Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Republicans call for law requiring voter ID

Democrats fear law would disenfranchise poor, elderly; Supreme Court sees otherwise

April 29, 2008

Advertisement

Reader poll
Have you done any political work for one of the presidential candidates' campaigns this year?

or See the results without voting

— Emboldened by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Republicans on Monday called for passage of a law in Kansas to require that people have a photo ID to vote.

In a 6-3 decision, the court upheld Indiana's photo identification requirement.

Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh praised the ruling, saying such laws protect against voter fraud.

"Voter identification is critical to the security of the electoral process," Thornburgh said, and he also urged Kansas legislators to pass a similar law.

But Democrats have opposed such proposals, saying they would suppress turnout of elderly, low-income and minority voters because those groups would be the most likely not to have the necessary ID.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, vetoed a photo ID bill in 2003, and has noted there has been little evidence of voter fraud in Kansas' recent history. Under Kansas law, the only time a person must show ID to vote is if the person is a new voter in the county. And the ID doesn't have to include a photo.

But Republicans hold substantial majorities in both chambers of the Legislature, and may try to push through another voter ID bill when they return for the wrap-up session Wednesday.

Writing for the majority in the Indiana case, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said the law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented. Souter said the Indiana law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"I do not agree, voting fraud exists and I dare say there is more evidence for election fraud than for man caused global warming."Well all else fails, you can always fall back on argument by unsupported and unsupportable assertion, right, Sigmund?

ASBESTOS 6 years, 7 months ago

That is exactly what the SCOTUS opinion stated and the finding was written by Kennedy which is one of the liberals on the Bench. The point was that it was NOT burdensome, and the other issues that require ID make it a stupid argument that the requirement of the ID is not going to diacriminate anyone, and there are provisions in almost all states to give a little leeway to those that are older and handicapped in some way.The argument is specious from the side that does not want to have IDs at the poll. IT was also stated that this was a STATES RIGHTS issue, and the state sets the standard for their elections, not the Feds. Additionally, there is also an argument that ineligible voters voting in an election disenfranchises ALL the eligible voters.So you whiney idiots shut up, it is reasonable, and even the desenters stated that on the issue of being "burdensome" there was no reasonable cause to override the decision.If you want illegal voters in the elections, you are simply a moron, and the ID requirement stops just that, except for the "provisional ballots" in which you have 10 days to produce ID, or the vote is not counted.

BigAl 6 years, 7 months ago

I don't necessarily have a problem with this. It just seems like big brother gets a little closer all the time. And, I don't recall ever hearing any problems with voter fraud in Kansas. That said, I don't think it is a big deal proving who you are when you vote.

monkeyhawk 6 years, 7 months ago

"Big Brother is alive and well in America."...and I'm sure you know all of them.They are your buds who dictate where (and what) to smoke, where, when, what and how to drive, what kind of light bulbs we can use, what we can eat, prohibit circuses and balloons. No waving by the traffic guards, they hate cell phones in the car, want to force curbside recycling, no pesticides, ride the bus, hate the war and Bush. I'm sure I have missed a lot of examples, but you catch my drift.But, it is only "big brother" when you do not approve.

jumpin_catfish 6 years, 7 months ago

This is not a big issue. Requiring an ID from a person wishing to vote is only common sense. It's that simple unless you're trying to make a political football out of it. The larger issue is the total lack of interest by so many citizens in this country who never vote.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"How do they cash their disability, SS, welfare or other checks if they don't already have an ID? Weak argument."The simple fact is that there are almost no occurrences of voter fraud, likely because there is no incentive to engage in it, and it would be impossible to organize that activity so that it would significantly affect any election without detection.On the other hand, there have been hundreds of documented cases of eligible voters being denied their right to vote because of niggling bureaucratic ID requirements, and they are probably just the tip of the iceberg. So it's very clear that this whole thing is a fraud perpetrated on eligible voters who Republicans fear are likely to vote the "wrong way." Big Brother is alive and well in America.

SearchingForTruth 6 years, 7 months ago

I am more worried about election fraud than voter fraud.

monkeyhawk 6 years, 7 months ago

"Imagine how much harder it will be to get to the Kansas DMV for someone who is disabled, or poor and without a car, or elderly."How do they get to the grocer, doctor, etc.? How do they get to the --- polls?? This would be a good time to give the above mentioned free bus rides."Or is this simply a way to steal the voting rights of the poor, sick and elderly?"Or, is this simply a way to make sure foreign invaders do not dictate policy by electing our lawmakers?

