and then defend Griswold vs Connecticut.

    Yes! Griswold vs Connecticut WAS judicial activism.

    Sure, for the most part, it was morally right… but it was very constitutionally flawed because it added to the Constitution what the Judges “wanted” the Constitution to say. The problem here is that once you untie that boat from its dock, there is no guarantees as to where it will drift. And this is a very fitting analogy. Once judges can interpret into the Constitution what they want it to say, all bets are off and “rule of law” gives way to Judicial Oligarchy.

    Again, the Griswold decision was, for the most part, morally correct, and I’d even support an amendment to the Constitution adding (at least) elements of Griswold (that is, as long as we could word it in a way that wouldn’t lead, for example, to the legal murdering of unborn babies, which it did!). This would be the RIGHT way to do this, in contrast to judges adding to the Constitution (via their own personal opinions) what they want the Constitution to say!

    I don’t have the time to address everything you’ve said, but here is something else which stood out:

    Show me the copy of legislation with the word language inserted?

    You’ve got to be kidding me?

    Schlafly didn’t mean that these Judges literally wanted that word inserted in the original legislation. (Lord knows, I wish these activist judges would be so honest in their actions! It would have been at least honest if the Griswold decision could somehow physically insert “right to privacy” as literal text into the Constitution! But that is exactly the point. We already have a means to admend the Constitution and it involves much more than mere opinions of judges!)

    If we could require that judges who add to the written laws and written Constitution would then have these additions be literally and physically written into the original text, then at least there’d some measure of “truth in advertising” to what they are doing!

    But Schlafly obviously meant that they wanted to “de facto” add that word to the legislation via their own proclamations.

    Again, the fact that I have to explain such things is just ridiculous!

    Oh, I almost forgot…
    >I don’t see how it makes your point.

    Because, for example, when a federal judge tells a State what it can and can’t include in a science textbook, it sounds just as ridiculous to me as your searcing for bin Laden example… purely from a standpoint of jurisdiction (regardless of one’s position on origins).

    –Rob McEwen

  23. Mad Dog says:

    Rob,

    You’re right. Our responses are too long to go through each point.

    You seem to make the point that 1200 bad addresses out of 277,000 ain’t that bad, right?

    But such a point is blown out of the water when you spot the following sentence in that blog post:

    Of the 1,242 voters with invalid addresses, 75% registered on site on election day, according to city records.

    I think it defies Occum’s razor to think that anywhere near 75% of the registered voters were not already registered on election day. So obviously the proportion of bad addresses shot through the roof for that very small portion of voters who waited until election day to register… and that is exactly when fraudsters would register, if given the chance to register that late. After all, that provides the least amount of time possible for election workers to throw out bad registrations or for registrations to be challenged.

    If “we” read the whole article, all the people who registered on election day, had valid ID. What was “valid ID?”

    So to relate that to Georgia, where there is no election day registration … ?

    Means that we need a new photo ID in Georgia given the differences in registration methods?

    What if Milwaukee, which compared three computerized lists, had ran the two “control lists” against each other?

    That would give a baseline for some standard of error in compiling addresses.

  24. Mad Dog says:

    “Because, for example, when a federal judge tells a State what it can and can’t include in a science textbook, it sounds just as ridiculous to me as your searcing for bin Laden example… purely from a standpoint of jurisdiction (regardless of one’s position on origins).”

    Maybe I can get my point across on this one thing.

    Did the judge file the law suit against Cobb County( if we want to use that for this example)?

    No.

    Did the judge reach out and bring the case into federal court?

    No.

    The case went to federal court because the federal court has jurisdiction.

    What was the issue for a federal court?

    There is the jurisdiction for the federal judge.

    The rights of a US citizen cannot be changed by state legislation, state executives, or any state level branch of government. (But, we have to define Board of Education or public school authority as clearly being local or state government)

    Cobb County couldn’t find a flappin’ Science Book that said what the school board wanted it to say. If there is a science book that teaches God made man, Cobb County would buy it. How far out on a limb were they in Cobb? Past the last bud.

    The public statements of board members made it very clear as to their intentions.

    To teach or affirm Christian beliefs in science classes.

    If science is that offense to the majority of voters in Cobb, don’t teach any of it’s theories. (That’s way off topic.)

    When the Cobb case as a whole is examined, the local authority wanted to over rule the Constitution of the United States. They rebeled. They lost.

    Using public funding, public buildings, and public institutions to promote Christian faith above any other faith violates the rights of US citizens.

    Even if only one US citizen complains, that trumps any local elected official, no matter what title.

    Mike

    p.s. Thanks for saying I’m nice and smart.

  25. kolt473 says:

    I’m appalled at the shameful tacts of DEMOCRATS……you need id for check cashing to boarding a ”flight” is ludricois……to say ”disinfrachisement” is crazy..leave it to JIMMY CARTER&ROYBARNES to find judges to give them the rulings they want……what’s really and injustice…….all these liberals say we need to move forward……………WHY ARE WE STILL HELD IN BONDAGE BY A RELIC OF THE ”PAST?” I.E. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT?…..when these same leaders are making sure…..people can vote ” multiple times” and not in areas……when they don’t actually live there….it seems to me federal government is over stepping it’s bounds just think all of the wasted tax money used in fighting this……..if anything shows out of this……liberals are still finding ways to lose respect of ga voters and nationally….

