Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, January 27, 2008

State GOP takes stand on requiring voter ID

January 27, 2008

Advertisement

— The Kansas Republican Party favors legislation to require that voters show photo identification at the polls.

The GOP's State Committee unanimously approved a resolution supporting the proposal Saturday.

The resolution says the party supports requiring people to show some form of government-issued identification when they register to vote and when they go to the polls.

Supporters say the measure will combat election fraud and prevent illegal immigrants from casting ballots. Critics contend such a law will suppress turnout.

Comments

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"Are here we get to the real nut. Linen assumes my community didn't know the difference between our multi-generational spanish americans, and the "illegals""

Yep, we've finally gotten to the "real nut," alright. Maybe out in West Podunk everyone knew everyone, and you didn't need ID to vote. I'm sure nobody would ever have thought of asking for ID to cash a check, either, and drivers licenses weren't necessary when the county sheriff might drive by once a month or so. Heck, if you left your wallet on the counter at the feedstore, I'm pretty sure everything would still be in it when someone came by to drop it off (even if you weren't home, since nobody had to lock their doors). And I'm sure you have all kinds of learnin' and 'sperience at county elections and all, what with all the time it must have taken to count all 12 votes back home.

You might want to get out once in a while ... why, I've heard there's places in the world that are (gasp) even bigger than Wichita!

0

justfornow 6 years, 2 months ago

Darn it americorps you have found me out, yes from right here in Lawrence Ks, I am trying to bring my country to her knees. If it weren't for you meddling posters I would have gotten away with it.

0

americorps 6 years, 2 months ago

justfornow (Anonymous) says: americorps until you live in America shut your F'n mouth, you damn Traitor.


I am more American than you will ever be. I support the Constituion of the United States, not spit on it like your racist and hateful brothers. I spread the word of American democracy all over the world. not tear my country from within.

I would rather face Al-Quada than you any day..the enemy from within, you, are the biggest threat to all that America stands for.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Linen: "By the way, warmer : how many of those Mexicans on the old family farm had documents?"


Are here we get to the real nut. Linen assumes my community didn't know the difference between our multi-generational spanish americans, and the "illegals"

And /he/she already admits he/she doesn't know squat about Kansas elections.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

Asbestos, neither you nor DL have shown any reason for such a law. Where is the wide spread abuse or even any abuse occurring? Just a typical GOP scare tactic. Less than a year to go before W and idiot administration is gone. As its_getting_warmer stated, looks like a solution in search of a problem. Of course that is standard GOP policy.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

Sorry for the Krazy Kool aide Krowd, but this is about ILELGAL ALIENS voting. Who in their right mind would allow another country's citizen to participate in OUR ELECTIONS!!!!! Who would be against that? Who would suppport ilelgal aliens voting but not requiring there not be appropriate IDs. You need them to register anyway. You need them to set up a bank account, and get just about anything else.

Additionally this is not a Republican Party issue, look at the proposals from the Democrats to stop ilelgal immigration into the state and to prevent them from getting benefits.

Most Americans, that is reasonable and rational Amercans both D's and R's recopgnise the problem of illegal immigration.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

jayhawkbarrister (Anonymous) says:

"I will put up with a little voter fraud in the alternative. I don't want to go down that slippery slope of a national ID card as a society or as an individual."

Thank you , barrister, for finally putting into words the argument of the kool-aid crowd. At least you're honest about being a conspiracy theory looney tune. (Pssst ... barrister ... the men in the dark suits are coming to get you tonight because you have a photo ID in your wallet!)

So voter fraud is preferable to people being able to prove who they are. Not that they have to keep the ID on them at all times and present it on demand to your shadowy Gestapo, but just being able to prove who they are, when they choose to, like if they want to cash a check, or maybe even vote ... that's too heinous a thought, and fraudulent elections are preferable.

Brilliant.

0

justfornow 6 years, 2 months ago

americorps (Anonymous) says:

I realize you hate America dirtyliar, it is what I expect for a baby burner such as yourself, but any reason you use only that one study and not the multitude of others that show different results:oh yea..I forgot..because you are a liar and have no ethics.

americorps until you live in America shut your F'n mouth, you damn Traitor.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"What logic you possess."

Sorry, luke_warm, but it's your logic you dismiss. It was you that said it doesn't make sense to make changes until after there's a proven problem ... heaven forbid someone take proactive measures to prevent a problem from happening in the first place. (Gee, with such foresightedness, I bet the old farm is doing so well.) Gotta' admit your logic didn't make much sense to me either, I can see why you're confused.

"I mean really, you know zilch about election law or election fraud."

Whereas the starry-eyed naif who doesn't think fraud exists is the expert we should listen to.

If your list of questions was supposed to imply that you have done all these things, warmer, you've answered your own question as to why change is needed: our elections have been resting in the hands of people like you that think taking someone's word for something serves as "proof."

By the way, warmer ... how many of those Mexicans on the old family farm had documents? I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with your resistance to anything that might present obstacles at the polls. It appears likely you probably do know more about fraud than the rest of us.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

I mean really, you know zilch about election law or election fraud.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Hey Linen, since you like to ask questions, I have some for you.

1) have you ever worked at an election day poll worker in Kansas? 2) have you ever worked with county level voting registration records? 3) have you ever participated in a county level vote tabulation in Kansas? 4) have you ever participated in a County Board of Canvassars meeting? 5) have you ever worked in resolving the outcome of challenged ballots at such a meeting? 6) have you ever participated in state level canvass of county votes? 7) have you ever attended a meeting of the State Elections Board? 8) have you ever been involved with litigation with an election in Kansas? 9) have you ever attended a meeting of Kansas election officers? 10) have you ever participated in a recount in a Kansas election?

Just 'cause I'm curious you know.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

DirtyLinen:Tell us, warmer, did the farm have a tornado shelter? Did you wait until after a tornado came through to build one?

No, but we built a Bio Security Level 4 Lab so we could seek shelter in case the plague or Spanish Flu pandemic would come through.

What logic you possess.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"On the farm where I grew up the general rule was "If it ain't broke don't fix it.""

The "wisdom" of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" pretty much relies on the assumption that there's some way of knowing whether or not it's broken. But if you prefer to obtain bliss through ignorance, be my guest. Apparently the farm life also taught you to leave the barn door open until after the horses were gone.

Tell us, warmer, did the farm have a tornado shelter? Did you wait until after a tornado came through to build one?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, americr*p checks in! And without saying anything pertinent to the topic! How unusual!

Gee, the "multitude" of other studies ... without a reference? Again, how unusual for el puerco. Oh, I forgot ... lying pigs don't have references.

