The attorney general will rarely be the attorney in a regular criminal case. He oversees all the attorneys but will prosecute so few it makes your claim rather ridiculous really.

maybe they should standard IDs before implementing a law which requires ID to vote

and by standard I mean accessible (don't have to go half a continent away), affordable (free), and does not require obscure requirements like a permanent address seeing as homeless don't have them

No you just sound silly and I have no desire to try and argue with someone that is backwards. I.D.'s to vote = racism. lol

No, it doesn't. He doesn't have to be the specific attorney in a case to establish that voter fraud was occuring in the state. The position afforded him the authority to establish that, if it was actually happening, and he could have cracked down on it had it actually occured. Though, as we all know, it hasn't actually happened. There are four confirmed cases of "voter fraud" in the state since 2004-2005 and all four cases involved someone voting illegally on the basis that they hadn't gone through the appropriate process to reinstate their voting rights. There have been zero cases of voter impersonation in the state. If there were then he would have acted on it, being in the ideal position to do so.



Except that no one said that requiring I.D.'s to vote was racism. You can keep saying that if you want to, but it doesn't mean anything other than that you're not willing to debate the actual issue, most likely because you don't understand it. The instituting of requiring identification to vote isn't racism, it is however unnecessary, doesn't solve the problem that it was allegedly created to solve, and comes with a substantial level of voter suppression. While it does disciminate certain demographics, and minoirities may be disproportionately effected by it on account that they make up the largest contingent of the working poor, that doesn't make it a racial issue or constitute racism. It's simply a terrible policy that's nothing more than a facade, and it has no valid defense and that's why the state didn't even attempt to offer one up.

You are crying racism. This mandate will affect ALL people, not just minorities. Yet you are only focusing on the minorities. What would you call that? You try to hide behind the "poll tax" all you want, but in reality you are screaming racism. Heaven forbid you need to have an I.D. to vote. OH NOES!! I mean.. you only need an I.D. to do pretty much anything else in this country. But requiring one to vote is clearly blatant racism and trying to discriminate against those "minorities" that will be affected by this.

"No cases of voter impersonation" is a red herring though. The problem (at least here in MN) is voting under false identities. You can go to the polls, and have someone who lives in the precinct "vouch" that you do too, and you get a ballot. You don't have to prove who you are, and when the PVC (postal verification card) goes out after the election and comes back undeliverable, it is impossible to track the person down, because all you have to go on is the bad address and/or fake name they give you. In the election that Al Franken won by 312 votes, over 6000 PVCs came back undeliverable, including addresses at vacant lots, laundromats, empty warehouses, and the interstate. And considering Franken was the 60th vote filibuster breaker that allowed Obamacare to pass, it can be said that there are real consequences to not having a reasonable check on handing out ballots. Voter ID will also help prevent illegal and legal aliens from voting.

That's precisely why the requirement of non-photo I.D. was instituted, to allow someone to bring a cell phone bill or a utility bill to the poll with them to verify their identity. The entire PVC issue would be solved by modernizing the voter rolls to establish someone's current address and contact information before voting. That entire project could be funded by taking the money that's going to be spent on the next "voter fraud" investigation that's going to produce no conclusions and spending it on the update instead. The problem is that the states don't actually want to update the voting system and bring it into the 21st century to allow for fair elections, one party simply wants to restrict the ability of those that they feel will be voting for their opposition. If they didn't, they wouldn't be sloppily rushing through the legislation as fast as possible in every state that they gained the control of the state legislature in during the last election cycle. If they were interested in established fair elections they would be modernizing their rolls or communicating with the electorate and letting them know about the new restrictions. They do neither, because supression is the entire point of this. States have found illegal aliens on the voter rolls by randomly selecting people for jury duty, there's no evidence of those people actually casting ballots because the states refuse to modernize the process.



Again, I am not arguing that it's a racial issue. It isn't. Feel free to re-read the thread if you're having that much difficulty establishing that I haven't said or inferred that, or feel free to just keep saying it over and over in an effort to avoid having to debate the actual issue. If you can't or don't want to discuss that then it's no big deal, you're off the hook already as far as I'm concerned. I learned years ago to lower my expectations that you can substantively address an argument.

It won't effect all people. It has the capability of effecting every different type of person, but there are certain demographics that are substantially more negatively-effected by this type of legislation than others. That can't rationally be denied. When the real crux is the inability to provide the necessary documentation that may not be readily available in a short amount of time, that's going to impact certain demographics disproportionately including the working poor, the elderly, and even college students. Minorities do make up the majority of the working poor but that's the extent of a racial issue. Having to produce a birth certificate is going to be inherently more difficult for the elderly whether they're white or black or purple. That problem is further complicated when you take into account the use of midwives and unregistered or delayed-registered births for people that are 90 years old and trying to vote. Driver's Licenses are inherently more difficult for the elderly produce also, as well as students that may not have needed to keep theirs valid.

A poll tax is a barrier that restricts certain people from voting. While it historically was used to keep minorities from voting, the actual act itself is simply constructing an unneccessary requirement to vote that is applied unevenly. The Republicans know that the people on the ends of the age spectrum are less likely to jump through all the hoops to pay to acquire a certified copy of their birth certificate (if the state is even cooperative in that process), then bus their way to a PennDot office that's actually open. This was done deliberately to restrict voting by specific demographics and it will, and it does so without a valid cause that can not and will not be established.

We tried the purely legislative process, including 21st century voter ID first, and the Democrat governor vetoed it, spewing sham excuses. Apparently, Democrats aren't interested in voting integrity either.

@bold: you cannot disenfranchise those that never held the franchise in the first place. Democrats are apparently willing to look the other way, knowing illegal and legal aliens still manage to get into the polls and vote predominantly Democrat.

Cost me 20 bucks to renew my license... did it online so I didn't have to go anywhere. It came in the mail two weeks later. The first time I voted I wasn't driving... but I had an ID anyways... not sure how this is can even be an issue with people.

Awww, does this mean my university won't be giving me a new ID card?