Voter ID Law Upheld

Wow. Judge Murphy, contrary to my prediction, has upheld the voter ID law. September 18th’s elections just got a little more secure.


  1. CobbGOPer says:

    And I’m so happy we don’t have to worry about non-existent poor people being turned away from the polls! Hooray! Jackass.

  2. GodHatesTrash says:

    If I walk on my hands and leave my bare hairy ass hangin’ out – I can use Ray McKinney’s ID!

    (y’all keep pitchin’ ’em up, I’ll keep hittin’ ’em out…)

  3. mapman says:

    What’s interesting is that Judge Murphy ruled all the various plaintiffs had no standing to bring the action – the same issue that resulted in the state case being dismissed. But then he went on to discuss the merits and found the law itself did not place an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

  4. GodHatesTrash says:

    Come on Ray, you’re a bigtime candidate for Pres – if’n you cain’t take a little funnin’, better get out now.

    Tell you what – if you’re lookin’ for a hard-on; I hear tell there’s a bunch of Fred Thompson supporters meatin’ at 5 Seasons.

    Head for the mens room and tap tap tap those size 10s – and take a w-i-d-e stance, li’l buddy! Steal some votes – and have some (not so) old fashioned hillbilly Georgia fun at the same time!

    (You’d be a dead ringer for Ned Beatty without the beard, by the way.)

  5. Hey ugavi, ultimately I don’t really care. You can go back and check the threads, my position has always been I don’t see any problem with an ID requirement but I didn’t know what the hurry was. Since this thing was first proposed until its implementation in a high turnout general election there will have been 3 years. Seems pretty acceptable to me at this point.

    My Barack comment was more pointing out the idiocy of that position.

    My guess is that you aren’t allowed to bring a gun to a Fred Thompson fundraiser. Hey, if they can take your gun away at a Fred fundraiser, why shouldn’t they be able to take it away at other times. That would be a stupid comment for me to make, and so was Ray McKinney’s.

    Now, if anyone wants to talk about the potential for absentee ballot fraud or voter verifiable paper trails for the voter machines, two areas where there actually should be concern, I’d be glad to have that conversation now that the silly voter ID thing (which will prevent exactly 0 cases of fraud since this type of fraud can’t be proven to have existed already) is out of the way.

  6. ugavi says:

    Remind me again who was responsible for getting the current touch screen voting system in Georgia? Barnes & Cox…..

    I’ll use your logic here… Has there ever been a proven case of voter fraud using a touch screen voting machine?

    The Democrats in Congress are trying to force paper audit trails down our throats as an unfunded mandate.

    According to this article it would cost the Georgia taxpayors $150 Million

    So we would have to spend $150 Million to fix a problem that has never happened.

  7. StevePerkins says:

    Well duh… it’s pretty damn hard to prove when there’s not a paper trail. Whether you put better machines in place for the ’08 cycle, or do so for the ’12 cycle (which would eliminate the $150 replacement cost you cite)… it’s a no-brainer either way that this should be the goal. You can’t tell me with a straight face that if the GOP were the minority party in Georgia, ballot machines with a paper trail wouldn’t be at the absolute top of the Republican agenda.

  8. ugavi says:

    What was the reason for putting the touchscreens in place? Who did it? Barnes & Cox.

    Why, because “Bush stole the election with paper ballots”

    So I say once again, is there a proven case of fraud with touch screen machines.

  9. P. R. Finn says:

    One co-authored study being readied for publication that is here in web-draft form is at If you look around page 19 you will see the data on the 19 machines taken out of service because they were seen to either freeze up or flip votes. in the closest governor’s race probably in US history, in a county that usually goes for party X, these 19 machines instead went to Party Y’s candidate by over 50% more votes than the candidate for Party X. If you read the study in its full context, it’s a smoking gun irregularity and/or fraud. (Doesn’t matter WHY an election is inaccurate if it’s inaccurate the damage to democracy is all the same)

Comments are closed.