moderationman (Anonymous) says…

A solution seeking a problem that doesn't exist.

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

This is a commonsense bill which is LONG overdue. It's a no-brainer for every member of the Kansas House and Senate to get firmly behind.

Legislation like this will help end voting by children, pets and dead people that we read about every two years. It will also stop some precincts from having more votes cast than registered voters.

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

oh good lord settingtherecord, give us a single example of more votes cast than registered voters in any Kansas election.

shirinisb (Anonymous) says…

As the wife of a *legal* immigrant (who can't vote because he is a perm resident) I think it's good to protect the system that way. It's only common sense.

If an 18 year old citizen doesn't have a legal I.D. they've probably got bigger issues than not being able to vote.

fletch (Anonymous) says…

This would effectively put an end to door-to-door registrations or registration drives, not to mention making things a nightmare at the polls. Didn't anybody learn from the Florida and Ohio debacles: making things hellish at the polls is a BAD idea.

moderationman (Anonymous) says…

This is not commonsense, it is a duplication of effort to avoid a problem that simply doesn't exist. We already have to show identification to register. Bills like this are meant to scare the gullible into thinking that we have hoards of illegal immigrants voting in elections, which is simply not the case. It is an insult to every registered voter and every election commissioner in Kansas.

Besides, it is likely as unconstitutional as a poll tax.

KS (Anonymous) says…

I went to a trade show one time and had to show either a drivers license or passport to get into the gate (even tho I had bought a ticket) I have to show a photo ID to check into a no-tell motel or get on a plane. Why not to vote? Makes sense. That's the world we live in today.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

Senator Fransisco had an excellent point in the article—this issue is about more than just security. There are two vital components to every election:

1) ensuring that votes from registered voters are being cast, counted, and verified properly (security)

2) ensuring that everyone, no matter of social class, color, or creed, has easy access to vote.

This bill will severely restrict the ability to deliver #2 while failing to create any meaningful increase in #1.

To paraphrase a famous philosopher: “Common sense this bill is not.”

javery (Anonymous) says…

Sorry to disagree with you moderationman, but it seems like a very sensible precaution. It can help prevent voter fraud (and regardless of whether it is or is not a problem at the moment, it is at least a reasonable precaution). It's not terribly excessive (considering that you have to show photo ID if you want to get on a plane), and it's not likely to cause that much trouble for poll workers (if TSA people, bartenders, tobacco vendors, etc. can do it, so can poll workers).

conservative (Anonymous) says…

The ease with which a person can obtain a photo ID makes the argument that it is restrictive to the poor utter nonsense.

The only thing this bill would do to infringe upon voting rights would be to make it much more difficult to “Vote early, and vote often”.

Bone777 (Anonymous) says…

Does this rule have “Da” written all over it. What's the big deal about showing an I.D. This is totally a no brainer.

You have to show identification when you write a check, register for classes, use a credit card.

It is just a way to ensure that no one is misusing our systems.

KS (Anonymous) says…

Bone 777 - Da! Way to go. I agree.

commuter (Anonymous) says…

I could go to the polls and say I am my neighbor and vote. Then I could go later and say I am myself. All the bill does is let people with ID's vote.

If a low income person does have ID, they can get a state issued ID. Heck, to get Section 8 assistance, they must have ID and Social Security Card.

What is the big deal to have the ID to vote.

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

Will you please explain, logicsound04, why anyone—of any “social class, color, or creed” would not have some ID on their person, whether it was election day or not?!!

I used to work at KU Admissions (hellish job, that) and could not believe how many students would show up expecting to register w/o any ID. As I told them, “What would happen if you got creamed by a truck? How long would it take the authorities to find your parents?” KU required proof of identity and so should any polling stations.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone—especially those older and presumably wiser than young students—would go anywhere w/o ID, or would be offended if they needed to show it for something so important as voting.

And, lest moderationman think I'm one of the “gullible” who is worried about illegal aliens voting— that's the first I've heard that one. I'm not in the least worried about illegals voting. What I'd be more concerned with is a fraud showing up first thing in the morning, claiming to be me, stealing my vote, then showing up later in the day and voting under her own name.