Oracle_of_Rhode 6 years, 7 months ago

Hey the Jim Crow poll tax is back! Thanks Supreme Court! Imagine how much harder it will be to get to the Kansas DMV for someone who is disabled, or poor and without a car, or elderly. The DMV is where these IDs will be provided, I assume for free. (Unless you count bus fare, the cost of gas, or time lost to the procedure). So the GOP in Kansas wants to set the bar to vote much higher for these people. Are there any actual instances of voter ID fraud in Kansas that supporters of this can point to? Or is this simply a way to steal the voting rights of the poor, sick and elderly?

drake 6 years, 7 months ago

How do they cash their disability, SS, welfare or other checks if they don't already have an ID? Weak argument.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"Or, is this simply a way to make sure foreign invaders do not dictate policy by electing our lawmakers?"Since there is zero evidence of foreign invaders doing anything of the sort, that pretty well leaves one possible conclusion.If the legislature really wants to make this pointless but mean-spirited and wholly politically motivated gesture, they need to do it as part of a complete package of laws that also make it easy for qualified voters to get registered and cast their votes, not just add bureaucratic red tape to what should be an unencumbered right.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

" ACORN was widespread voter fraud in MO-just miles away."I'm aware of the claim-- one that has been throughly debunked, but repeated ad nauseam, because in Republican Land, if you repeat anything often enough, it becomes the "truth."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"The larger issue is the total lack of interest by so many citizens in this country who never vote."Which is exactly why this is an issue. Karl Rove's election strategy is to disnefranchise as many likely non-Republican voters as possible, and these ID laws are just part of that strategy.

DaREEKKU 6 years, 7 months ago

Republican Party--Jesus wants you to vote for us, especially if you're white, and the rest of you can burn in hell!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"Wow!! You could almost say the same thing about the far-left blogosphere."You could say it about any "blogoshere." But what happens in a blogosphere, and what happens as official Republican policy are very different things.http://truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/CrawfordAllegations.pdfhttp://truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

akt2 6 years, 7 months ago

I'm asked for my ID at the physican's office, bank, grocery store when writing a check, any retail store where I have ever returned an item, the ER, the library when obtaining a library card, and my child's school when obtaining computer passwords for records. It is a ridiculus argument to say that someone could be inconvenienced because they might have to obtain valid identification. Then I suppose it will be some big inconvenience to carry the ID, and present the ID when asked. What a joke.

simplykristib 6 years, 7 months ago

I don't drive due to my vision. I don't think that I should have to pay as much as someone who drives. Here in MO, we have to have a birth certificate to get a non-driver's ID renewed from now on. Voters aren't the problem... It's the Presidential elections.

akt2 6 years, 7 months ago

Even the little elementary school kids have photo IDs.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 7 months ago

lucky_man says..."You guys really are terrific on this open (to some) and award-winning reader comment forum/on-line newspaper."Right_Thinker, you're back. Wondered where you had gone.

compmd 6 years, 7 months ago

drake,I honestly cannot remember the last time my bank asked me for identification to deposit money. In case you forgot, this is Kansas, and many financial institutions are small enough that the tellers know everyone who comes in.Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says:"Ladies and Gentlemen,YOu have six months to get your ID so you can vote on the next election: s_i_x months: SO for those of you that have lived on caves and free of driver licenses, government ID's and any other valid form of ID you use to cash the checks the government hands you every month, make sure it's valid so you can vote."You do realize that we've been voting in this country for a couple of centuries without government issued photo id, right?SearchingForTruth (Anonymous) says:"I am more worried about election fraud than voter fraud."So am I. Did you know that Diebold admits that their ATMs are more secure than their voting machines? Yes, they they are more interested in protecting money (which is insured) than the democratic election process.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 7 months ago

Ah, logicsouse, I really have to thank you for the morning laugh. No matter how many times and how many ways you say "There is a right to vote," "There is no explicit right to vote contained in the Constitution," and "Nothing I've said thus far contradicts either of those points," it's still worth a good chuckle."Resorting to using my comments to other posters to generate material is pretty desperate."My but you have a lot of rules, troll. Let's see ... Nobody can bring up anything you've said in past posts from other threads (from your "entire body of work"), can't comment on things you post (to a public message board) that were intended for someone else, if returning to the message boards a week later I have a duty to look up old threads to see whether you've posted anything in response to my posts, etc., etc. As for what I've said about the topic, logicsouse, I said the Supreme Court disagreed with your repeated contention that requiring a voter to present ID constituted a poll tax. You probably blanked that out, what with being the expert on Constitutional issues and all, and being unable to fathom (as usual) that you were wrong (as usual) yet again.But let's see what you, logicsouse, say about the Supreme Court's decision on voter ID requirements:"1) There is a right to vote.""2) There is no explicit right to vote contained in the Constitution"

stuckinthemiddle 6 years, 7 months ago

logicsound04your suggestion of providing IDs free of charge at the time of registration seems like a problem solver to me...and... you're exactly right about Florida... and across the US in general...voter fraud is not a problem...voter disenfranchisement is a problem...

staff04 6 years, 7 months ago

Until photo IDs are issued for free to those who cannot/do not wish to make the expenditure, then it is a poll tax. Disenfransing even one person doesn't make it disenfranchisement any the less.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

The facts remain simple--Voter fraud-- zero evidence of any significant problem because a) there is no incentive for individual voters to engage in it and b) any organized effort would be too easily detected.Voter disenfranchisement-- considerable evidence that creating hurdles to voting with ID requirements does impact a significant number of voters, and they impact disproportionally the poor, the elderly and the disabled, the majority of whom tend not to vote Republican. These laws are very appropriate coming from the once Grand Old Party which has now become the party of corruption, fraud and fear-mongering.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