As there is only one place where anything resembling a controlled study is available, i.e. a comparison of the two elections in Indiana before and after the institution of their voter ID law, yeah, I'd give that study a little more weight than any others. Of course, since you can't seem to post a link to those "multitudes..."

So americr*p, why do you call former President Jimmy Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker, and Andrew Young (Mr. Carter's U.N. ambassador) anti-American? Was it during their administration you got forced out of the country? You sure have a lot of axes to grind, el puerco. Is that why you're such a bitter child-hater living in exile?

When your grandaddy was teaching you to spit on soldiers, did you ever imagine you'd have to hide out in South America because the workers paradise your family was trying to build never materialized?

0

jayhawkbarrister 6 years, 2 months ago

DirtyLinen,

Heinrich Himmler called. He wants to pin on you a Star of the Vaderland for your glorious work on behalf of the Reich. The Fuhrer would give it to you himself, but you know how busy he is. National Identification cards were the first step in the categorization of individuals in Nazi Germany eight months before Krystallnacht (state-sponsored book burning). What followed were J-Stamps, the requirement of wearing the Star of David, and the Final Solution that murdered six million. Even if ID cards will prevent voter fraud as you allege (and there is no evidence that voter fraud will stop -- it just will happen in the future with an ID card), I will put up with a little voter fraud in the alternative. I don't want to go down that slippery slope of a national ID card as a society or as an individual.

I find your vociferous defense of the ID card and your childlike faith in the system amusing. Now, go get your Star.

0

americorps 6 years, 2 months ago

I realize you hate America dirtyliar, it is what I expect for a baby burner such as yourself, but any reason you use only that one study and not the multitude of others that show different results...oh yea..I forgot..because you are a liar and have no ethics.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

DirtyLinen: "Have you been to the moon, luke-warm? I mean for real, not just in your head. Have you seen the footprints? Prove to me that man has walked on the moon."

funny. I think you just proved MY point.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Reason number 47:

Another expression learned on a Republican farm in Western Kansas: A solution looking for a problem.

Of course our community had a significant Hispanic component. So we weren't "in fear."

And we were Republicans. Not extremists.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

"They haven't presented one argument "


On the farm where I grew up the general rule was "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

"Cite a Kansas situation where fraud in absentee voting has colored the outcome of an election."

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Well DirtyLinen: I guess when you can't win by logic and using by facts you slather out insults as deep as you can.

Good luck with the rest of fifth grade.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

And you have not provided one valid reason as to why it is needed or how the cost of such a system would be paid. You simply are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says:

"DL can only use the fear technique."

Poor beo, aka chicken little, running around in fear wetting her pants saying "They're trying to take my right to vote away."

But that's what you get, I suppose, for letting Clinton/Reid/Pelosi put you in a constant paranoid state. It must be so terrifying for you to live in fear all the time. Well, after all, the Democrats/Liberals don't have any other way to dissuade the mindless sheep like yourself without scaring them to death.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"Cite a Kansas situation where fraud in absentee voting has colored the outcome of an election."

And if I answer that question, its_getting_lukewarm will then come back with "Cite one example where one instance of fraud on an absentee ballot mailed on a Tuesday after 3:00 in the afternoon by a guy who's mother had a second cousin named Bob that had red hair..." Thank you for reaffirming that Lawrence is home to the most inane people in the known world. The answer could be written on the point of a railroad spike and driven through the top of your skull without risk of it ever entering your tiny little brain.

I realize you're having trouble with the English language, luke_warm, but what part of "without verification" do you not understand? What you are asking is like telling someone to prove that in a Senate voice vote, the Chaplain or some other non-Senator said "Aye." In a system designed with such short-sightedness as to be built on the principle of taking peoples' word for things, the very lack of verification procedures results in the lack of ability to witness the foolishness of the design.

But hey, it makes sense to you. I certainly hope you're not a bank manager (I have little fear of that, given your demonstrated idiocy), because your argument essentially says that if there's no proof a bank has ever been robbed, you don't need to lock the safe.

In the logical fallacies, the one you are attempting to use is that of "burden of proof." Your claim is basically that if there's no proof that a person is not who he says he is, it "proves" he is who he says he is. This is also known as an appeal to ignorance. No wonder you keep using it.

Have you been to the moon, luke-warm? I mean for real, not just in your head. Have you seen the footprints? Prove to me that man has walked on the moon. Otherwise, it obviously didn't happen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It sure is strange. For all the whining and inane arguments of beo, luke_warm, and the rest of the kool-aid kids, trying to question the wisdom of implementing a voter ID law, one favored by the majority of Americans, including Democrats and minorities, one which has been demonstrated to present no barriers to voting access, and yet ... they haven't presented one argument ... not one argument ... why such a law would be a bad idea.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Oh, and most importantly....since we have learned from the debacle of the US Attorney firings, we know that ALL US Attorneys offices are on point, salivating, ready to drop ALL other priorities to find ANY voting fraud they can....

Again, I can't remember any Kansas articles, except for a very small number of "over the state border" double voting... Again, which left a paper trail, easy to prosecute, two miles wide.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

asbestos: " Where's the proof that this is taking place in Kansas?" Where is the proof that it is NOT occurring in Kansas?


Kansas law allows for candidate/party representatives to be present at polls. If fraud is suspect, eagle eyes would all show up, watching signatures and such. If candidates suspicion such fraudulent conduct, they would scream like stuck little piggies. If illegals are voting, they are leaving a paper trail a mile long to allow them to be criminally prosecuted. If absentee hanky-panky is going on, there are signed vote requests and affadavits of voting, again leaving a paper trail for prosecutions. Nashing of teeth at county board of canvassers meetings. Angry words in newspapers. Challenges to the State Elections Board. More words in newspapers.

Where's the Beef?

Asbestos, asbestos, asbestos......I really thought you were a little more fact and science based than you seem to be. Prove a non-event?? Really, now!!!!!

Go put on your tin-foil hat.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

DL can only use the fear technique. No proof fraud has ever occurred or is likely too. Just an attempt to panic people to vote their paranoia and sheer racial bias and hatred.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

I keep forgetting that dirtylinen is completing confusing voter fraud issues with her picture ID requirement. . . Cite a Kansas situation where fraud in absentee voting has colored the outcome of an election.

0

Pilgrim 6 years, 2 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

Signatures are required, ...


And are compared to what at the polling place? Absolutely nothing. Are those signatures being compared to the registration back at the courthouse before the election results are certified? No. So the signature proves what? Nothing.

...affirmations are made which if fraudulent are punishable by current criminal law.


And those affirmations are verified how? If an affirmation is falsely given, how are you going to know who lied? The only name you have is that of the registered voter. What is your investigative remedy?

A picture ID doesn't add much to the equation.


