http://m.npr.org/story/146006217?url=/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote&ft=1&f=1001

By
http://m.npr.org/story/146006217?url=/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote&ft=1&f=1001

So, if Tennessee made a state-issued photo ID mandatory to vote knowing full well that IDs for persons over 65 didn't have photos on them, who does that hurt the most? Think about it ... that's right: democrats. The elderly tend to vote Democrat in elections and Tennessee gerrymandered the people based on a qualification they knew couldn't be met. Isn't that nice of them?

Comments

Dirk Talamasca said…
Many people over 65 can't even resolve the issue by applying for a new drivers license because that part of the country was extremely rural for quite some time. Birth records for older residents are mostly newspaper clippings and records from a family bible because they were often born at home.
January 28, 2012 at 6:29 AM
Jason ON said…
That's exactly what the articles says.
January 28, 2012 at 6:36 AM
Jessica White said…
God, ya'll are so late. Obama signed the Real ID Act into law in 2010. Since then, all states MUST incorporate new rules for driver licenses and id cards. Also, if you do not have a REAL ID Compliant DL or ID, you will not be allowed to fly nationally.

What are the qualifications to getting a REAL ID Compliant DL or ID in FL, you may ask?
Certified/Original Birth Certificate (not the one with the baby feet on it); Original Social Security Card; Two Proofs of current address.

And guess what? FL ranks highest out of all states for the amount of elderly people in its population. Why? Because FL (especially my Sumter County) plays host to the largest retirement community in the US (The Villages). And yep, they've got to get their old-ass shit together too and take it to the DMV office just like everybody else.

Sources: Yours Truly (FL Department of Highway Safety Motor Vehicle employee, who's been enacting Obama's Real ID Act in FL since it was signed as law in 2010)
January 30, 2012 at 7:20 PM
Jason ON said…
Pssst, Jessica White. Check your facts. The REAL ID act was passed by Bush in 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act, not Obama.
January 30, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Jessica White said…
Gomenasai. Florida wasn't forced to abide by it until Obama took office so when our citizens ask us who says they have to show all this stuff for a renewal, our answer is "YoBama" :)
January 30, 2012 at 7:53 PM
Jessica White said…
Support: Pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security's REAL ID regulation, States were to be in full compliance with the REAL ID Act of 2005 by May 11, 2011. A final rule issued March 7, 2011 changes that date to January 15, 2013. This change gives States the time necessary to ensure that driver's licenses and identification cards issued by States meet the security requirements of the REAL ID Act.

Notice the OF and BY.

http://www.dhs.gov/files/laws/gc_1172765386179.shtm
January 30, 2012 at 7:55 PM
Jessica White said…
Would you like my Socio paper on how this law negatively impacts people by sex, gender, race & inequality as well? :)
January 30, 2012 at 7:57 PM
Jason ON said…
So, the DHS extended the date for compliance a couple of years and you're still saying this was an Obama thing? The rule/law was already in place when Obama ran for president so no matter who had won that election the law would still be there. Again, you can't blame Obama.
January 30, 2012 at 8:01 PM
Jessica White said…
A politician is a politician, hence good for nothing. And he had the executive power to stop it, but didn't. Think about it. When Bush ran, he came to The Villages, Florida. When Obama ran, he came to Orlando, Florida. Old people vs College students. Even an advertiser knows his market demographic. Either way, it's the law. And this nation's citizens are going to have to abide by it. It shouldn't be a big deal - and it wasn't, until some other mudslinging politician thew it into the media arena. Just get your stuff and get REAL ID compliant.
January 30, 2012 at 8:08 PM
Jason ON said…
If you've been reading this from the beginning then you know I didn't say anything about this law, I spoke of the one in Tennessee, enacted by the state legislature for voting purposes. You brought up the REAL ID. And since your first few facts about the law were inaccurate I have to assume that your entire socio paper on it is also incorrect. I mean, I have to conclude that since you wrote a paper on it you know at least the basic facts, which you have already proven you do not.

So, in short, no, I don't want to see your socio paper on it.
January 30, 2012 at 8:09 PM
Jessica White said…
Btw, it was a FEDERAL law signed in 2005 with a "Do It By" date of 2011, which was then FEDERALLY extended to 2013. Anybody who's taken political science or government courses knows that one of the ways the Federal govt operates is by issuing laws they won't pay to enact, instead making the states liable for the cost of implementing the new laws.
January 30, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Jessica White said…
And FL DMV provides a loophole for people born before a certain date (aka the Old or Elderly). More than likely, that loophole is in the Fed law, which means that all states can apply it too.
January 30, 2012 at 8:13 PM
Jason ON said…
Wow. Another tangent. How does your comment address your faulty claims before? And yes, those are called unfunded mandates. The federal government is notorious for those.
January 30, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Jessica White said…
You're right when you said that I wasn't referring to Tenn. I'm still not. I'm concerned with the Fed act, specifically its affect on people's social and economical livelihood. My paper analyzed the Fed & State government policy in Florida, where our elderly population is well-known. (This IS the state you come to to die, you know.) If Tennessee chose to use the law to alter the ID criteria for voting purposes, it wouldn't seem outside their range. Anybody with REAL ID would've sufficiently proven their citizenship to the Federal govt, hence making it adequate for the State govt and so on. Seems like they're just trying to streamline. Can't blame them. Again, it's a simple matter of doing what you need to do if you want to vote. Furthermore, if you're opting to NOT read my, you're also opting to NOT use that point of argument. I'm more than happy to provide it to you. If you chose not to take the opportunity to read THEN judge, that will eliminate your mention of it. And since you won't be privy to the information in that report, I'll refrain from sharing any of it with you either. :)
January 30, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Jason ON said…
I've read plenty of your writing -- enough in fact to know that I don't want to read your paper. You seem to like jumping from one subject to another, comparing apples to oranges, and only after someone brings up the faulty reasoning you try and make it fit. You should be clear and concise if you want people to believe your points are valid.
January 30, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Jessica White said…
Can't keep up with various points at once? I understand that older folks like you tend to wind down after a certain time so I'll excuse you if you lack mental multi-tasking skills. Sleep tight. :)
January 30, 2012 at 8:45 PM
Jason ON said…
Plus, I'm multi-tasking. Google+ is but one thing I'm keeping track of right now.
Have a good evening.
January 30, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So, Minnesota would rather people not be able to advance themselves without the officiating organization paying a...

By
So, Minnesota would rather people not be able to advance themselves without the officiating organization paying a fee, first? Do libraries have to pay a fee to lend books? Do documentaries put together by universities have to pay a fee first? If I move into the state and give away old college text books, do I have to pay a fee first? http://www.forbes.com/sites/evapereira/2012/10/19/minnesota-bans-free-online-education/
Read more