The minor burden of showing a photo ID/driver's license does not outweigh the benefits of deterring voter fraud. Many of you are using the same failed argument that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, "give me proof of a problem of voter fraud". However, even the liberal justices understood the opposite argument, "give me proof that requiring to show a driver's license has EVER been a problem."If you read the opinion the Court discusses voter fraud in recent history. Just b/c there are no statistics to prove widespread voter fraud today does not mean some voter fraud doesn't occur. And even if there is no voter fraud, the burden is so low, along with the exceptions for any legal and registered voter to get an ID or cast a provisional ballot, the benefits of citizens being more confident in the election process will likely INCREASE the number of the only voters you care about (democrats). Unless you claim democrats don't care about the integrity of the voting process, which is absurd. To use an example it is similar to an old run-down building, decent law abiding citizens stay away b/c there is a perception there is crime and drug-dealers in the building. This then becomes reality b/c no one else will go near the building. However, studies show that if you refurbish and clean up the building it deters criminals and makes law-abiding citizens more prone to visit the area. Just by making the voting process appear more legitimate can have the same impact, even if it is just a face-lift.

nverlost 6 years, 7 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus = Naive lefty spinner

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 7 months ago

Wow...The old, picture ID ploy...Great way to pretend our votes count for schist!~)Ooh, and now we can make sure that we don't have all of those illegal aliens voting for the Bush boys!~) Hilarious stuff! You can't make this schist UP!~)

Mkh 6 years, 7 months ago

Here is the important question...Which ID will be required? Our current Kansas State ID, or the soon to be issued Real ID card (also called the "National ID")?According to the Real ID Act of 2005, the Real ID card will be required to enter any federal building, airplane,etc. According to the Act we were all suppose to be incompliance by this May. However, due to resistance from certain states the plan has been push back by Homeland Security to 2011 for all states to be in compliance. However, it should be noted that neither Bilderberger Queen Sebelius nor the Kansas Congress has tried to stop the Real ID from taking place in Kansas.The most controversial portion of the Real ID has to do with the proposed use of RFID microchips to constantly monitor the American public. It should also be noted that all remaining Presidential candidates voted for the Real ID Act, EXCEPT of course Dr. Ron Paul.

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

A voter ID law is not a poll tax to the majority of Kansans who carry a government issued photo ID with them everyday.Unfortunately, the issue then is clouded by demagogues who honestly, and wrongly, believe the only people without a government issued photo ID are those they refer to as "illegals."Please. My 94 year old grandmother does not have a government issued photo ID. She's been voting for almost 80 years. If a photo ID bill passes, she will have to pay the government for both a birth certificate and then for a photo ID in order to vote.My 94 year old grandmother, who up until now has never had her citizenship questioned. How is that not a poll tax?

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

just another bozo on the bus.... I did read your post, your argument on voter disenfranchisement is wrong. Please read my argument and the Court's opinion (the only opinion that really matters).Mkh.....The U.S. Supreme Court says this is a state issue. Your attempt to change the topic to a national ID has failed.It is obvious no one can refute my arguments that greater integrity in the voting process will increase the number of voters, and that there is no evidence of actual disenfranchisement.

Mkh 6 years, 7 months ago

Satirical,I have not seen anything in the article or the comments addressing my question about what the grey area here would be. A National election is a national issue in the sense that it runs under the authority of the Federal Election Commission. You see that is a Federal orgainization, not a state. So my question again is, will voting in a federal election require the federal Real ID card? It seems like they could possibly require that, but I can't recall anything specific in the actual bill that discusses that. Obviously if a Real ID would be someday required, it would dramtically change this debate. Also one must understand that the Federal government will be issuing the Real IDs through the States.Personally, I'd like to know what the deal is...because I for one will not ever accept a Real ID card.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

The truth is you can create an argument opposed to any type of voting requirement. However, not all burdens are unconstitutional especially when they increase faith in the democratic process by ensuring integrity in the system. Many of those who post here only look at the minor and HYPOTHETICAL burdens.Ex:Requirement to sign your name.Liberal argument: You want to disenfranchise those who are illiterate. It is just like the Jim Crow laws.Requirement to provide proof you live in the jurisdiction.Liberal argument: Republicans don't want the homeless to vote b/c they don't have proof of residence.Requirement to vote at a location 1 mile from your house.Liberal argument: You just hate all those that are handicapped, old and poor from getting to the polling places.Requirement that you register before you voteLiberal argument: Poor people are so busy working they don't have time to register to vote.These are all burdens, but they are all low burdens, and provides benefits. Just like the ID requirement.

jumpin_catfish 6 years, 7 months ago

Sorry bozo but I disagree! If they had to have a valid ID to buy food they would get one. So stop trying to make an issue where one does not exist. Its about fair and honest elections and if that's important to a CITIZEN they will get a valid ID.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

I agree with Malcolm. In fact, IUD's for everyone. First I need a U.