It makes the person claiming to be Voter X prove it by something other than "because I say so."

What are you so afraid of? You already have to show photo ID to simply cash a check. Yet you have a problem with requiring exactly the same thing to cast your all important vote? What are you so afraid of?

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"I fail to see how my answer to your clothes example is selective."

Being as how you only responded to the clothing example and not the transportaion or missed-work ones, it was pretty selective.

"You can still vote without transportation (it's called walking) and you can still vote without having to miss work."

"Since you can exercise your right to vote without either of those things, they are, by definintion, not polling taxes."

Nice tap-dancing. I specified that the cost of transportation would a "poll tax" for those who live outside walking distance, according to your logic that anything a person has to pay for in order to vote is a poll tax. And apparently you will be surprised to learn that some people actually do work hours that force them into a choice between missing work (and therefore losing income) or not voting.

As I've said ... over and over ... just like having transportation, or holding a job, the cost of an ID can not be charged off to voting, unless it's not something that can be used anywhere else. To say that the entire cost of an ID is an expense attributable to exercising the right to vote is like saying that if you drive to the poll, the entire cost of your car is was a cost of voting.

"Two reasons I didn't comment on the Missouri law:"

And still haven't. The question was if some of these people don't even have a birth certificate, how did they prove who they were when they registered to vote? Could it be that, just as in Kansas, proof of citizenship is not required to register? And you don't see a problem with that?

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

"Funny how you didn't comment on the situation with Missouri's law. Let me recap for you: The state did provide for free IDs, and even went beyond that to bring the process to people who couldn't get to a DMV office. The objection of the courts was that because people had to have something like a birth certificate to get the free ID, it still cost them money to get those documents."


Two reasons I didn't comment on the Missouri law:

1) they provide the IDs for free

2) a birth certificate is already a requirement to be a U.S. citizen, voting only requires that one find a document that already exists (theoretically). The monetary cost therefore comes from people who have lost theirs, not from the need for one in the first place.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

Woo, I've been away for a while.

DL,

I fail to see how my answer to your clothes example is selective.

The fact that one must be wearing clothes to vote is irrelevant, 1) because if you vote by mail, you technically DON'T have to wear clothes to vote, and 2) one literally cannot do ANYTHING in U.S. society without clothes. Since it is required for every other aspect of public life, it cannot be construed as a polling tax, because there is no way to exist in the U.S. without clothing. People, however, can subsist in the U.S. without an ID, no matter how difficult it might be.

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

"It is not illegal to be without transportation. It is not illegal to have a job. But traveling to the polling place and/or missing work both carry a monetary cost to the voter. Why aren't they poll taxes?"


You can still vote without transportation (it's called walking) and you can still vote without having to miss work.

Since you can exercise your right to vote without either of those things, they are, by definintion, not polling taxes.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"Cite me a Kansas situation please."

The process of voter registration in Kansas does not require any proof of citizenship; it is based on honesty without verification, all a person has to do is check a box on the form saying they are a citizen. But hey, if that's good enough for you and the kool-aid crowd, more power to ya'.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

DirtyLinen: Cite me a Kansas situation please.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"What people like DirtyLinen never discuss are the ways that Kansas law currently protects against the voter fraud she has read so much about:..(from suspect sources)..."

Yep. I've cited CNN ... the NY Times ... the Wall Street Journal ... the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ... my, what suspect sources.

Compared to the sources that the kool-aid crowd has cited ... oh, wait, there aren't any. Kinda' hard to argue with sources like those.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

jaketh (Anonymous) says:

" If this legislation is to prevent voter fraud, then say so. Tackle the issues."

Line 8 of the story:

The first sentence of the second paragraph:

Quoted in jaketh's own 11:29 am post, line 9:

"Supporters say the measure will combat election fraud"

I think I see why you're so fixated on this whole illegal immigrant thing : you're really having trouble with the English language, aren't you?

As I also mentioned : and cited references to : the "Supporters say" part being a pretty standard piece of "background" used by many news organizations when reporting on voter ID laws in general. Or somewhere in that story did it specify who "supporters" refers to? As I also referenced, a majority of Democrats are in favor of voter ID laws. A majority of ethnic and racial minorities favor voter ID laws. Seems like "supporters" refers to a group larger than the Kansas GOP.

And for all your ranting, jaketh, it's YOU that keeps bringing the illegal immigrant issue up. As I've said repeatedly, I (as well as a majority of Americans) favor voter ID laws because it's a way to combat voting fraud.

I hear they start learning to read in kindergarten now. Come back in a couple of years when you've gotten that far.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Maybe we could have all the nursing home people vote on television, kind of like voting at Tribal Council on the Survivor show. If there were any doubts about if a person is alive, we could just re-run the tape. How about that?

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

What people like DirtyLinen never discuss are the ways that Kansas law currently protects against the voter fraud she has read so much about.....(from suspect sources) Signatures are required, affirmations are made which if fraudulent are punishable by current criminal law. A picture ID doesn't add much to the equation.

I guess if we "RFID chipped" all the old people in nursing homes it would help. We could keep them inside the facility and count their BMs that way too, I guess.

0

bunnyhawk 6 years, 2 months ago

There is far more evidence of GOP tricks to keep Democratic votes from being counted than there is of any type of individual voter fraud. Gee.........remember how we got stuck with GWB in the first place?????????????

0

jaketh 6 years, 2 months ago

Dirty:

Read the news above again. Its in b&w. If this legislation is to prevent voter fraud, then say so. Tackle the issues. Why is the KS GOP & their supporters using illegal migrants as a means to pass their legislation. Its because they are easy targets. GOP is messing with your minds. No wonder people like you get riled up when they claim illegals are voting...

I'm the KS GOP. "Hmmm how can I get my difficult legislation passed? Ohhhh lets say its to prevent illegals. People will surely buy that." Ka Chingggg...

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

jaketh (Anonymous) says:

"You yourself just refuted all the claims that you have made. If you do not have any evidence, then, you have no basis to make a claim. Your argument lacks reasoning skills."

Speaking of lack of reasoning skills, buffoon, there is ample evidence that illegal voting takes place. The lack of evidence is in who does it.

But again, this is okay with you, right? It's okay that there's voter fraud going on, as long as we can't prove who's doing it?

Yep, great reasoning skills there, moron.

As for your "rationale," as I said, this is a fairly standard line inserted into most news stories on the topic ... stories that have nothing to do with proposed Kansas legislation or the Kansas GOP:

"Supporters of the law, most of them Republicans, say a requirement for state photo identification card is a prudent step toward curbing voter fraud."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/07identity.html

"Supporters say law will prevent voter fraud"

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/09/voter.id/

"Supporters of the laws argue that they are necessary to prevent voter fraud."

http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2008/01/29/news/703302

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

americorps (Anonymous) says:

"They are cowards and traitors to America."

