Rand Paul to GOP: Our voter ID push is “offending people”

[Crashland]

They do not have a "come to your house" provision in the NC V-ID law, but the voter is authorized to use their voter registration card as identification, which is mailed directly to their house for free. Or, they can go to the DMV fill out an affidavit that they cannot afford to pay for an ID and receive a NC State identification card for free.

As a matter of fact, when crafting the 'free ID' portion of the V-ID law, we had some hope that people would take advantage of it...given that you need ID to cash checks, apply for work, even to receive welfare (although that last one was not the intent). Someone, merely by having a state-issued ID card, will in a much better position to escape from the poverty trap. Now that you have an ID, you can actually start applying for jobs.

The notion that the poor do not have IDs is silly. You have to have an ID to receive welfare. Granted, not all of the poor are on welfare, but the segment of the poor who will vote for more welfare is on welfare, and they all already have IDs. All the V-ID law does here is expand the ability for others t get a free ID and vote, and now that they have an ID they can apply for jobs.

Would you support bills that implement voter ID like you described above, attached to expanded early voting?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Would you support bills that implement voter ID like you described above, attached to expanded early voting?

I'm not a fan of omnibus bills. I like 1-issue 1-bill. I may vote for an omnibus bill if I support everything in it, but I will not lift a finger to help such a bill move. V-ID is a separate issue from Early Voting, and really ought to be a separate bill.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't actually see how any of this relates to the thread. Nobody is talking about chips or barcodes or any such thing, and I pretty much singlehandedly killed RealID in NC in 2011. Even further out of context, who is talking about Federal anything in this thread? Supporting the fact that a State can exercise powers not delegated to the federal government, is a violation of States Rights....how exactly?

I don't really care what people are talking about. Most of the people I run into are clueless and can view aspects of these kinds of issues for exactly 2 feet in front of them. There is rarely any long term vision. Just because they don't choose to talk about these things doesn't mean they shouldn't be talking about them in context that aligns with scope. Because this infrastructure is exactly where it's headed.

If I have some special interest, corporate based political action commitee (whose citizenship is also in question, by the way) manipulating political processes for representation byy way of lobbying some politicians for me to be forced into something like this even if my state deems it unconstitutional then it's absolutely relevant. Especially when we step back and take a good look at the industries and infrastructure that their doners are vested in.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't really care what people are talking about. Most of the people I run into are clueless and can view aspects of these kinds of issues for exactly 2 feet in front of them. There is rarely any long term vision. Just because they don't choose to talk about these things doesn't mean they shouldn't be talking about them in context that aligns with scope. Because this infrastructure is exactly where it's headed.

If I have some special interest, corporate based political action commitee (whose citizenship is also in question, by the way) manipulating political processes for representation way way of lobbying some politicians for me to be forced into something like this even if my state deems it unconstitutional then it's absolutely relevant.

I'm not following you. What does this have to do with barcodes on asses, and saying that State-based policies are a violation of "State's Rights?"

 

[nobody's_hero]

The only way you could possibly get back to having completely ID-free voting is to scrap the secret ballot and do like they did in the old days.

You put the ballot box up on a stage and one by one the people of the town go up and cast their vote in front of hundreds of witnesses. Back then, if nobody knew who you were, your eligibility would be questioned. It was completely transparent, without the need for ID, and if it were up to me, we'd be back to public voting by the next election.

But these days we have so many bullshit laws, 'cause people are scared to death that someone might influence someone else's vote within 45.3 feet of the voting area, we gotta keep it a big secret. And if you aren't even supposed to be able to vote, well, best keep that a secret, too.

 

[CaptUSA]

I know I came to this thread late and didn't read every post, but I don't think this is as bad as some.

Rand isn't saying he doesn't agree with voter right laws. The way I read it, is he's saying that maybe this is not the issue that the country needs to tackle right away. It offends people who think their voting rights are being taken away. You can argue all you want about the validity of that belief, but it really makes more sense to focus on agreements instead.

Besides, if Rand is able to do what he is trying to do, he will benefit from a larger minority turn-out. No one feels the weight of government oppression more than minorities.

 

[Brett85]

Besides, if Rand is able to do what he is trying to do, he will benefit from a larger minority turn-out. No one feels the weight of government oppression more than minorities.

He has to win the GOP primary first. There aren't very many minorities that vote in GOP primaries.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm not following you. What does this have to do with barcodes on asses, and saying that State-based policies are a violation of "State's Rights?"

Private industry has essentially been made an agent of the state. There is no way that you aren't privy to the phenomenon. And they also perform the actual programming for vote counting computers, and in some cases even control results reporting. Do you see where I'm going with this now? If I have to explain it then I'd rather start a new thread on it.

Of course, State-based policies are not a violation of "State's Rights. I agree with you here. But in many states a federal mandate is a violation of these rights and, of course, we come back to the black box infrastructure that I've just mentioned that is under the control of specialized information industry.

 

[CaptUSA]

He has to win the GOP primary first. There aren't very many minorities that vote in GOP primaries.

Yeah, I don't think it's a very hard question to take in the debate. I think he'll have a pretty good answer that the Republican base can understand. In fact, if one of his opponents would bring this up, he could possibly knock them out of the race with the answer. lol.

 

[Rocco]

I care about facts and data, and I don't see how this can possibly hurt Rand. It's just not a big issue, and I don't see how the same GOP electorate that just elected Tillis is going to throw Rand over board over a niche issue like voter ID.

LOL you don't care about facts and data, I hurt your feelings by calling out the failings of Paul Inc, to whom you have hitched your wagon, so now you are stalking me on other threads trying to hurt me. That's just childish.