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

"Its about fair and honest elections and if that's important to a citizen they will get a valid ID.""If that's important..."That is the very definition of voter disenfranchisement. So, only people who think it is important should vote?Crazy liberals seem to think everyone should vote, everyone should be encouraged to vote, and everyone should be given every opportunity to vote. At the same time, crazy liberals don't care one way or the other who you vote for.That seems to be the exact opposite of the pro-ID posters here. They seem convinced that the people who would be disenfranchised by such a law are all going to vote for Dems.Get this straight - I don't think an ID requirement is a lousy idea because it would reduce Democratic turnout. I think it is a lousy idea because it places a burden in the way of casting your vote, the only guaranteed right I have as a citizen.For the pro-ID crowd, they see it as two birds. They get to trumpet the "sanctity" of voting and they get to, in their feeble minds, limit turnout of people who won't vote Republican anyway.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

Dirkleisure:I have to hand it to you, I have never seen such a twisting of someone's comments before. Not only did you somehow make catfish out to be a liberal hater (he was neutral in his analysis), and claiming s/he was a Republican (which s/he didn't state s/he was) but you someone construed his/her argument to being opposed to voting in general. Somehow many of the left-leaning posters on this board think any neutral argument somehow makes them a Republican liberal hater who only wants other Republicans to vote. Although it is not atypical for left-learners to put words in people's mouths and distort the truth.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

Dirkleisure:"So, only those people who think it is important should vote?" Answer: YES, if you don't want to vote you don't have to. If going to a polling place is too high a burden, you don't have to vote. If bringing a piece of mail with your address on it is too high a burden, you don't have to vote. If registering several weeks before you vote is too high a burden, you don't have to vote. All of these are burdens (or disenfranchisement devices as you might call them), all of these are required in Kansas today, but no one here is opposing them. (Please see my previous posting)"They seem convinced that the people who would be disenfranchised by such a law are all going to vote for Dems."Response: I think only those who can't legally vote (at all or more than once) will be disenfranchised since there is no evidence that someone who may legally vote would be denied, and since this burden is so low.

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

Response: I think only those who can't legally vote (at all or more than once) will be disenfranchised since there is no evidence that someone who may legally vote would be denied, and since this burden is so low.-----How much is a birth certificate? How is a birth certificate obtained?Please provide that information without looking it up, so as to demonstrate how low the burden is.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

Dirkleisure...It would probably cost the same amount as gas, or a bus pass to go to the polling place. But the hospital where you were born has your birth certificate and they decide. Some might do it for free, I don't know since you won't let me look it up.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

Dirkleisure...Maybe if I went to the FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY I could discover this information for you.

sfjayhawk 6 years, 7 months ago

Just so I understand this: You need a license to vote, but do not need one to purchase a machine gun or a silencer?

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

Machine guns (assault weapons ban) and silencers are illegal sfjayhawk.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

A better argument, although not a good one would be handguns. Although I am pretty sure it requires a background check.

booyalab 6 years, 7 months ago

I don't know why we should have to wait for an incidence of voter fraud to be in the newspaper before we take measures to prevent it. I wouldn't want the teller at my bank to wait until some stranger withdrew all the money from my checking account before she started asking people claiming to be me for ID.

booyalab 6 years, 7 months ago

oh, and here's a link to a study from just last year that shows voter identification laws do not reduce turnout.http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/cda07-04.cfm

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

Logicunsound04:"Any burden is still a burden. Voting is an activity for which there should be none."First I never said there were actual requirements, they were examples of possible requirements. Second, the liberal argument opposing them was also a possible argument, not an actual argument someone has made today. If you read my first sentence you would have discovered this, "The truth is you can create an argument opposed to any type of voting requirement."Today there is a signature requirement to sign your name or X, which is an obstacle for those who might be paraplegic. It is a burden "for which there should be none"Not allowing homeless people to vote is a burden which disenfranchises likely democrats. And is a burden "for which there should be none." But no one is crying foul.Sometimes it is required for want-to-be voters to travel a mile or more to vote at their polling location (see rural areas). This would be a burden "for which there should be none." Although obviously there would not be statutory requirement to vote a mile a way, and it was ridiculous to suggest that is what I was implying. Logicunsound04 you are flat out wrong and the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. You must balance burdens and benefits. These burdens along with the burden to show a photo ID are low burdens and each state may decide if it feels it is necessary to ensure confidence in voting, which likely increases rather than decreases the number of voters (republicans and democrats).

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

But booyalab you are forgetting the hypothetical people that don't exist, and if they did an exception (such as a provisional ballot) could be created for them mitigating ANY possibility of illegitimate disenfranchisement. These non-existent people matter booyalab, not statistics that prove otherwise.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

There are a few other burdens 'for which there should be none" I forgot about, but apparently you are opposed to logicunsound04.The requirement to be breathing. The dead deserve a voice. This is a burdenThe requirement to only vote once. Why can't I vote for others who are too lazy or poor to get to the polling place? This is a burdenThe requirement to be a legal citizen. Illegal individuals are people too! This is a burdenThe requirement to be 18. My 2 year old has an opinion. This is a burden

ASBESTOS 6 years, 7 months ago

NO, the ACORN Voter Fraud in Missouri is NOT bebunked, 8 ACORN members plead guilty to "voter fraud". This was by using people twice, or having illegal voters such as non-residents vote.http://missouricri.org/index.htmWhy would ANY of you want to disenfranchise any citizens LEGAL vote by allowing ilelgal voters? How is that "progressive" or "democratic"?