Another rant from the cowardly socialist el puerco, who ran off to hide in South America so he can badmouth his country daily from thousands of miles away.

By the way, are these some of the people you're including as "cowards and traitors to America?"

"Voter ID laws are hardly the second coming of Jim Crow. In 2005, 18 out of 21 members of a federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of voter ID laws. Andrew Young, Mr. Carter's U.N. ambassador, has said that in an era when people have to show ID to travel or cash a check "requiring ID can help poor people." A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last year found that voters favor a photo ID requirement by 80%-7%. The idea had overwhelming support among all races."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010204

"A majority of whites, blacks and other ethnic and racial minorities support laws that require photographic identification before voting."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324745,00.html

And not that we ever expect americr*p to look into, let alone understand, the facts before ranting, but:

"A University of Missouri professor's study of two elections in Indiana found "no consistent evidence" that turnout by minority, poor, elderly or less educated voters were affected by a photo identification requirement."

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Jan/20080113News005.asp

0

Haiku_Cuckoo 6 years, 2 months ago

This is totally unfair! If I'm required to show my ID to vote, how will I be able to cast multiple votes for my favorite candidate?

0

jaketh 6 years, 2 months ago

and all I said about that was that proof is impossible because there's no way of knowing who votes illegally- Dirty

You yourself just refuted all the claims that you have made. If you do not have any evidence, then, you have no basis to make a claim. Your argument lacks reasoning skills.

As for my rationale, may be you should scroll up & read the article on the very top. What does the title say? "State GOP takes stand on requiring voter ID" & especially, the last paragraph which states, "Supporters say the measure will combat election fraud and prevent illegal immigrants from casting ballots."

To prevent election fraud, your own evidence suggests we should tackle the problem of absentee ballots.

There is no evidence that illegal migrants vote. Migrants are easy targets when economic harship is faced by the country for the very fact they do NOT vote!

Only American citizens vote. If illegal migrants were voting, i think the the politicians would be listening to their issues. Isn't that how things work in our democracy? Ha! Ha!

0

americorps 6 years, 2 months ago

Hmm, the facts say that there is no evidence that illegal are voting. The facts show that these rules DO keep low income, the homeless and the elderly from voting.

The motive is clear. The anti-nanny state less government intrusion in our life party wants to heavily regulate voting to keep it in the hands of the elite.

They are cowards and traitors to America.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

jaketh (Anonymous) says:

"It seems all the examples you point out are of American citizens filling out ballots for their dead spouses as you posted at 8:26 PM. Americans are causing voter frauds, not illegals"

Other than to refute the idiotic claim that there was no proof illegals were voting (and all I said about that was that proof is impossible because there's no way of knowing who votes illegally), none of my arguments in favor of voter ID laws were targetted at illegal immigrants. They're a wise precaution to make sure the people who vote are supposed to vote. But as long as convicted felons voting, dead people voting, and people voting twice is okay with you, well, it's kind of hard to argue with that.

"Where is the proof that illegal migrants were voting?"

Um ... where is your proof that "the rationale of the KS GOP for passing this law" is solely to prevent illegal immigrants from voting? The story says "supporters," not the legislators who are proposing the bill. This is a standard line you will find in countless AP stories on voter ID laws in general, not just the proposed Kansas legislation. And maybe you missed the part about "the measure will combat election fraud?"

Oh wait, I forgot:

"All the examples you have given above are of US citizens."

And that's okay with you, isn't it. Moron.

"Case closed."

Only in your tiny little closed mind.

0

jaketh 6 years, 2 months ago

Dirty Linen:

It seems all the examples you point out are of American citizens filling out ballots for their dead spouses as you posted at 8:26 PM. Americans are causing voter frauds, not illegals which is the rationale of the KS GOP for passing this law.

It seems the problems lie in absentee ballots, not, voting in person.

Your point is moot. Where is the proof that illegal migrants were voting? All the examples you have given above are of US citizens. Case closed.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

Oops, almost forgot.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"The difference between clothes and an ID is that it is illegal to be naked in public. It is not illegal to be ID-less in public."

Very selective answer.

It is not illegal to be without transportation. It is not illegal to have a job. But traveling to the polling place and/or missing work both carry a monetary cost to the voter. Why aren't they poll taxes?

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"Yup, according to DirtyLinen those old absentee ballots in the nursing homes must have been stealing elections for decades."

I linked to the source. It was not "according to DirtyLinen" that people cast ballots in the name of the dead. Go back to your kool-aid, and live in your little world where voter fraud doesn't happen because nobody has actually done it to you (and even then I doubt you'd believe it).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

logicsound;

I could say the same thing about the red herring. No matter how much spin you try to put on it, requiring proof of the identity of a voter is not a tax.

Funny how you didn't comment on the situation with Missouri's law. Let me recap for you: The state did provide for free IDs, and even went beyond that to bring the process to people who couldn't get to a DMV office. The objection of the courts was that because people had to have something like a birth certificate to get the free ID, it still cost them money to get those documents. Your earlier contention (and that of several others) was that a person has already proved who he or she is when they registered, but the question is: How? If they don't even have their birth certificate or similar document that would get them a free photo ID, what did they use when they registered?

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Yup, according to DirtyLinen those old absentee ballots in the nursing homes must have been stealing elections for decades.

I'm not sure how IDs are going to change this. Sounds like you just want to disinfranchise a lot of elderly people. You are going to catch holy-heck down at the TV lounge next to the nursing station.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

assbestos:

I'm pretty sure the Georgia law was overturned, for the exact reason I am claiming.

Oh wait, in fact, I know it was:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702171.html

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

DL,

No amount of red herring is going to change the facts about what requiring an ID to vote constitutes. The difference between clothes and an ID is that it is illegal to be naked in public. It is not illegal to be ID-less in public.

And no matter how many reasons you give as to why having a photo idea might be a good idea, it is not required.

I have pointed out numerous times that I have no objection in principle to requiring photo IDs, so long as they are given out as part of the process. I don't understand why this is an unacceptable compromise unless the goal is to drive people off.

0

justfornow 6 years, 2 months ago

If you wanna vote show your I.D. It's that simple. Do Democrats have a manual they refer to when deciding what/who they can support or not support, because this one has NO valid argument.

0

deskboy04 6 years, 2 months ago

I don't see what the problem is with requiring ID.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"Yup, every time I see grandma Agnes loop around into the voting line with her walker for a second time ..."