If I showed up at 2:00 p.m. and they said, “You already voted—here's your signature,” how could they ever catch the person who voted in my name (and later on in her own)? Handwriting analysis could show that it wasn't my signature, but it wouldn't catch the person. And I'd still have lost my vote when all was said & done.

In areas of organized crime, this could be done many times over—targeting, perhaps, the elderly or hospitalized, to minimize the chances of the actual voter showing up & discovering the fraud. Think this kind of thing hasn't played out in the past? Think again.

moderationman (Anonymous) says…

You folks have missed the point. You showed ID when you registered. You cannot register without it. To show again when voting is nothing more than “Big Brother” trying to exert influence. Let's not overlook the real reason…fear of the immigrant. In California, a candidate actually used phone messages to tell naturalized citizens that they had no right to vote and would be arrested.

This is not common sense, it is the first step on the slippery slope to Nation Id Cards and patches on your coat for identity. However, as I wrote earlier, nearly every voter id law has been found unconstitutional.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“You have to show identification when you write a check, register for classes, use a credit card.”

––––––

Actually, you don't.

======================================

“if TSA people, bartenders, tobacco vendors, etc. can do it, so can poll workers”

–––––

Last I checked, there isn't an expectation to have EVERY 18+ year old in the U.S. come to those venues on the same day between 7a and 7p. Comparing election logistics with the logistics of boarding a plane or entering a bar shows how little understanding you have of the issue.

========================================

commuter,

If you say you are your neighbor when you vote, then one of two things will happen:

1) your neighbor will have already voted, and a red flag would point to foul play when the polling staff realizes you are trying to vote as someone else.

2) your neighbor will be told that he/she has already voted when he goes to cast his actual vote, again raising a red flag.

You see, that is why you have to show ID to register to vote in the first place. People always complain about how much beauracracy and inefficiency there is at the government level, yet everyone here seems to be supporting an measure that is basically redundant. Pretty inefficient if you ask me.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

If everyone is so worried about security, how about this compromise?

Voters would be required to submit their valid signature when they vote, and that signature is then on hand the register at the polling station. The poll employee then has only to compare the on-file signature with the actual signature.

Would anyone who is in favor of requiring IDs be okay with that proposal instead? If not, why?

shirinisb (Anonymous) says…

Logicsound-

I disagree, that is creating a lot of hussle and bussle. An ID is verified on site whereas double signatures will create more work for everyone. First they would have to be entered into a database, then they would have to be divided by precinct…then you would have to train poll workers to verify signatures, etc. etc. Most poll workers are elderly, and they're already working an entire day with no break.

Kudos for trying to come up with a better solution, however I think the I.D. is going to be the quickest, and easiest based on the situation.

Bone777 (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 - your are right. Some places are lax with the requirement to show an I.D.

My wife got her purse stolen and numerous businesses didn't check the thief's ID when making transactions. The final tally that businesses were defrauded was over $7000.

Thanks for making my point.

commuter (Anonymous) says…

I personally do not have a problem requiring having an ID to cast your ballot. What is the big deal?

I am sorry, I have to show id for so many other things, why can't I show ID to cast my ballot? I have to show ID to buy cigarettes, alsohol, to go to a club or to board a plane. If requiring an ID is unconstitutional, why aren't all of those other things requiring ID also unconstitutional?

I guess some people just want any to vote for you instead of you.

PYwacket, I totally agree with you. I want MY vote to be counted, not someone to vote for me.

KS (Anonymous) says…

Good grief. And who is going to compare the signature of the good doctor? I try to use good penmanship, but sometimes I can't even read my own. How is a voter judge supposed to know? Frankly I see the signature deal the same as a photo ID, except the photo ID is easier to check.

Logicsound04, review what you just posted, especially to commuter, #1 and #2, I think you have that backwards! No?

commuter (Anonymous) says…

Could someone give me an example of state making this a requirement and then the courts ruling it is unconstitutional? Besdies California because the Cal. Appellate courts have been overruled by the US Supreme Court more than any of Appellate courts in the nation.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Press release from Sept of last year—

Court's Order Forces Department of Revenue to Suspend Photo ID Work

jefferson city – The Missouri Department of Revenue is suspending its implementation of the Missouri Voter Protection Act, as required by Thursday’s Court Order issued by the Cole County Circuit Court. Effective on Monday, non-driver licenses for voting purposes will cost $11 at contract offices, and the Department is temporarily suspending mobile unit visits to nursing homes, senior centers, and other facilities.