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 7 months ago

Of course it's the Republicans. Who else could it be?

cato_the_elder 6 years, 7 months ago

Why don't some of you take Asbestos' advice and read the Supreme Court's opinion? Mr. Justice Stevens (hardly a 'liberal' jurist) announced the opinion of the Court, and Mr. Justice Breyer, in a dissent separate from that of Justices Souter and Ginsburg, would have upheld such a law if drafted differently. The Carter-Baker Commission (co-chaired by Howard Baker and former President Jimmy Carter - hello?), whose report was issued in 2005 and was cited in the Supreme Court case, clearly saw the need for this and recommended that all of the states adopt voter photo i.d. systems. One thing for certain about some of the posters on this site is that if anything is ever recommended by anyone who's a Republican, the knees will jerk to the ceiling and the sophomoric whining will commence.

Poon 6 years, 7 months ago

I was disenfranchised in a previous election because the city would not provide a mini voting booth on my nightstand. I didn't wanna have to get out of bed and put on some clothes and then some flip-flops so I could make it out of the house. I sure as heck didn't want to start my car so I could get to my precinct. Folks I am sick and tired of this disenfranchisement. I want a ballot delivered to my bed so I don't have to as much as take my head off the pillow!

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

God forbid that the government ask for identification from a voter to prove that they are a citizen of this country. What next? How about telephone hotlines like American Idol so we can just hit redial on our phones over and over? 1-866-IDIOT-01 to vote Red1-866-IDIOT-02 to vote BlueAsking for ID is 'voter disenfranchisement' and discrimination? If thats the case, than I will sue every liquor store and convenience store that has ever asked for my ID when I have bought alcohol and smokes. I will also sue the United States Immigration Dept for asking for my passport when coming back into the US from my trip to Ireland last fall. I felt extremely discriminated against. I mean...I spoke english...and I was wearing a K-State sweatshirt... They should have known. Seriously...some people are f'n retarded. We might as well set up voting machines at the US-Mexico border so that the people who havent already invaded our country and economy can at least have a chance to be part of our political process. Hell, just stick voting machines in every airport around the world...because just putting them on the mexican border would be racist and discriminatory. Dont forget to send a machine to Tehran and Kabul.

Sigmund 6 years, 7 months ago

You need a photo ID to to cash your pay check or welfare check. Just bring it when you vote.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

The left cant win at the ballot box with the legal, registered voters. So they rely on illegal aliens, the deceased, and the courtroom to keep them in office. The funny part is that it still doesn't work.

jumpin_catfish 6 years, 7 months ago

Voters required to have photo ID to vote now that's the America I want to live in!

Phill_Davis 6 years, 7 months ago

"As in, what's the liberal agenda for non-ID'd voters? Do you need society's rejects in order to stay in power?"Now we see the fascism inherent in the argument. Just because a citizen chooses to live outside "normal" society and/or systems which require photo ID doesn't mean they lose their franchise, assuming they meet registration requirements.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 7 months ago

"...assuming they meet registration requirements."Read your registration requirements, it states that one must be a legal resident of the "city/state", and must give proof of address, and proof of living at that address. Additionally, one cannot be registered to vote as eligible in any other jurisdiction.Check out your election laws before you start whining. Besides, it is NOT A POLL tax, that was the ruling by the SCOTUS. It is NOT a burden because of all the things in society that an ID is required to carry out such as cashing a check, or filing a request for your private medical records.Simple, and only stupid idealouges would oppose it.

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

Actually, I believe the argument was that it was not specifically demonstrated to be a burden.That is quite different from a SCOTUS ruling that it absolutely was not a burden.The ruling left open many avenues should the implementation of the law be a burden on voters. The court would hear arguments again.

ASBESTOS 6 years, 7 months ago

"The ruling left open many avenues should the implementation of the law be a burden on voters. The court would hear arguments again."Thank you DIrk, that is exactly what is in the ruling. And the SCOTUS sees no excessive burden in the Indiana Voter ID law. You made an important point there.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

There is no right to vote. Yet for some reason many people think that there is...and that we should remove ANYTHING that might inconvenience someone from voting.However, the second amendment IS a right. Yet for some reason we keep putting restrictions and control measures on that right. Why should I have to have photo ID and a background check done when buying a gun? I feel burdened by that. I feel as though I am being discriminated against. In fact, I think I should be able to buy a gun over the internet and have it delivered to my house. Its a burden to get in my car and go to the gun dealer. And I should be able to use my alias, vpete69 or Shatt, as the shipping address. Pulling out my ID and entering in the correct info is burdensome. The left for some reason, has the dillusion that voting is a right, and anything that may inconvenience a voter should be removed. This only started with the 2000 election. The left yells "FRAUD!" and "VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT!" only when they lose. For some odd reason, when a Republican wins an election, the left believes that "there is no possible way that a republican got that many votes"....that there is no way that there are that many people who oppose their marxist, communistic agenda. Their belief in these ideas is so strong, that voter fraud MUST have occurred. They believe that by removing ANYTHING that may hinder ANYONE from voting, they will get the votes that they need. Did you ever stop and think for one second that the reason why so few old people vote is not because of the lack of an ID (which you believe), but mere disgust at the candidates that we nominate, and the perverse liberal agenda that they promote.