 

[Brett85]

I care about facts and data, and I don't see how this can possibly hurt Rand. It's just not a big issue, and I don't see how the same GOP electorate that just elected Tillis is going to throw Rand over board over a niche issue like voter ID.

Have you read any of the comments on the conservative websites and on Rand's Facebook page? It's brutal.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Private industry has essentially been made an agent of the state. There is no way that you aren't privy to the phenomenon. And they also perform the actual programming for vote counting computers, and in some cases even control results reporting. Do you see where I'm going with this now?

Of course, State-based policies are not a violation of "State's Rights? I agree with you here. But in many states a federal mandate is a violation of these rights and, of course, we come back to the black box infrastructure that I've just mentioned that is under the control of specialized information industry.

What State lets the fed regulate their voting? I've never heard of such a thing. Where I come from, this is pretty much done by the counties, with a few general rules at the State, and the only thing the feds contributing are higher order stuff like the "Voting Rights Act" that only really affects legislators. I'm not defending the VRA, but I'm guessing you have a less than accurate picture of what is actually happening on election day?

You called VoterID laws a violations of "State's Rights." Leaving aside for the moment the nitpick that States don't have rights, VoterID laws are State laws. How exactly is a State Law for VoterID a violation of the Constitutional delegation of powers? Can you point me to the section in the US Constitution that prohibits the States from passing a VoterID Law?

And I am still not making the connection between VoterID and ass tattoos of barcodes. Now you are adding Black Box Voting into the mix as though it were supposed to impact the requirement for an ID. I'm not following you at all. I have a serious issue with touch screen voting and the like, which is why I like how my County does the optical scanner with paper ballots that can be hand verified and audited, and an "Automark" touch screen for handicapped voters that will mark the optical ballot that will then be fed into the optical scanner. I will fight tooth and nail to retain a system with accountability and reject black box voting that has none. But this is an entirely different issue than VoterID, requiring a voter to demonstrate their identity prior to voting.

Instead of demonstrating the logical connection from your premises to your conclusion, you have now added even more emotionally-laden irrelevant observations even further muddling your line of reasoning from where it already was. I am just not comprehending what you are getting at. How exactly is a VoterID law going to lead to forced ass tattoos and the violation of "State's Rights?"

 

[Rocco]

LOL Rand is not running to the left, don't be ridiculous. Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee support Common Core, Ted Cruz supports national flood insurance, Marco Rubio is for sugar subsidies and amnesty, there is not one thing Rand supports that is as liberal as any of this. You've gotta lay off the Deace page when assessing what is viable and what is not, McCain ran as a "maverick" (which was a nice word for moderate). Romney also ran as a moderate, I don't see any issue where he really tacked right other than abortion/gay marriage, and Bush was also fairly moderate. The only times the most "extreme" option won were Reagan and Goldwater, every other time we have had a moderate candidate win.

I've just never seen any GOP candidate win the nomination by running to the left. Huntsman did that and didn't get anywhere. Romney was thought to be a moderate, but he had to run way to the right in order to win the GOP nomination. Rand is miscalculating badly here. I can't even imagine how badly he's going to get ripped in the debates on issues like voter I.D and abortion by Cruz and other like minded candidates.

 

[Rocco]

Comments on facebook are not representative of anything. If they were, Ron Paul woulda been the nominee.

Have you read any of the comments on the conservative websites and on Rand's Facebook page? It's brutal.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I care about facts and data, and I don't see how this can possibly hurt Rand. It's just not a big issue, and I don't see how the same GOP electorate that just elected Tillis is going to throw Rand over board over a niche issue like voter ID.

It's a big issue in NC. For better or worse, enough people are passionate enough about VoterID in NC to make it a win/lose issue, even though fedgov has zero impact on the policy whatsoever. I am guessing that NY is passionate on the issue in the opposite direction. You have to win more than just NY to win a Presidential Primary.

 

[Brett85]

LOL Rand is not running to the left, don't be ridiculous. Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee support Common Core, Ted Cruz supports national flood insurance, Marco Rubio is for sugar subsidies and amnesty, there is not one thing Rand supports that is as liberal as any of this.

Rand's position on immigration isn't much different than Rubio's. He's moved to the left rhetorically on abortion, voter ID laws, and Obamacare.

 

[Matt Collins]

The position Rand is staking out is opposed by 75% of the electorate in North Carolina, most of those being Republican Primary voters. Spam one ad in NC that claims Rand opposes VoterID and he loses NC - an early State in 2016. I guarantee. This is a serious tactical error.

Except that Rand doesn't oppose voter ID

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Except that Rand doesn't oppose voter ID

Who, outside of your fevered imagination, said that he did? He is staking out the opposing position. Trying to include them in the tent. Good luck in a GOP primary with that.

 

[Brett85]

Except that Rand doesn't oppose voter ID

It's ridiculous when Rand makes a statement like this, but yet people say that he somehow doesn't "oppose voter ID." He has conservatives all over the internet believing that he's now a huge opponent of voter ID laws. If he's not opposed to voter ID laws, he certainly didn't do a good job of explaining his views.

 

[CaptUSA]

It's ridiculous when Rand makes a statement like this, but yet people say that he somehow doesn't "oppose voter ID." He has conservatives all over the internet believing that he's now a huge opponent of voter ID laws. If he's not opposed to voter ID laws, he certainly didn't do a good job of explaining his views.

Patience, my friend. Patience.

This is one of those things that look bad, but end up well.