Director Trish Vincent has contacted the Attorney General, requesting that the Court amend its Judgment to permit free non-driver licenses for voting purposes and mobile unit visits pending appeal. Should that occur, the Department is ready to immediately restart mobile visits and issue non-driver licenses for voting purposes at no cost.

“I am disappointed that the Court’s Order is so broad that it enjoins ‘all employees’ of the state — including Revenue’s — from implementing this good law,” said Director Trish Vincent. “We have citizens eagerly awaiting mobile unit visits who will be disappointed and inconvenienced. I hope we will soon be permitted to continue our important work pending appeal.”

Before the Court’s Order, the Department had issued 2,074 free non-driver licenses for voting purposes. Sixty-six confirmed visits to nursing homes and other facilities are on hold due to the Court’s Order.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

An ID does not go far enough. They are too easy to obtain and to fake. I mean, any idiot can get an ID.

Better would be a requirement that citizens pass an educational aptitude test at the polls before being allowed to vote. The test should cover things like civics, literature, science, and reasoning skills. In this age, many issues upon which people vote are complex and deal with ethics, science, and political structures. I mean, we make people take a test before they can drive a car. Why not require passage of a test to vote? It's just common sense.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Kudos for trying to come up with a better solution, however I think the I.D. is going to be the quickest, and easiest based on the situation.”

–––––—

While I appreiciate your kindness, my whole reasoning for the suggestion is because the ID requirement is unacceptable. There are many current problems with our electoral system that could be addressed BEFORE a problem that, currently, doesn't exist (voter fraud by pretending to be someone else).

=======================================

“If requiring an ID is unconstitutional, why aren't all of those other things requiring ID also unconstitutional?”

––––—

Because you don't have a RIGHT, as a U.S. citizen—to “buy cigarettes, alsohol, to go to a club or to board a plane”. You DO, however, have a right to vote.

=======================================
For anyone wondering how this is measure is unconstitutional:

TITLE 42 > chapter 20 > subchapter i-a > § 1973

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision.

========================================

KS,

Could you be more specific as to what you believe is backwards? Maybe my language was not clear enough, but I'm not sure what is causing the disconnect.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“Besides, it is likely as unconstitutional as a poll tax.”

No, I don't think so.

Poll taxes were struck down as diminishing a core right (the right to vote) without a corresponding benefit (“no reasonable relationship”). You can find it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge…

In stark contrast, an initiative such as this does have a corresponding - and indeed equal - benefit: to ensure that others' core rights (the right to vote) are also not diminished. I suspect any state with a 'program' to pay for IDs for the poor will pass muster.

It also seems obvious that predictions of “chaos” are fairly silly.

Unfortunately, showing an ID at voter registration in no way verifies, checks, or has any other matching ability that verifies that a person receiving a ballot is indeed the same registered voter.

All that said, I believe this concern - at least within Kansas - is a distraction. Significant amounts of voter fraud have been identified in various elections (apparently death only slightly diminishes voter turnout in some states) but I cannot recall any in Kansas.

KS (Anonymous) says…

yourworstnightmare - I agree! Unfortunately they don't want to teach that stuff in schools today. They do the 3D approach. Keep them dumb, dependent and democrat! :)) Reasoning skills is called “LOGIC” When was the last time you saw that taught in public schools? Good grief, make a kid “think”? Unheard of! Might offend someone.

jimincountry (Anonymous) says…

Put it to a vote. The sooner the better. I want to see who is against photo ID requirements for voting.

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

You wanna fly in a commercial airplane … you need ID.

You want to go and see a court case … you need an ID.

You want to cash a check ….. you need an ID.

You wanna buy a beer …. you need an ID.

You want to open a bank account …. you need an ID.

You want to enroll in college … you need an ID.

why the hell would voting not need an id??!!!?>?!

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision.”

Other than proving that you are over 18, and a LEGAL resident of the State of Kansas. You did not post the whole law, just the part that agreed with your argument. YOu gotta post the whole test of the law. But that would show it is OK to have ID, doesn't it?