They're called absentee ballots, child, one of the easiest ways to commit voter fraud.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/206969_dead07.html

Doris McFarland said she voted for her husband, Earl, who died Oct. 7.

"I called up the elections board and said, 'Can I do it because he wanted me to vote?' " the Duvall woman said. "The person ... said, 'Well, who would know?' I said, 'I don't want to do anything that is wrong.' "


The preliminary voter list shows that Mary Coffey mailed in a ballot. But the 51-year-old Seattle woman died about two weeks before absentee ballots were mailed.

"She couldn't have (voted). She died on Sept. 29," said her husband, Michael Coffey. He added that he voted by mail, but destroyed his wife's ballot when it arrived in the mail.


Bob Holmgren said yesterday that he voted on behalf of his late wife, Charlette Holmgren, who died Sept. 29. The West Seattle man filled out his own ballot and hers, and signed both of them.

"Her vote was important to her," Holmgren said. "She was very strongly against Governor-elect Gregoire." Election officials said all signatures on absentee ballots were doubled-checked against the signature on record.


In four cases, the signatures on the ballot matched. Huennekens said officials needed further information or could not track down enough information on the other cases.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That last paragraph is very interesting. If a ballot was cast, absentee or not, with a signature that matched, but the person died before voting, that would suggest that the "signature on record" also belonged to whoever voted in their name.

It's okay, though, warmer ... you and beo and jaketh just sit back and drink your kool-aid and cling to that "logic" that says we should require a lower degree of security in our electoral system than a movie theatre does in granting student discounts. Just keep on believing there's no dishonet people in the world.

Let us know how that works out for you.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

DirtyLinen: "there were sufficient illegal votes (including dead people, some of whose spouses cast their votes"


Yup, every time I see grandma Agnes loop around into the voting line with her walker for a second time and then claim to be her late husband Delmer, I know there is trouble brewing.

He voice imitation of him sure is a hoot though.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

GOP is very good at trying to create fear. No potential irregular votes should counted except those for GOP. Example, Fla and ohio. How else could current occupant occupy the office of pres?

0

jaketh 6 years, 2 months ago

The greatest fear is fear itself. GOP is quite good at perpuating this myth.

Illegal immigrants voting. Give me a break. What a farce. Prove it. Give us some facts. This is propoganda bs. Most migrants can barely read & comprehend English, let alone familiarize themselves with the 101 issues, judges, school board members, City, County, State house & senate, House of Representives or US Senate races. It is barely manageable for a normal American to be aware of all the issues.

Besides, we should concentrate more on increasing voter participation not creating road blocks. Only 40% vote.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says:

"I haven't had to re-register in about 8 years, since I moved last, but I'm real sure I had to show an id when I did. Why would I have to show it again, unless, someone tried to use my name to vote."

As I said in response to logicsound before, I had to show ID when I opened my checking account, too. Should I not have to show ID to use it?

"Then I could prove who I am, and the other person would go to jail."

How could they arrest the person who voted in your name? The only name they could use to trace her with would be yours. And their vote would already have been recorded, with no way to cancel it.

Now, as I also said in response to logicsound's post: If ID is required to register to vote in the first place, then why did the Missouri courts strike down their voter ID law which included provisions for free ID's, saying that some people don't have any ID like a birth certificate, and it would cost them money to be able to identify themselves to get the free ID? If the person doesn't have a birth certificate or other such ID, how did they prove who they were when they registered?

Okay, here's one more reason why photo IDs are a good idea: As it stands now, pretty much anyone can vote twice. You go to the poll in the morning, and vote without showing ID. You go back in the afternoon with a different set of poll workers, and insist someone else must have used your name, show your ID to prove it, and vote again.

Again, not likely, and not common. How common does it have to be? I hate to keep bringing this up, but once again: For all intent and purposes 269 voters could have made the difference in the 2000 presidential election (i.e. if half the margin of victory had voted the other way), in an election where over 100,000,000 votes were cast. To put that in perspective, that's less than one person out of the entire population of Kansas City KS and all of Douglas County ... and that's if every single person of any age and any status in both those places voted.

Granted that was an anomoly of the electoral college system. Let's take a direct election. The most recent gubernatorial election in the state of Washington, after three recounts, had a margin of victory of .0045% of the votes cast. With the number of votes cast in Douglas County in the 2004 election, that would require almost exactly 2 votes to change the result of a county wide ballot. 2. Two. Dos.

And in that Washington election, the final official count being a margin of only 129 votes (out of 2-3/4 million cast), there were sufficient illegal votes (including dead people, some of whose spouses cast their votes, and also including people who voted twice) to change the outcome, as well as irregularities such as more votes being recorded than the voter lists showed people voting.

But by all means, let's not inconvenience anyone by making them show ID. How heinous a crime that would be.

0

jaketh 6 years, 2 months ago

If you are going to have voter ID, then, the rule needs to enforced fairly. The election poll officers need to be trained to treat everyone equally, ie, check everyone's ID regardless who they are. I have noticed white voters not being asked for their ID, whereas, non-white voters (who had non-American sounding names) were asked for their IDs right here in Lawrence.

0

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 6 years, 2 months ago

I haven't had to re-register in about 8 years, since I moved last, but I'm real sure I had to show an id when I did. Why would I have to show it again, unless, someone tried to use my name to vote. Then I could prove who I am, and the other person would go to jail.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

I guess there is a lot of white hater racists on here as well.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

(continued)

By the way, logicsound, do you leave your car unlocked? Your house? Would you give a handout to a homeless person by giving them your ATM card and the PIN and telling him to just mail the card back to you?

No? Paranoid is the word that comes to mind.

"It will be overturned on the grounds that it constitutes an illegal polling tax."

Why don't you try going to vote in November without wearing any clothes? They can't turn you away ... clothing costs money, and to require it would be an illegal poll tax. Or call the polling station and demand that they pick you up and give you a free ride ... the cost of gasoline or bus fare is a poll tax on anyone who lives outside walking distance. And don't they have to pay anyone who has to miss work to make up for lost time? Isn't that a poll tax otherwise?

You might have an argument if everyone was required to obtain, and pay for, a special ID that could only be used for voting purposes. But having an ID is a normal part of life like clothes, transportation, and employment. It is not a poll tax.

"(Unless the bill provides free photo ID voter cards for anyone who requests one)"

Missouri did exactly that, and instituted a program with mobile units to go to places like nursing homes and issue the IDs. It was struck down by a Cole County judge whose decision was upheld by the MO Supreme Court on the basis that while the IDs were free, it still cost money to get the identification (e.g. a birth certificate) to get the ID.

Now, that presents an interesting question that bears on one of your above points: If these people don't have any ID, like a birth certificate, that would allow them to get e free state-issued photo ID, how did they prove who they were when they registered???