  26. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog:

    Merely questioning Neo-Darwinism’s ability to explain everything regarding origin and history of life is NOT promoting the Christian faith or any religion. MANY scientists have serious reservations about Darwinism for purely scientific reasons.

    Anyone who considers the following statment…

    “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

    …to be promoting religion is VERY misinformed about both Science and Christianity. That judge was an absolute moron!

    (In fact, I’d love to talk more about Evolution/Creationism on this site if/when that topic comes up… in fact, if it does, sent me an e-mail to let me know… [email protected] please… but lets don’t waste such a discussion on a thread which isn’t about this topic.)

    Anyways… I’ll stop there unless you have something else to add.

    BTW – do you realize that you pasted into one of your last posts a LARGE amount of material from my earlier posts… this must make the conversation VERY confusing to someone reading this thread!

    –Rob McEwen

  27. Mad Dog says:

    Rob,

    “Anyone who considers the following statment…

    “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

  28. Mad Dog says:

    Rob,

    If you don’t want an exchange of ideas, reflection, and response… just say so.

    We can stop our love feasts.

  29. kspencer says:

    Way up thread Warrior tried to explain how, because of the paper trail, the voter ID required of face-to-face voting was made unnecessary. Sorry, but it doesn’t stand up to the reality.

    To apply for an absentee ballot, a person obtains a copy of the application – which can be downloaded from http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/elections/voter_information/absentee_ballot_app.pdf . The person fills out the application and mails it in. The blanks?
    1) County or municipality of registration;
    2) Date of application;
    3) Name as registered;
    4) Address as registered;
    5) Date of Birth;
    6) Date of election (primary, election or runoff) – and party if primary;
    7) Reason for voting (can select “no reason”)
    8) Means of receipt of ballot (mail, pickup, delivery to hospital);
    9) Signature of voter;
    10 [optional]) Military or Merchant Marine options;
    11 [optional]) Other person application allegation and affidavit.

    Excluding a person claiming they’re applying for someone else to get a ballot (option 11), there are no affidavits. It is quite literally the same as someone coming in to the polling station and saying “I’m Joe Doe, I live at 101 This Place,” and without any proof being given a ballot.

    Paper trail? Sure, there’s a mailing address — which does not have to be the voter’s registration address. That mailing address can be a PO box.

    I’m sorry, Senator Eric Johnson, but Chrisishardcore is absolutely correct about the absentee ballot.

    I will tell you the minor change I would make to the absentee law that would solve this little problem — which would in turn significantly reduce my skepticism about the voter ID requirements. Quite simple, actually, with three lines:
    – Applications on behalf of someone else (line 11 at present) can only be submitted directly to the office of the appropriate county registrar;
    – Applications submitted to the office of the registrar cannot be accepted unless appropriate ID for the submitter is presented;
    – All other applications must be notarized with the additional block of ‘how the signer proved identity’ added.

    Internally, the validation steps required of the registrar’s office would include contacting the Notary Public and confirming their notarization of the document to eliminate that type of fraud.

  30. Bill Simon says:

    I would add a 4th line:

    Ballot shall be mailed to address of voter. If any other address is desired, applicant must fill-out a change of address form.

    I wonder how many absentee ballots went to the same address?

  31. kspencer says:

    Bill, I thought of that but it actually creates more problems. The heart of the issue is the original “why” for absentee ballots.

    Let’s assume for a moment that I’m a military reservist and that my two-week drill overlaps the election date. Should I fill out a change of address card for this two-week exercise? According to the US post office, no. Change of address should be for long-term absences.

    Now, Georgia helped reduce the short-term problem by allowing advance voting. But it didn’t eliminate the problem.

    No, by requiring a verification that an appropriate ID was required PRIOR to the issuance of the ballot, the problem is significantly reduced regardless of mailing destination. The fourth line creates as many problems as it eliminates.

  32. pvsys says:

    Bull Moose:

    I wasn’t complaining about you bringing up anything.

    My point about the stickers on the Cobb county textbook regarded **jurisdiction**. And even though I think that this sticker was NOT promoting religion… even if it were promoting religion, I still say that the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves to see such scrutiny of local/state governments by the Federal government in areas that the Federal government really has little to no business… for example, I also think that the Dept of Education is totally outside the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution… that is where I’m coming from on this.

    Also, I wasn’t complaining about anyone being off-topic, I was simply trying to prevent a huge evolution/creationism debate because I’d prefer to save my energy on that topic for a more on-topic thread and I know that such a topic often lead to lengthy debates.

    Regarding you copying my words into your posts… I was just trying to give you a suggestion to help with clairity… don’t take it so personally!

    Try this next time:

    http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/encyc/em.html

    And don’t feel like you have to quote the whole thing… especially if they were read just a few posts above.

    For example:

    If you don’t want an exchange of ideas…

    Actually, I’ve enjoyed our exchanges… but I hope in the future we won’t misunderstand each other quite as much.

    Have a great day!

    Rob McEwen

Comments are closed.