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“You actually think requiring poll workers to tote around books of signatures is simpler than asking for a photo ID to prove you are who you say you are? And all these poll workers are going to be handwriting experts, eh?

Brilliant!

Not.”

––––––––—

Go-DOH!,

If you would read more, you might find that my suggestion was more as a compromise for those that are worried about poll security. My problem with the ID requirement actually has nothing to do with the difficulty it would create—elections are complicated, there is no way around that.

I don't actually think anything differently should be done, as can be seen by this quote of mine:

“There are many current problems with our electoral system that should be addressed BEFORE a problem that, currently, doesn't exist (voter fraud by pretending to be someone else).”

=======================================

ASSbestos,

You are correct that I didn't post the whole law, as it involves a lot of complicated legal jargon. However, the basic jist of the law, that you cannot make any requirements to vote other than being a legal citizen of the U.S. and of voting age. It is no different than the old literacy tests they once used as a litmus to be allowed to vote.

As far as this post:

“You wanna fly in a commercial airplane … you need ID.

You want to go and see a court case … you need an ID.

You want to cash a check ….. you need an ID.

You wanna buy a beer …. you need an ID.

You want to open a bank account …. you need an ID.

You want to enroll in college … you need an ID.

why the hell would voting not need an id??!!!?>?!”

Identification currently IS required to vote—it's called registration. That would satisfy the “Other than proving that you are over 18, and a LEGAL resident of the State of Kansas.” part of your argument. In fact, yourworstnightmare pointed out that fake IDs are fairly easy to obtain—if you are so concerned about voter security, then we better start requiring people to bring their birth certificates to be able to vote.

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

The case to watch is out of Arizona which was on before the United States Supreme Court last fall regarding the issuance of a restraining order or temporary injunction against the state required use of voter identification cards.

The Supreme Court of the United States in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 127 S.Ct. 5, 8 (U.S.,2006) ruled that: “We underscore that we express no opinion here on the correct disposition, after full briefing and argument, of the appeals from the District Court's September 11 order or on the ultimate resolution of these cases. As we have noted, the facts in these cases are hotly contested, and “[n]o bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 359, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997). Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules.”

The matter was then remanded to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings. I expect it will be back before the Supreme Court anon.

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“However, the basic jist of the law, that you cannot make any requirements to vote other than being a legal citizen of the U.S. and of voting age.”

Yes and LOGIC would dictate that that would be proven by use of an ID, you are a DA!!

“Identification currently IS required to vote—it's called registration.”

IDIOT, that is why ACORN is in trouble in St. Louis and KC, for voter fraud. They did not use ID's to get the registrations done. You are clueless there “logic” and seem to possess none.

Read things BEFORE you post there logic, you look and sound like a raving lunatic.

MississippiFrog (Anonymous) says…

I don't think that showing an id to vote is such a bad thing but, on the other hand, I do think there should be a way for the poor and elderly to obtain a free id for voting purposes.

I can remember the first time I voted in KS I had to show an ID. My first time voting in MS all they did was check my name off the list.

The local legislature in MS is attempting to pass the id law as well. I doubt it would pass here as there are still too many folks who struggle to read and write. I know you are probably going to blast me for stereotying MS but I can't tell you the number of clients I have who have to sign their name by marking an X.

I loved the posts about having to take a test to vote. Have you seen Leno when he asks civil questions on the street? Hardly anyone knows the answers to the simple grade school questions.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Having an aptitude test would achieve what many here want: to prohibit voting by illegal immigrants. It would also prevent voting by ignorant and stupid Americans, a nice bonus.

Using JA's logic, the benefit to society of this measure would far outweigh its possibility of disenfranchisement. And besides, everyone would have a chance to vote.

youngitized (Anonymous) says…

This is ridiculous and shameful. Quite frankly, all of you who are calling for this measure really disgust me! A senior citizen who doesn't drive and has no driver's license equals bad idea and talk about driving people away from voting. This is a bad idea and I hope if it passes the Senate and the House that Sebelius vetoes it.

