From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   BTR1701  wrote:   
   >Feb 10, 2026 at 10:07:33 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   >>BTR1701  wrote:   
   >>>Feb 10, 2026 at 9:34:36 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
      
   >>>>If applications are constitutional, and yes I know they may not be, I   
   >>>>have no objection to fingerprints and photos even though the applicant   
   >>>>has the burden to show he has had no arrest record to be concerned   
   >>>>about. You keep comparing the constitutionality of ID laws to exercise   
   >>>>the right to vote with administration of gun ownership and carry laws.   
      
   >>>Right, and the requirement to merely show an ID (that everyone except   
   >>>Grizzly Adams has in order to live in modern society) to vote isn't   
   >>>even 1/100th the burden on that right that the government puts on   
   >>>people attempting to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.   
      
   >>What voter ID did the Founding Fathers show? Your argument fails under   
   >>Bruen analysis.   
      
   >>Bruen analysis goes well beyond the Second Amendment equivalent of   
   >>strict scrutiny analysis.   
      
   >>Why can't the analysis be, Does this law address a real-world problem   
   >>and is it the least burdensome way to address the problem? Voter ID   
   >>fails my suggested common sense analysis. The idea of a massive   
   >>conspiracy among huge numbers of voters misrepresentating their ideas   
   >>resulting in stolen elections should have been called out as stupid when   
   >>it first got to court.   
      
   >In simple terms, this is what happens:   
      
   >1) Fill up the voter rolls with as many names as possible, including illegals,   
   >dead people, and residents who left the state.   
      
   You are really pissing me off with this any scenario, unlikely in the   
   extreme, is a plausible scenario we must concern ourselves with. Yes,   
   the county government election administrators are all conspirators, but   
   the elections judges at polling sites cannot be bribed and weed out this   
   massive conspiracy.   
      
   >2) Legislate for unsolicited ballots to be automatically mailed out to   
   >everyone on the rolls *and* for ballot harvesting to be legal.   
      
   That's just something stupid California does that no other state does   
   which has nothing to do with voter ID laws. My state, which allows   
   voting by mail, does not mail out the ballot blank without an   
   application and will not cast the ballot till the application is   
   verified.   
      
   >3) Pay people (per ballot) to collect, fill out, sign, and send back or dump   
   >these ballots into drop boxes.   
      
   Yes. People who take bribes can be relied upon to shut the fuck up about   
   having participated in a conspiracy, even when investigated by police.   
      
   There are too many conspirators in this scenario to believe no one would   
   ever talk.   
      
   >Here's how this works:   
      
   Again, your hypothetical opposes your state's distribution of ballot   
   blanks which is beyond idiotic. I agree with you here. Having served as   
   an election judge in many elections, I understand the importance that   
   ballot blanks must remain under control until handed to a voter to vote,   
   and that the judge must watch the voter deposit the voted ballot, which   
   only gets examined for the presence of the judge's initial, into the   
   ballot box.   
      
   California doesn't need voter ID laws. It needs to repeal the law   
   requiring distribution of ballot blanks to voters who didn't apply   
   for voting by mail.   
      
   It doesn't argue against my statement that there is no problem for voter   
   ID laws to serve.   
      
   With respect to applications for gun permits, collecting pictures and   
   prints is a method of catching those with a criminal history who would   
   buy guns.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)