Comments on: WHOSE DISENFRANCHISEMENT IS THIS ANYWAY? http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html Indiana Barrister is the source for local Indianapolis and Indiana news, politics and commentary. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:15:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: erin http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5947 erin Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:42:52 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5947 Our founding fathers had substantially divergent views on many issues, not just elections. Check your history on Jefferson by the way. "The constitution is for the living, not the dead." A very well known quote. You might also want to see his views on the constitutional amending process and particularly WHY he thought that way. Have fun, it's all quite fascinating. Our founding fathers had substantially divergent views on many issues, not just elections. Check your history on Jefferson by the way. “The constitution is for the living, not the dead.” A very well known quote. You might also want to see his views on the constitutional amending process and particularly WHY he thought that way. Have fun, it’s all quite fascinating.

]]> By: erin http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5946 erin Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:25:18 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5946 It's in our state law (if you don't like that then have the law changed or challenge it as unconstitutional, but simply stating it's not in the constitution does not make it unconstitutional) and it should be budgeted for at the county level, not the state, through the Clerk's Office. It’s in our state law (if you don’t like that then have the law changed or challenge it as unconstitutional, but simply stating it’s not in the constitution does not make it unconstitutional) and it should be budgeted for at the county level, not the state, through the Clerk’s Office.

]]> By: Jay http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5945 Jay Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:32:39 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5945 erin = poppycock. the state has no business even being involved in primaries. it's not in the constitution. parties were not even foreseen as major players by jefferson. what does it matter how a party nominates its candidate ? the ONLY reason the school board elections are held in may is so the 2 parties can con the state (taxpayers) into paying for the primaries. erin = poppycock.

the state has no business even being involved in primaries. it’s not in the constitution. parties were not even foreseen as major players by jefferson. what does it matter how a party nominates its candidate ?

the ONLY reason the school board elections are held in may is so the 2 parties can con the state (taxpayers) into paying for the primaries.

]]> By: erin http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5944 erin Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:24:35 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5944 Voter disenfranchisement in all forms (including incompetence or mistake) is equally wrong. However, Abdul you should be aware that this type of mistake happened as well under Doris Anne (ask Phil Borst). Personally, I think the whole idea of not keeping polls open for 12 hours regardless of if that means 2 hours after 6PM, 3 hours, or the entire following day is completely wrong. I also disagree with the current evaluation that 'only if it affects or could have affected the election result' do the courts consider revotes or extended hours. If there is one thing we should fully fund before anything else it is the people's right to participate equally and fairly in the democratic process. A revote or extended hours should have happened in the Franklin twp. precincts with the Borst primary and should have happened in this Primary. Voter disenfranchisement in all forms (including incompetence or mistake) is equally wrong. However, Abdul you should be aware that this type of mistake happened as well under Doris Anne (ask Phil Borst). Personally, I think the whole idea of not keeping polls open for 12 hours regardless of if that means 2 hours after 6PM, 3 hours, or the entire following day is completely wrong. I also disagree with the current evaluation that ‘only if it affects or could have affected the election result’ do the courts consider revotes or extended hours. If there is one thing we should fully fund before anything else it is the people’s right to participate equally and fairly in the democratic process. A revote or extended hours should have happened in the Franklin twp. precincts with the Borst primary and should have happened in this Primary.

]]> By: Abdul-Hakim http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5942 Abdul-Hakim Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:49:58 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5942 Snark, Are you saying it's ok for polling places not to open as long as it's an accident? Snark,

Are you saying it’s ok for polling places not to open as long as it’s an accident?

]]> By: Snark http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5941 Snark Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:26:56 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5941 IRRELEVANT, Abdul! An inexperienced person in charge who flubs her job once is in no way, shape or form the same category of miscreant as a government that permanently places unnecessary burdens on citizens wishing to cast their votes! IRRELEVANT, Abdul!

An inexperienced person in charge who flubs her job once is in no way, shape or form the same category of miscreant as a government that permanently places unnecessary burdens on citizens wishing to cast their votes!

]]> By: Kal El http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5940 Kal El Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:07:56 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5940 It seems to me that the subtext of this whole debate is that Democratic voters are somehow inherently irresponsible, dumb, and/or lazy. Is fighting this case more insulting to those who are claimed to be negatively effected more insulting than the law itself? It seems to me that the subtext of this whole debate is that Democratic voters are somehow inherently irresponsible, dumb, and/or lazy. Is fighting this case more insulting to those who are claimed to be negatively effected more insulting than the law itself?

]]> By: Joe http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5936 Joe Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:52:08 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5936 That's what he wrote, "The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for and against Indiana’s Voter ID law." That’s what he wrote, “The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for and against Indiana’s Voter ID law.”

]]> By: Scott http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html/comment-page-1#comment-5933 Scott Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:18:13 +0000 http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/01/whose_disenfranchisement_is_this_anyway.html#comment-5933 US Supreme Court, not Indiana Supreme Court. US Supreme Court, not Indiana Supreme Court.

]]>