Incidentally, the judge also placed an enjoinder against any state employee from fulfilling any portion of the voter ID law ... which meant that Missouri had to stop issuing free IDs, and they had to stop using the mobile vans, both of which were only instituted as part of that statute. What a service the judge provided for the people of Missouri.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"Except that whole registration process."

You know, I had to present identification and a sample of my signature when I opened my bank account. It still makes sense ... for the merchant and for me ... for a store to ask someone to prove they're me before cashing one of my checks.

But then, I guess voting isn't as important as that.

"Last time I checked, I am required to give my name when I walk up to the voting line."

Ooh, and of course nobody would ever lie about something like that!!!

"I can admit that it is possible to walk up and give a name other than mine, why can't the opposition admit that it is unlikely?"

Yep, really unlikely.

Unless, of course, less than half of registered voters actually cast a ballot and the odds are better than even that a registered name chosen at random will be safe.

Oh wait, less than half of registered voters do cast ballots.

And the odds of getting caught go down significantly if you know the person you pretend to be is unlikely to vote, which you might know for any number of reasons.

"Do you really think these illegal aliens, that probably speak limited English are going to walk up to the polling place, guess at a name that hasn't been checked off and vote with no problems?"

Let's see ... I've been reviewing my posts, and I can't seem to find a single argument I've put forth in favor of voter ID laws that applies exclusively to illegal aliens. Okay, let's leave them out of it altogether. Why, you're right! There's no problem at all with someone who's an American pretending to be me at the polls! How silly I've been.

"And if you think that happens-do you really think it happens with enough frequency to affect precinct outcomes?"

Yep, that 2000 presidential election that was decided by less than six out of every million voters sure supports that argument. (continued)

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

"This bill will never see the light of day.

It will be overturned on the grounds that it constitutes an illegal polling tax."

NOPE! NY has the "motor voter bill" and it is not a polling tax, and Georgia also has the same law as well.

And there are NO legal challanges to it as well.

You are wrong.

Why do you guys want to "disenfranchise" American Citizens?

0

Agnostick 6 years, 2 months ago

I fully support the requirement for a photo ID, for purposes of voting.

Photo IDs have become obligatory in so many other parts of daily life, whether its retail purchases, proof of age, proof of residence etc.

I would also ask what proof there is that one particular party--Republicans, in this case--actually "benefits" from low voter turnout?

A bigger threat to low turnout, IMHO, is the outdated caucus system we have in Kansas. They should be abandoned and replaced with open primaries, similar to what is done in New Hampshire.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org http://www.americanplan.org

0

Pilgrim 6 years, 2 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

This bill will never see the light of day.

It will be overturned on the grounds that it constitutes an illegal polling tax.

(Unless the bill provides free photo ID voter cards for anyone who requests one)


And if it does, then what will be your excuse?

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

This bill will never see the light of day.

It will be overturned on the grounds that it constitutes an illegal polling tax.

(Unless the bill provides free photo ID voter cards for anyone who requests one)

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

"If we don't require that people prove who they are when they vote, there's not too many ways to prove they shouldn't be voting, is there?"


Except that whole registration process. Yet the proponents of this bill want us to believe there are no checks on voter eligibility.

Last time I checked, I am required to give my name when I walk up to the voting line. My name is listed if I am a properly registered voter. I can admit that it is POSSIBLE to walk up and give a name other than mine, why can't the opposition admit that it is UNLIKELY? Do you really think these illegal aliens, that probably speak limited English are going to walk up to the polling place, guess at a name that hasn't been checked off and vote with no problems? And if you think that happens--do you really think it happens with enough frequency to affect precinct outcomes?

Paranoid is the word that comes to mind.

The only thing that requiring a photo ID at the polls on election day accomplishes is adding one more step (that costs money and therefore constitutes an illegal polling tax) that will discourage voters from making the effort. The Republicans stand to benefit the most from low election turnout and this is just another way of making sure that happens.

0

kubacker 6 years, 2 months ago

One good thing about the complete halt in new home construction and impending recession is that it will flush a huge amount of illegal alien construction workers out of the country!

0

kubacker 6 years, 2 months ago

You open borders idiots just don't get it! Your illegal alien buddies have grossly and shamelessly taken advantage of our country's generosity and outrageously gamed our system of freedoms, rights and benefits for citizens.

Now the worm has turned and KS is going to have a voter ID law, like it or not, and will soon have all the not-in-my-state laws for illegal aliens that are in effect in AZ, AR, OK, CO, GA and MO (by executive order) and which are in the process of being enacted in most other states across the country.

Adios amigos!

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

VoiceOfReason (Anonymous) says:

"I sure as hell don't want someone from another party, out to defeat mine, to decide what candidate represents ME"

I always wondered about that whole open primary idea.

I can see one potential benefit, i.e. if there's nobody in your own party you would vote for, it still gives you a say in nominating a candidate you want (e.g., if there were no Republicans I wanted to vote for, but couldn't stand the thought of being left with Hillary or Edwards, I could try to get Obama nominated).

On the other hand, it does give one party or the other a chance to kinda' "double dip" ... with enough organization, they'd theoretically not only get to choose their own candidate, but strongly influence or even decide who his or her opponent will be. Sounds like a great way to rig an election to me.

Of course, there's no real way to prevent that, either. There's nothing to prevent someone from registering as a Republican in order to vote in the GOP primary and help nominate the weakest candidate, then voting Democratic in the general election anyway. But the open primary system almost gives an official sanction to that option.

0

VoiceOfReason 6 years, 2 months ago

"They want closed primaries, because they want the leaders of the party to wield all the power."

Ummmm...no. I'm not a party leader, but I sure as hell don't want someone from another party, out to defeat mine, to decide what candidate represents ME and MY beliefs in the election. If you want to choose one of the candidates, sign up to vote in their party. That candidate is supposed to represent the constituents who elected them...not every moron who didn't have to go to work that day and thought, "Gee! Let's see what idiot I can vote for!" @@ You think everyone should be allowed to vote in everyone else's primary so we can all hold hands afterwards and sing about togetherness???

0

bearded_gnome 6 years, 2 months ago

Supporters say the measure will combat election fraud and prevent illegal immigrants from casting ballots. Critics contend such a law will suppress turnout.

-- looks like the democrat party wants fraudulant voting? is it because they have profited by it?

when congresswoman sanchez was first elected in southern cal there were reports that illegals were voting in that, but Bob Dornan chose not to contest it, just as nixon in '60 chose not to contest kennedy's win, though there was good evidence a crime boss in chicago engineered his win.

remember, it was democrats, algore/lawyersin every florida county of florida, trying to suppress the counting of military overseas ballots in 2000, that is a well reported fact.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says:

"Goodness DL, watch your blood pressure. I'm not a Republican, I believe in freedom of speech and the constitution as originally written."

