http://danvillesanramon.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=4756


Town Square

Brown signs state Assembly, Senate bills, vetoes two

Original post made on Oct 7, 2013

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Thursday announced that he has signed the following state Assembly bills.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 4, 2013, 10:37 AM

Comments

Posted by Bob McMasters, a resident of Alamo
on Oct 7, 2013 at 9:02 am

So the gov signed ms Quirk-Silva's bill to make voting for the dems more fraudulent. Now they can register by phone! How convenient. Ironic how the prez called for tight voting ID laws when he haunted to Africa! Vote them all out.


Posted by guynextdoor, a resident of Danville
on Oct 7, 2013 at 11:48 am

I note that all the bills were authored by Democrats. Do they realize that nearly every new law requires expansion of the government and its expense to taxpayors. A citzen can't step out the door anymore without breaking some trifling and obscure law.


Posted by Huh?, a resident of Danville
on Oct 7, 2013 at 12:31 pm

The combination of stupidity and racism evident in the barely-intelligible expressions of those who repeat the claim that voter suppression tactics of the right are really directed at (verifably non-existent) fraudulent voters is always interesting. Do they know that what they are saying is laughably false, or are they really so gullible and blinded by hatred of people who are "not like us" that they are unable to separate fiction from reality?


Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of Danville
on Oct 7, 2013 at 5:33 pm

Huh? is no doubt alluding to the general lack of convictions for voter fraud, in saying that voter fraud is non-existent. However, the lack of convictions (or even indictments) for voter fraud is NOT really evidence that voter fraud doesn't occur. The difficulty and cost of building a case for voter fraud is almost always not worth it. Voter fraud is indeed a crime for which prevention makes sense, while prosecution doesn't.

Tying reasonable proposals for voter ID to racism is ridiculous. In almost all cases, states where voter ID laws have either been passed, or proposed, have included provisions for free, or extremely low-cost, IDs to be made available, to anyone who doesn't have a driver's license.

Any low-income person who receives government aid, already has an ID. In fact, organizations that help the homeless and poor are already providing help in obtaining ID cards, as a means of helping their clients to qualify and obtain various forms of aid. Now that we have Obamacare, people who wish to obtain care through the exchanges will also need to have ID. So the old complaint about "the cost and trouble of obtaining an ID is unreasonable" is basically a myth at this point.

Huh? of course knows WHY he (or she) is so adamently opposed to voter ID laws. And he also knows why his party of choice is so opposed. He just won't admit it to others.

Want to have a good laugh? Try showing your driver's license to one of the volunteers at the polling place, the next time you are voting. (I'm assuming an election in CA.) They pratically recoil in horror. When they tell you that you don't need to show ID, just tell them that you know they aren't allowed to look at it, but that you want them to really know who is voting. They might not give you your "I voted today" sticker, though....


Posted by Huh?, a resident of Danville
on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:29 pm

CRM, everyone who votes has to provide their address. One person, one address, one vote. How hard is it to go to the address of the people you suspect of fraudulent voting and check them out? Millions have been spent in the futile attempt to find these fraudulent voters. Republican politicians and money-men would give ***anything*** to come up with some to justify their voter suppression tactics. But you know what they've found? A handful of people who own homes in two states voting in either the wrong one or both. Many of these fraudulent voters are Republicans. All have valid ID. None would be caught by requiring ID. Occasionally you'll find a person with a criminal conviction which makes them ineligible to vote casting a ballot (eligibility varies from state to state - a person might have the right to vote in one state but not the next.) Again an ID requirement would not affect those voters either.

The fact that the voter suppression drive disproportionately targets minorities (as well as the young and old) is so well documented as to be beyond dispute among reasonable people - a category you apparently have decided not to join. You can spin whatever justification you like - the ***fact*** is that ID laws are designed to, and do, prevent some qualified voters from voting. That is what they are designed to do. The "fraud prevention" justification is a blatant, cynical lie.

Every excuse and justification you give is utterly specious. Voter ID laws don't prevent everybody from voting, but they absolutely do prevent some people from voting, and the people they prevent from voting tend to vote Democrat - that's why Republicans (who gerrymandered their way to a House majority despite losing the popular vote in 2012) have embraced it. They can't win the hearts and minds of the majority of the people, so they cheat, and then lie about it. That's become the dominant Republican political technique of the 21st century.

Actual vote fraud is vanishingly rare, and what does exist wouldn't be prevented by ID laws. Claiming that the fact that it can't be found doesn't mean it doesn't exist is fatuous nonsense. If it existed the millions spent in your guys' desperate search for lipstick to slap on their vote-suppression pig would have turned up - something. I understand that you can sell almost anything to the poor benighted Fox News addicts, but reality has once again proven to have a liberal bias.


Posted by Registrar, a resident of another community
on Oct 9, 2013 at 12:39 am

Huh? First, there has never been a voter suppression drive. There is and must be more voter 'verification' required to have integrity in our elections process. I have registered thousands over decades. I understand it, and if you haven't worked in the process you haven't witnessed the 'process' enough to understand. It's hard to prove WITHOUT photo or fingerprint. Voting for a dead parent is ILLEGAL, voting in two counties is ILLEGAL, there is a long list of illegal acts that have made a farse of our election process. You may as well stomp on our flag, as allow this much too loose process to continue.
Sorry, you don't care about fair and just elections.


Posted by Rick, a resident of San Ramon
on Oct 9, 2013 at 7:37 am

Huh is as usual clueless from drinking so much Jim Jones democrat laced koolaid.


Posted by Louise, a resident of Danville
on Oct 9, 2013 at 9:10 am

It is refreshing and hopeful to see that there are some people remaining in our area who still can see through all the rhetoric of the left leaning politicos who run this state. They don't want voter id's cause it would dilute their voting blocs and keep them away from the power and control they so desperately want and have. People who have jobs, a place to live and want to contribute don't have a problem with voter id's. Only those who are on the fringe, or who are trying to stack the cards in their favor don't want them. With the new laws Brown just signed we should just eliminate the need for border controls, immigration laws, etc.


Posted by Huh?, a resident of Danville
on Oct 9, 2013 at 9:40 am

Registrar, I call B.S. Voting for a dead parent? Really? You have visions of people voting in their own precinct, then driving across town to their old neighborhood to a precinct manned by people who are likely to have known their parents, and then casting another vote in Mom's name? Really? Why? One vote isn't going to make a difference. Who would bother to do that? That's the voter fraud you're actually worried about? I don't think so.

In the real world an actual attempt to organize such activities would be well known. People talk, fingers get pointed. There's a reason that no significant number of actual fraudulent votes cast has been found: it isn't happening. In the real world "voter verification" is intended to, and does, exist for the purpose of discouraging and turning away legitimate voters, not fraudulent ones. That's not "integrity" - it's blatantly lying to justify actively working to undermine our electoral process by disenfranchising people they want to keep from voting. The architects of that fraud have fabricated a list of fake horribles to justify their actions, but only gullible Fox-blinded true believers accept that fiction without questioning the absolute lack of evidence to support it.

"Preventing voter fraud" is a fraud. Vote suppression is an attack on democracy. That's the reality.