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

"And the SCOTUS sees no excessive burden in the Indiana Voter ID law. "Nope, you're still missing it. SCOTUS sees no excessive burden demonstrated as a result of the Indiana law.Mainly because the law has not been implemented. SCOTUS refused to rule on hypothetical disenfranchisement, they told the opponents to bring actual examples. SCOTUS, in many ways, did not truly address the arguments. They danced around them, but the key is not the burden, but whether the burden has been demonstrated by actual cases of voters being disenfranchised.Of course, since the entire Voter ID argument is a solution in search of a problem, the entire decision drips with irony.

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

vpete69 (Anonymous) says:There is no right to vote.-------^|||Republican.Only a Republican would say that. In fact, the only true right I have as a US citizen, the only thing that does not require a law in order for me to have it and the only thing that can only be deprived of me by law, is my right to vote.Of course, Republicans think there is no right to vote, but there is a right to own an AK-47 and to shoot whomever you feel "threatened" by. So there's that.

fu7il3 6 years, 7 months ago

Someone said there should be no burden to vote. That's ridiculous. Voting should be a responsibility. Part of that responsibility should be knowing about who and what you are voting for. That, at a minimum, should be the burden behind voting.What good does someone's vote do our society if they are just randomly selecting names just to say they voted?

Sigmund 6 years, 7 months ago

While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for President for U.S. citizens, there is NO such federal right. If you believe differently you either slept through civics class or are a moron. The VRA only requires that IF the States grant the franchise to one group of citizens it can not discriminate against another group of citizens in granting that franchise. N.B. a State could deny all of its citizens the right to vote and this would not be a violation of the VRA.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 7 months ago

This should be carried further. Voters should be required to take and pass an exam dealing with American civics and government before they are allowed to vote.

Sigmund 6 years, 7 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "Granted, there is no explicit right to vote. However, I'd love to see a state try to implement the policy of not allowing its residents to vote."Correct, there is NO explicit nor implicit federal right to vote in presidential elections, period, end of statement. That is right is given to the citizens by the State (Kansas, Indiana, Missouri, etc.). and It is the States, not the Feds, who determine which of their citizens are eligible to vote for Electors who then vote in the Electoral College for President. As long as the VRA is not violated the States are completely free to create eligibility rules. Interestingly, Electors in many States are not bound by the popular vote and even that would not violate the VRA!This 6-3 decision simply said that the States have a legitimate interest in preventing potential future voter fraud, irrespective of any allegation or proof of past fraud, and the State's legitimate interest outweighs the minimal inconvenience to a minimum of voters who don't already have photo ID's.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"This 6-3 decision simply said that the States have a legitimate interest in preventing potential future voter fraud, irrespective of any allegation or proof of past fraud, and the State's legitimate interest outweighs the minimal inconvenience to a minimum of voters who don't already have photo ID's."But the law they were reviewing is a "cure" to a problem that doesn't exist, using methods that effectively disenfranchise voters who almost everyone would agree should be eligible. In the process of constructing a "cure" to fix that which ain't broken, the only identifiable result is to disenfranchise legitimately eligible voters solely because they would likely cast their ballots for non-Republicans.Something stinks about that. Really bad.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 7 months ago

at 4:09 p.m.logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "Unless you are a felon, non-citizen or not of voting age, there is absolutely a right to vote."at 5:37 p.mlogicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "Granted, there is no explicit right to vote."Wow, logicsouse (happy? not everyone uses the same name for you), even for a spinmaster like you, that's a pretty quick turnaround.But hey, we'll cut you some slack today. You must be choking on all that bile, having been spouting for months about how voter ID laws amounted to a poll tax. And the Supreme Court didn't agree with you? Is that even possible?????

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

Again, the Supreme Court did not disagree with the argument that a voter ID law was a poll tax or was otherwise a burden.What the Supreme Court decision says is that the opponents of the law presented no parties that had suffered harm, no demonstrable burden.The court, then, ruled that the state has the right to pass a law against perceived or potential fraud. That is accurate. The state also has a right to pass a law prohibiting Xercons from the planet Playtex from forming an appendix harvesting colony within the state's borders.The linchpin to the ruling on this law is the lack of a demonstrated burden placed on an Indiana citizen who wanted to exercise his or her right (as granted by the state) to vote.Once such a burden can be demonstrated by the opposition, the case will work its way through the court system again. At that point, SCOTUS will have to rule on the burden question. They did not do that on this case, they only ruled on the state's ability to pass such a law.