You're not a Republican? No kiddin'.

The Constitution as originally written didn't allow women and non-whites to vote. Is that what you meant? Maybe you meant the part where state legislators chose Senators rather than having the people vote for them. Incidentally, you are aware, aren't you, that the Constitution as originally written only guarantees "qualified" electors the right to vote even for their Representatives, and that while the Supreme Court has severely restricted the ability of states to put too many qualifications on that right, age, residency, and citizenship requirements are completely within the scope of acceptable qualifications? And could you please provide a link, a quote, a reference to the part of the Constitution that says that a potential voter can not be required to provide proof that he is, indeed, the person possessing those qualifications?

"If you want to live in fear, OK by me, just don't expect me too or don't try to force me too as your beloved W does."

My my my, beo, you must really love our dear president. You're the one that brought him into the discussion of an issue which has nothing to do with the man, and you just can't seem to stop talking about him.

As for which of us is "living in fear," beo, maybe you ought to talk to a therapist about this conspiracy theory lunacy, tell them all about how the big, bad president is controlling the Kansas legislature, and they're all lurking in the shadows to take away your Constitutional rights. I think you'll find, beo, that the thought process involved in conspiracy theories such as yours stem from abject fear of situations you can't control, and a shifting of the facts to give the appearence that the disturbing phenomena are within the realm of controllable variables.

[Yawn] For all your ranting, beo, you haven't given one legitimate reason explaining how requiring voters to identify themselves violates anyone's rights. Gee, what a surprise.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

Goodness DL, watch your blood pressure. I'm not a Republican, I believe in freedom of speech and the constitution as originally written. If you want to live in fear, OK by me, just don't expect me too or don't try to force me too as your beloved W does.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says:

"DL, it seems you are the one living in La-La land as you call it. I live in real world, not in a world of fear as W wants us to. The real fear I have is that there are so many willing to give up their freedom because of some boogey man called a terrorist. Unfortunately we have a president who depends on fear to advance his personal agenda. Al quaida didn't exist in iraq prior to our invasion. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Most of 9/11 attackers were Saudi. W was determined to get Saddam when he stole the presidency, because Saddam dissed his daddy. Typical dumb drunken texas red-neck response."

So in your "real world," beo, George Bush sits in the Kansas legislature?

In your "real world," beo, George Bush is even running for re-election?

In your "real world," beo, voter ID laws are counter-terroist measures?

In your "real world," beo, Sadam would have been somehow affected by having to show ID to vote in Kansas?

But let's not let that stop you from yet another pointless rant.

No wonder you think this is based on fear ... you're wetting your pants you're so afraid of a politician who isn't even running for re-election. Poor little sheeple, the Democrats have you so afraid, and you're swallowing every word of their BS.

Does your mommy have to rush over to your house to turn the lights on for you if you get home late from kindergarten, beo?

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

Anyone using Missouri as an example of anything other than stupidity is beyond hope.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

average (Anonymous) says:

"I'm for it. But, the various levels of government need to figure out how everyone who will need an ID to vote can get one for free. The state will have to pick up the tab of finding and verifying obscure and difficult birth certificates and whatever other documentation is needed. No "photo fees". No renewal fees. No change of address fee. No charge to replace lost IDs (up to a reasonable 2 or 3 a year). Not even postage. Until the Repubs are willing to fund it, this is a poll tax on targeted segments of our community."

When the State of Missouri passed their voter ID law, they started issuing non-driver photo IDs for free. They even had mobile units going to places like nursing homes for the people who couldn't get to an office. Now that the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the law anyway, photo IDs again cost $11, and the mobile units are gone.

0

jumpin_catfish 6 years, 2 months ago

This is sooo simple, ID is required for so many things, why is this a big deal? Show your ID and vote.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

DL, it seems you are the one living in La-La land as you call it. I live in real world, not in a world of fear as W wants us to. The real fear I have is that there are so many willing to give up their freedom because of some boogey man called a terrorist. Unfortunately we have a president who depends on fear to advance his personal agenda. Al quaida didn't exist in iraq prior to our invasion. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Most of 9/11 attackers were Saudi. W was determined to get Saddam when he stole the presidency, because Saddam dissed his daddy. Typical dumb drunken texas red-neck response.

0

i_tching 6 years, 2 months ago

It's a poll tax, right?

And it's supposed to divert attention from the easily-hacked vote-counting machines too, right?

Otherwise, with no evidence that there even is any such voter fraud going on, why suggest a very expensive and divisive legal nightmare to address it? It's a sideshow.

0

toefungus 6 years, 2 months ago

ID's are a long overdue requirement.

0

average 6 years, 2 months ago

I'm for it. But, the various levels of government need to figure out how everyone who will need an ID to vote can get one for free. The state will have to pick up the tab of finding and verifying obscure and difficult birth certificates and whatever other documentation is needed. No "photo fees". No renewal fees. No change of address fee. No charge to replace lost IDs (up to a reasonable 2 or 3 a year). Not even postage. Until the Repubs are willing to fund it, this is a poll tax on targeted segments of our community.

0

sdinges 6 years, 2 months ago

I think people on both sides make this out to be a far bigger deal than it actually is. Our government wastes our money on worse things than issuing photo IDs to people who have no passport, no driver's license or no naturalization certificate (they even give you picture ID when you complete the citizenship process!). Which means the only people needing picture IDs to vote are citizens who are born in the U.S., don't drive and never leave the country. These people also don't drink, smoke, or patronize strip clubs, because that would also require I.D.

Secondly, I seriously doubt illegal immigrants are rushing out en masse to commit voting fraud. Illegal immigrants are often afraid to go to the hospital or file a police report, for fear of getting caught and deported. Furthermore, voting fraud is a quick way to make sure you can never pursue a legal path to citizenship in this country. It's right up there with ticking the "Yes" box for being a member of the Nazi Party, or being a habitual drunkard and engaging in prostitution, while testing positive for TB and AIDS.

It's not unreasonable to expect people to show I.D. when they vote. It seems like a no-brainer to ensure there's only one vote per person. I don't know why it's made out to be an immigration issue.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says:

"So basically, you are simply using fear tactics, no logical provable facts."

When you walk into a pitch-dark room, there's no way of "proving" before hand that you might trip over an object on the floor, bump your head on a low hanging pipe, whack your knee on a piece of furniture, fall through a hole in the floor, step in a pile of doggie-do, or walk face first into a sharp object.

It's still prudent, however, to turn on the lights, for reasons that have nothing to do with fear of the dark.