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Requirements for a KS drivers license and ID card. Unless of course you are an illegal alien and you can forge as many as you want.

http://www.ksrevenue.org/dmvproof.htm

Senior Citizen's have to provide some type of ID to collect and cash thwir SS benefits and medicaid assistance. You are an idiot if you believe that as youngitized believes that the senior citizens do not have ID and cannot afford it. You can bet that if the poor or the seniors needed and ID to get their benefits, they will cough off up the $12.50 to get a Kansas ID.

This is not about driving people away from voting!!!

this is about people that should not vote and keeping them from violating a legal voters right to cast ballots legally!!

What is wrong with you idiots????

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

youngitized~ don't be silly. Most old folks have enough sense to have valid IDs, whether they can still drive or not. And every state (even this one) gives people the option of obtaining, at a very negligible cost, a photo ID card in lieu of a driver's license, should that person so choose or need it.

As for the inane argument about unfairness “because you already showed your ID when you registered,” that is crazy on so many levels, where do I start?

(1) if you showed ID when you registered, there goes all the other bleating whines about this law being “unfair” to those who “don't have ID.” If they DIDN'T have ID, they couldn't have registered in the first place, so voting is really not an issue, is it?

(2) in case you haven't noticed, voting typically takes place at a different location, time, and date from registration. Thus (read slowly—maybe you'll get it), it is a moot point that they established the true identity of each person on the day he or she registered. The point in the proposed change is that they need to establish the identity of the person who is actually standing there ready to enter the voting booth. AGAIN—a lot of voter fraud could be ruled out by requiring a picture ID at that time.

Hell, what's to stop me and all my politically active friends from keeping track of the obits and where the persons lived, then taking turns “voting” for any number of deceased individuals? This has happened in NY, Chicago, and probably here.

If I tried to vote for the deceased “Jane Doe,” and the poll worker didn't find Jane's name (i.e., Jane wasn't registered in her precinct), the worker probably wouldn't bat an eye when I replied that I “had moved earlier in the year and must've forgot to change my address with the county.” I could then walk out, go to another polling station, armed with another deceased's name, and try again.

Everyone should have a picture ID—either a DL or state-issued ID card—and should be required to show it to vote, cash a check, use a credit card, etc. YOU and I may be honest, but there are a lot of frauds & crooks out there.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

It would be easy. There could be a computer terminal on which questions would be answered. If you scored well, the machine would give access to a ballot. If not, you would leave without voting. This way, the poll worker would not be required to make judgement calls.

Pass or fail. That simple. And maybe, people would study for the pre-vote exam, raising the education level of the public.

Let's start with right_thinker:

R_T, what government position is 4th in line behind the president for the presidency? (no cheating, no googling, textooks, etc.) This is on your knowledge and on your honor.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

vice, speaker, pro-tempore, state. Condi is the 4th. A bit more appropriate for MLK day.

buffalo_star (Anonymous) says…

The right to vote or vote count integrity, I say both. It's government's job to make both happen at each and every election. Seems simple but special interests and political agendas always cloud a clear sky.

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

I think the problem is more one of keeping track of and accuratly counting votes. I have not heard of or read anything about people stealing votes or making a vote for me.

What if elections where held weekly so we could change our mind based on the job being done the way it is supposed to be. Anyone can make a promise and sweep it under the rug over a 4 year period.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Yes and LOGIC would dictate that that would be proven by use of an ID, you are a DA!!”

––––—

Huh? I don't even know what you mean by this sentence. And I'M a raving lunatic? It's funny that the only ones that ever accuse me of that seem to be a little off-kilter themselves—present company included.

=======================================

“IDIOT, that is why ACORN is in trouble in St. Louis and KC, for voter fraud. They did not use ID's to get the registrations done. You are clueless there “logic” and seem to possess none.”

–––

I am unfamiliar with that case, but based on your substance-less description of the situation, Acorn's problems seem to be with registration—not identification at the polls. So thanks for illustrating my point.

The other thing about registration is that it can be done with any document—i.e., a birth certificate—that proves your citizenship and age. Youngitized had a good point, that essentially gets at what I'm trying to say. He mentioned the instance of senior citizens (or any other person) who, for whatever reason, don't drive. While MOST people would have no problem showing an ID to vote, SOME would. Which brings us back to the original law—it is forbidden to restrict people's ability to vote for any reason, except age and citizenship. Your proposed law would inadvertently impose such restrictions.