Sigmund 6 years, 7 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "But the law they were reviewing is a "cure" to a problem that doesn't exist, using methods that effectively disenfranchise voters who almost everyone would agree should be eligible"I do not agree, voting fraud exists and I dare say there is more evidence for election fraud than for man caused global warming. If you can't provide a photo ID at the voting booth or within 10 days after your provisional vote, you shouldn't be allowed to vote or your provisional ballot should be tossed. More importantly, after debate from both sides, SCOTUS agreed. Here is their published opinion in their own words."Each of Indiana's asserted interests is unquestionably relevantto its interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud. Indiana has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient. Indiana also claims a particular interest in preventing voter fraud in response to the problem of voter registration rolls with a large number of names of persons who are either deceased or no longer live in Indiana. While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483 addresses-in-person voter impersonation at polling places-has actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana's own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election's outcome. There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes. Finally, Indiana's interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process."http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdfCrawford v. Marion County Election Bd.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 7 months ago

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says: "Again, the Supreme Court did not disagree with the argument that a voter ID law was a poll tax or was otherwise a burden."Well, yes they did, actually:"Stevens' reasoning was this: "Not only is the risk of voter fraud real but ... it could affect the outcome of a close election," he wrote. The need to have photo identification is not "excessively burdensome" on any group of voters, he said, using the language of a 1974 precedent."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24356530/""We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798Justice Stevens, usually one of the liberal members of the court, wrote the opinion.And, from the latter link:"Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.""

Sigmund 6 years, 7 months ago

"Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."When I see The Chief Justice John G. Roberts tomorrow night there is one question I want to ask, "Can you get me Antonin Gregory Scalia's autograph?"

KS 6 years, 7 months ago

Common sense and logic prevails. Way to go Supremes. Too bad that three of them were sleeping.

budwhysir 6 years, 7 months ago

Just another reason for another group of concerned citizens to complain about something that is trivial. Doesnt have to do with money or politics, just a way to get everyone looking in another direction while we pass some goober law that will protect the american red worm that is traveling to our city sewer systems

Sigmund 6 years, 7 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "I went on to explain that the lack of an explicit right to vote did not change the fact that the right exists as a fundamental basis of our democratic republic."Actually you do have an explicit right to vote for Presidential Electors and it is granted to you by the State of Kansas Constitution, not the Feds."A citizen of the United States, who is otherwise qualified to vote in Kansas for presidential electors and candidates for the offices of president and vice-president of the United States may vote for such officers either in person or by absentee ballot notwithstanding the fact that such person may have become a nonresident of this state if his or her removal from this state occurs during a period in accordance with federal law next preceding such election."http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art5.htmlConstitution of the State of Kansas, Article Five, Section 1That is as long as you are not "disqualified" by Article 5, Section 2. "The legislature may, by law, exclude persons from voting because of mental illness or commitment to a jail or penal institution. No person convicted of a felony under the laws of any state or of the United States, unless pardoned or restored to his civil rights, shall be qualified to vote.http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art5.htmlConstitution of the State of Kansas, Article Five, Section 2However, The State of Kansas can require proof of your right to vote, "The legislature shall provide by law for proper proofs of the right of suffrage."http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art5.htmlConstitution of the State of Kansas, Article Five, Section 4If the State of Kansas decides to follow Indiana, I too hope that it also provides for a free Kansas photo ID in the legislation for those that don't already have a valid Kansas drivers license.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 7 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "I didn't change my opinion."at 4:09 p.m.: "Unless you are a felon, non-citizen or not of voting age, there is absolutely a right to vote."at 5:37 p.m: "Granted, there is no explicit right to vote."Uh huh. Well, it's kinda' hard to tell, since your 'opinion' covered both sides of the issue ... guess that makes change pretty much a moot point."I went on to explain that the lack of an explicit right to vote did not change the fact that the right exists as a fundamental basis of our democratic republic."Hint: Try saying that. Yet again, logicsouse says 'ignore what I said, this is what I really meant.'"Have anything to say about the issue? Didn't think so."What's left to say? As you've already covered both sides of the question, I guess you've said enough for two people already.logicsouse to jrudyhawk: "I love how you act indignant about the fact that I respond to being attacked as if I'M the one who started the confrontation."Waaaaaah.Seems to be a lot of that going on lately. Wonder why?

Sigmund 6 years, 7 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "1) There is a right to vote. It is a fundamental part of any democratic nation. It is the foundation of democracy."And it is granted to you under State Constitutions (not the US Constitution nor Federal Statute) and it is subject to numerous State restrictions that do not contradict the VRA. What is the problem here???logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "2) There is no explicit right to vote contained in the Constitution, that does not change point #1"Yes there is, it is in The Constitution of the State of Kansas subject to Kansas's Constitutional restrictions and Kansas's Constitutional requirement that the "legistlature shall provide by law for proper proofs of the right of suffrage." Again why look for rights from Fed that aren't the Feds to grant?