Requiring that people prove they have a right to vote before casting that vote has less to do with fear than with common sense (so I can see why you wouldn't understand). As a matter of fact, since the Democrats are moaning that it's their voting base that will be turned away, it would appear they are the ones afraid, and they are the ones playing the fear card, purporting that all these unfortunate legitimate citizens will lose their constitutional rights if they're required to show ID.

"Further, if you are an illegal working to make a few bucks to send home, why would you want to waste the time to attempt to vote and risk getting caught?"

Maybe because there's almost no risk, and because they want to help the election of someone who's going to ensure they can stay in this country to keep sending that money home?

"And further, how would this very, very few possibly affect an election?"

The current balance of the entire Senate rides on one Senator either way. Claire McCaskill's margin of victory was less than 49,000 votes. 300,000,000 people essentially living with a decision made by less than 2/100ths of the population. Or maybe you forgot the presidential election of 2000, where 537 votes (out of 6,000,000 cast in Florida and over 100,000,000 nationwide) decided the presidency.

Tell us, beo, what business are you in that you don't require your customers to show ID before accepting a check? (Maybe you don't, but the rest of us don't have your rose-colored glasses.) You have to show ID to get a library card, to get a senior discount on your meal or the student discount at the movies, to check into a hotel, to get a resident discount at a city beach or recreation center, to even enter most federal buildings. And for some reason you think deciding who leads the country is less important than those things?

Would that we all lived in your la-la land.

0

Pilgrim 6 years, 2 months ago

Whether or not illegal aliens are a voting issue is not at the top of the list. But I have to ask the looney left around here the most basic of questions.

You have to show ID merely to cash a check, yet you have a problem with requiring ID to cast your important vote? What's wrong with this picture?

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

So basically, you are simply using fear tactics, no logical provable facts. Further, if you are an illegal working to make a few bucks to send home, why would you want to waste the time to attempt to vote and risk getting caught? And further, how would this very, very few possibly affect an election?

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says:

"if there is a problem why is so hard to prove it?"

Let's see. Suppose you go to the polls and claim to be John Smith. Maybe John Smith is dead, or in prison, or somewhere else that he won't be voting from (which you might already know if you were a friend, relative, or neighbor of Mr. Smith's). Even if he's not dead, the odds are still pretty good Mr. Smith will not be showing up to vote. It's considered a good turnout if half the registered voters in the country cast a ballot in presidential election cycles. In smaller, off-year and local elections, the turnout put the odds firmly in your favor that the person you claim to be will not show up and your vote will not be questioned. Then, even if John Smith shows up, and proves he's the real John Smith, they know only that you weren't him ... they don't know who you are, such as an illegal immigrant, a convicted felon, someone who didn't register, or someone who already voted in seven other precincts. (And your vote has already been recorded, with no way to pull it back or even know who you voted for.)

That would be why it's so hard to prove.

0

Mike Blur 6 years, 2 months ago

Gosh Asbestos, are you off your meds? Even third graders know that you cannot prove an absence of action. This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums--and given the company I have to keep in this little virtual sandbox, that's saying something.

Myself, over the past 25 years, I have been waiting for the first verifiable case of an illegal immigrant even registering, much less voting.

In any case, it is a known fact that in 1986, Ronnie Reagan and the Republican-controlled US Congress authorized the first, and so far only blanket amnesty program for illegals, almost instantaneously granting 2 million Mexicans citizenship. This was done as tactic to shore up the eroding Republican voter base.

Take time to talk to a Mexican-American in their 40s or 50s these days, and you will find out they love Ronnie Reagan, and vote straight-line Republican. Legally. Ronnie made 'em legal.

There is no doubt that Latino voters legalized by Reagan in the 80s swayed the vote in both 2000 and 2004 for Dumbya. I know I voted differently and ASBESTOS and his Reagan-loving, Mexican American friends.

Do not be surprised if Bush tries to push for amnesty for the estimated 12-14 million illegals in America now. He's got a year left to at least try. He's had seven years to lead the way in fighting illegal immigration. Lemme ask you ASBESTOS. Name, for me, one truly effective measure Shrub has taken in 7 years to try to deter the presence of illegals in this country?

I'm waiting.

0

DirtyLinen 6 years, 2 months ago

getreal (Anonymous) says:

"The GOP keeps suggesting that illegal immigrants are voting. Where's the proof that this is taking place in Kansas?"

Nice argument. If we don't require that people prove who they are when they vote, there's not too many ways to prove they shouldn't be voting, is there?

Just what is the big deal? Before anyone partakes in anything which they have a right to do, why is it unreasonable to prove you're one of the people entitled to that right? There's a right to an education ... but don't you have to prove you live in the school district?

You have to show ID to get into a federal courthouse that might be deciding what your rights are, but not to prove you're entitled to that right in the first place? Yeah, makes sense.

0

beobachter 6 years, 2 months ago

Asbestos, if there is a problem why is so hard to prove it? Actually this is just a continuation example of current administrations policy of fear. The idiot in chief is brainless and has attracted a following that is as ignorant as he is. Sadder still is the average Kansan falls for this line of crap. Kansas, as ignorant as believed.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

Oh, and "get real" I believe it was a majority of "Republicans" that were "Blamed" for calling in in such large numbers that they shut down the Senate, House, and Whitehouse switchboards, email boxes, and fax machines in opposing the "Comprehensive Immigrations Stupidity Plan". It was Harry Reid (the American Traitor) that called ilelgal aliens "un documented Americans", that brought this to a vote TWICE, and lost TWICE with a democratic majority!!!!!! By Harry Reid's definitions the entire world are "American Citizens", because they are "undocumented".

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

" Where's the proof that this is taking place in Kansas?"

Where is the proof that it is NOT occurring in Kansas? If one has a DL legal or otherwise, you can register in Kansas, and you will receive help in Spanish. Now, I have no problem giving a legal immigrant or a legal resident a help in voting if they qualify, but nothing and I mean nothing for ilelgal aliens with no identities.

I bet you would not be saying that if they voted in the majority for Republicans!

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 2 months ago

Liberals like getreal only want election safeguards put in place after a crime has occured. Others want sensible measures put in place to prevent voter fraud from ever happening.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years, 2 months ago

Requring ID is not "suppressing voters".

What spin, however poorly done!

Got a net for that herring?

0

getreal 6 years, 2 months ago

The GOP keeps suggesting that illegal immigrants are voting. Where's the proof that this is taking place in Kansas? The GOP consistently looks for ways to suppress voters. They want closed primaries, because they want the leaders of the party to wield all the power. They don't care what every day voters have to say. That's why I'm changing my party affiliation on Feb. 5th at the Democratic Caucus!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.