Congresswoman's Congressional ID rejected as sufficient to be able to vote- this is major problem!!

[philb]

Rep. Julia Carlson's Congressional ID card was insufficient identification.
"The law compels voters to show an ID, issued by Indiana or the federal government, with a photograph and an expiration date. Carson's card was for the 109th Congress, but did not say when the session ends.

http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=6725

Many thousands of illegible voters were not allowed to vote or forced to vote provisional ballets throughout the country
by poll workers enforcing new laws or promulgations or their own belief that requirements to vote should be more strict
and people without means to meet special requirents should not be able to vote.

Most of those required to show IDs and who weren't allowed to vote were minorities. I think its pretty obvious that there are few "voter fraud" problems and a lot of election fraud and manipulation problems,

and the new laws and regulations regarding IDs are thinly disguised efforts to suppress minority votes, even more than is already done- with hundreds of thousands of minority voters already having their ability to vote suppressed each election.

Its clear from EIRS resports that the ID laws and regs are not uniformly enforced,
and in many cases voters are turned away when they meet the relevant rules and regs.

[philb]

1. I assume people understand my problem is with unfair ID rules, not

the fact that a rule prevented a Congresswoman from being able to vote. I think members of Congress should be treated the same as anyone else with regard to regulations.
In the current election process, I believe the ID rules are a pretext mostly to prevent minorities from voting.


It is clear that in recent elections, the ID requirements(real or imagioned) have been used to prevent thousands of minority voters from voting in many areas of the country.

The questions are:
1. Do the ID rules serve a useful purpose?
2. Is "vote fraud", where individuals seek to vote more than once or for reasons other than of conscience,
a significant problem in elections? If so, where is the evidence?
3. If the ID rules have a real purpose, is the magnitude of the problem prevented as significant as the number of
minorities and others who have not been allowed to vote by the rules or enforcement of pollworker preferences
(its clear the official rules aren't what is often used by poll workers and enforcement is often arbitrary)

[philb]

2. What was the Ohio regulation regarding ID requirement in 2006 election??

also, what is Ohio's rule in 2006 regarding whether provisional votes are counted??

the rulings on which provisionals count will decide 2 Ohio Congressional elections in 2006,
unless other manipualtions that took place are acted on. There clearly was a lot of malfeasance by officials in
Ohio to prevent minorities from voting, and to ensure that many vote in the wrong precinct. I assume it had a purpose.

www.flcv.com/frankln6.html
www.flcv.com/hamiltn6.html
www.flcv.com/ohioeirs.html