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

However, The State of Kansas can require proof of your right to vote, "The legislature shall provide by law for proper proofs of the right of suffrage."http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art5:.Constitution of the State of Kansas, Article Five, Section 4What right to suffrage? :)

fu7il3 6 years, 7 months ago

"This should be carried further. Voters should be required to take and pass an exam dealing with American civics and government before they are allowed to vote."I wouldn't take it that far, but I would say that people should know what the platforms and stances are of the people they are voting for. It shouldn't be, "We'll, I'm a democrat, so I will vote for whoever they trot out there."I actually know a guy who's a right-wing republican who said he will never bring himself to vote for a democrat, even if he totally agrees with everything that candidate says. I know democrats who I'd bet would do the same.Those sorts of people are a detremental to our republic, because voting down party lines destroys the fundamentals of democratic society. They aren't representing the people of their jurisdiction, they are representing a party. And a large part of their jurisdictions are not part of their parties.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

"For example, vpete69 has no business in a voting both. But, sure enough, vpete will be there in November voting for anyone calling themselves a Christen. Like a bug buzzing in on a bright light he will vote the right wing ticket."================I'll vote republican just because I think you should prove that you are a citizen of this country before you're allowed to vote?And what is a Christen?Logicsound: "If $5 is no big deal for a voter, then it certainly should be no big deal for the government to provide, no?"==================Why should I have to pay for someone's ID when they can get up off their a$$ and get a job? We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in history. Its not like there is a shortage of jobs. I'm tired of seeing our tax money go towards programs to help the lazy. You have to have ID when you register...so why is it such a "burden" to present that same ID at the polls? Are people just throwing away their ID? When you get a driver's license, do you leave it at home when you drive? "I'm sorry officer. I really do have a driver's license at home. But its just such a pain to carry my wallet." LOLAre there really that many homeless people out there without ID? Why do so many people believe that the poor dont have ID? I think that if something happened (it wouldn't) that forced me out on the streets, my ID would be the last damn thing I would get rid of. The homeless should save up all the change people give them and spend it on ID instead of liquor. Hows that? Until the ID-less poor (or whoever it is in this country that is able to function in life without ID) comes forth to complain that they arent able to vote because they dont have ID...then quit worrying about it. Quit making a problem out of something that isnt a problem.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

Autie: The grill thing was sarcasm. I could care less about C02 and "deadly grill smoke". We agree on more than the John Prine thing. I just tend to be much more blunt and to the point. I don't care about people's feelings. Too many crybabies in the world today.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

logicsound + its_getting_warmer....shouldn't you two liberals be getting along? Or are you just showing us how democrats are even able to divide their own party?

bisky1 6 years, 7 months ago

when will all the liberal/progressives who were so gleeful to declare us in a recession admit they were wrong and apologize?

pisafromthewest 6 years, 7 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "No, pisawork, it's just that Sigmund prefers to address issues instead combing through the posts of somone in an attempt to prove himself superior."Absolutely correct. Which is why his argument was better than yours was."By the way, I'm glad you are so above trying to have "the last word'"Right. If someone doesn't answer you then they're "running away." If they do "they're trying to have the last word." What a whiny little brat you've become, troll.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 7 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "Did you read Sigmund's post pisawork?""He pointed out (far more eloquently than I) ..."That's about the understatement of the year. Yes, I read it, and the difference between his post and yours is that he presented a logical, coherent piece of information that was understandable, and you said "There is a right to vote ...There is no explicit right to vote."Maybe you could hire Sigmund to write for you, although I somehow doubt his intention was to clarify whatever it was you were trying to say. Gee, you and IGW agree on everything but one topic (according to you) and he thinks you're a moron, too. And you say I'm the one that needs to work on my attitude.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 7 months ago

Oops, almost forgot:logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "Actually, the SCOTUS said that the Indiana law didn't represent an unfair burden on voters, not that "requiring a photo ID to vote is not a poll tax"."Well, except for that pesky little detail that the Supreme Court already ruled that poll taxes were unconstitutional (especially as they had been made illegal by Constitutional Amendment), and they ruled that this voter ID law wasn't. Now I know 'logic' isn't exactly native to your little brain, but if one is unconstitutional and the other isn't, then they pretty much can not be the same thing, can they?

Sigmund 6 years, 7 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "Well all else fails, you can always fall back on argument by unsupported and unsupportable assertion, right, Sigmund?"You must have missed the rest of my post where I pointed to the evidence of voter fraud found by at least 6 Supreme Court Justices after extensive debate from both sides. So I will repost it."Each of Indiana's asserted interests is unquestionably relevant to its interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud. Indiana has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient. Indiana also claims a particular interest in preventing voter fraud in response to the problem of voter registration rolls with a large number of names of persons who are either deceased or no longer live in Indiana. While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483 addresses-in-person voter impersonation at polling places-has actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana's own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election's outcome. There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes. Finally, Indiana's interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process."http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdfCrawford v. Marion County Election Bd.Hope this helps, although I doubt it.

Satirical 6 years, 7 months ago

I am hoping the next thing they require to vote is a Dillion's card. Because anyone who doesn't shop at Dillion's is a communist and should not be allowed to vote anyway.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.