I still fail to see why we would want to restrict voter turnout in a country where turnout is one of the lowest in the world.
=======================================

I still have yet to get an answer about how the fakeability of drivers' licenses would affect this idea.

Also, I am curious to see how supporters of this law stand on the idea of digital voting machines. If security is the concern, then I must assume you are against something that leaves no hard record of people's actual votes.

What say you?

rodentgirl16 (Anonymous) says…

ID or no ID, I don't really care, but I find it amusing that people are freaking out about illegal immigrants fraudulently voting. We can't even get our own American electorate to show up to the polls, and it is their right as Americans. I seriously doubt that any significant number of illegal immigrants will go through the hassle and the lines to commit voter fraud. They're probably just like all the other people who don't vote in elections. They sit home on the couch eating potato chips and then complain about how much the government sucks.

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“I am unfamiliar with that case, but based on your substance-less description of the situation, Acorn's problems seem to be with registration—not identification at the polls. So thanks for illustrating my point.”

That has to be your most clueless and dense post EVER!!! How the HELL does it illustrate your point when you are not even familiar with the case??? duh!! acorn registered perple twice and those that were dead and illegal aliens. HOW did they do this when an ID is required to register???? YOur point is NOT made. IF you register with an ID and then VOTE with prof of that ID it is corssed off the list and there is no doubling up, or dead people or illegal aliens voting!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pywhacket NAILED the issue here:

“(1) if you showed ID when you registered, there goes all the other bleating whines about this law being “unfair” to those who “don't have ID.” If they DIDN'T have ID, they couldn't have registered in the first place, so voting is really not an issue, is it?”

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

As any underage partier knows, fake IDs are easily acquired, so exactly how would showing a photo ID make voting any more secure? How could they be sure the ID shown to them was real or fake? Are they going to be trained to know the difference? I kind of doubt it. And some of the fake IDs floating around are really sophisticated fakes, and even some experts can't tell the difference.

But you expect poll workers, who are volunteers, to be able to tell?

Somebody mentioned making people sign something when they go to vote…I don't know about the rest of you, but here in Franklin Co., I already have to sign the registration book EVERY time I go to vote.

Why don't we slow up the voting process even more? Why don't they require fingerprints, or a sample of DNA, and then we can all wait weeks and weeks while the experts do all the tests necessary to verify everyone's vote?

If you open this can of worms, it won't stop with requiring photo ID.

The percentage of registered voters that actually go out and vote is abysmal anyway. Do you really think hordes of people are going out and casting illegal votes?? If so, where are they? Why isn't it reflected in the totals?

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

Posted by oldgoof (anonymous) on January 15, 2007 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh good lord settingtherecord, give us a single example of more votes cast than registered voters in any Kansas election.
*************************************

I agree. I'm not necessarily against showing ID but I do think, in Kansas, this is a lot of hoopla over nothing. Huelskamp himself is from a county of less than 5000 people. Just how much voter fraud has he seen?

Considering the remote chances of being damaged by voter fraud in Kansas, this should be a back burner issue, at best.

Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…

In those immortal wrods: “Vote Early, Vote Often.” This is often attributed to Chicago's Mayor Daley. However, the actual speaker was… (Scroll down)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Al Capone

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“R_T, what government position is 4th in line behind the president for the presidency? (no cheating, no googling, textooks, etc.) This is on your knowledge and on your honor.”

See, this is why knowledge tests are a bad idea - this is a trick question.

There is a statute that purports to say that the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate succeed a vacant President/Vice President.

Not only is that a spectacularly bad idea, its probably unconstitutional. Article II of the Constitution specifies that Congress in such a circumstance is to choose what “officer” shall “act” as President.

An “officer” within this context is a member of the Executive Branch not the Legislative one. (Also, this person merely “acts” as President; he/she is in fact not the President and merely holds the powers until a new President is elected - by some mechanism and at some time never specified in the Constitution.)

So … you can have a voting “test” but perhaps you should be prepared for an essay exam.

ljreader (Anonymous) says…

To those of you who say that there is no proof that illegal aliens are registering to vote and are casting ballots in our elections- You are wrong.
Of course they are! - Of course, anyone with any common sense already knew this.

Hundreds of Illegals Have Registered to Vote in Bexar County.

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sec…