Archive for Monday, May 19, 2008

Sebelius vetoes bill requiring a photo ID to vote

May 19, 2008


— Gov. Kathleen Sebelius Monday vetoed a bill that would have required Kansans to show photo identification to vote.

And she signed into law a proposal to increase drug testing at traffic accidents, and a measure concerning water rights in Douglas County.

Concerning the voter ID legislation, Sebelius said "HB 2019 seeks to solve a problem of voter fraud which does not exist in our state due to the tireless efforts of our local elected officials."

She said the voter ID proposal wasn't needed and "will only work to disenfranchise many of the electorate and serve as a barrier to their participation in the democratic process."

Under the proposal, voters would have had to show ID starting in 2010.

The bill she signed concerning drug tests was prompted by a 2007 accident near Basehor that killed Amanda Bixby, 19. Her parents, Denise and Dennis Bixby of Tonganoxie pushed for the law, saying that the driver who hit their daughter should have been tested for drugs.

The measure increases the authority of law enforcement to order a test for drugs or alcohol in a vehicle accident that results in a death or serious injury.

The bill concerning water rights was aimed at stopping a Douglas County water district from condemning land to drill a well and possibly appropriate water rights.

Sebelius also signed bills that will:

* Increase school funding by $37.2 million.

* Expand eligibility for HealthWave.

* Increase campaign finance disclosure.

* Allow an electric utility to recover expenditures for development of a new nuclear plant.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years ago

"Do you realize that St Louis has more registered democrats than ALL of the available voters in such prescint?"Really? Got a link on that?"If you have the ambition, means and ability to get yourself down to the polling location you have more than what it takes to get an ID."Polling places are almost always within just a few blocks of where a person lives. The difficulty of getting an ID for many people is considerably greater than voting."This only disenfranchises the lazy."Glib one-liner, but not the least bit true.

scobey740 10 years ago

So let me get this straight, I have to show ID to buy a lottery ticket, but not to choose our government or laws?

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

and just because the Supreme Court rules that a law is constitutional doesn't mean that it's a good law...

Godot 10 years ago

The only voters who will be disenfranchised are the ones who do not have ID because they are here illegally. Sebelius continues to march in line wiht those on the far left in the Democrat party.Notice every bill she signed will cause an increase in taxes and/or utility expenses.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

I believe it is Socialists that are big on having people "show their papers"...good for the governor... every once in a while she gets it right...

coldandhot 10 years ago

Are you kidding me? She vetoes a law to require people to show ID when they vote. This governor needs to get to work and stop wasting time helping Mr. Obama.

Phil Minkin 10 years ago

I love the comments calling the gov a left wing, liberal Democrat. In most other states she would be a modererate Republican.

8ball 10 years ago

how do we know there isn't a problem?maybe nobody got caught.if the poor,disabled and elderly dont have photo id,then how did they get their welfare checks and how do they cash them

Bruce Bertsch 10 years ago

If there was a shred of evidence of voter fraud, then she would have signed the bill. This was an answer in search of a problem.

8ball 10 years ago

so why do we have to wait until there is a problem?kinda like closing the gate after the horse has ran away

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

OnlyTheOne good point about it being one step closer to a national ID card... I think that's what it's all about for Republicans... voter fraud is a non-issue:and it's pretty funny... all these so called "conservatives" wanting something that truly is in the tradition of the worst socialists in history...

Alia Ahmed 10 years ago

Here's an article that talks about voter ID laws turning away minorities and the elderly who tend to vote Democratic. In a close election, it could make a difference.

Robert bickers 10 years ago

"HB 2019 seeks to solve a problem of voter fraud which does not exist in our state due to the tireless efforts of our local elected officials."Perhaps their energies could be better used if they didn't have to worry as much about staving off fraud.(Having moved here from North Texas I am well familiar with voting fraud. South Dallas is the poster child for this type of crime.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years ago

"(Having moved here from North Texas I am well familiar with voting fraud. South Dallas is the poster child for this type of crime.)"Really? Then you can probably give us some concrete examples of how this bill would prevent such fraud, can't you, Jimbo?

salad 10 years ago

lucky_man (Anonymous) says: "Sebelius is a complete joke, pandering to the far-left as mentioned above. The Democratic Socialist Party: The New Elitist Party of the Rich-steamrolling over America for political expediency. Sebelius is an a$$hole of the highest order"Uh, sorry to correct you (un)-lucky_man, but it's the republicans that are the party of the rich, political expediency, and I've-got-mine-screw-everyone-else. As for your sentiments about our prove that even a steaming pile of reeking excrement such as yourself can have an opinion, however vile and misogenistic.I think gov. Sebelius is doing a fine job. This legislation is complete BS, and since people without a govt. issued ID would have to pay to get one in some form or another, it acts as a poll-tax, plain and simple.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years ago

Interesting-- Sebelius gets accused of being "far left" for vetoing against a bill that is purely the result of far-right demogoguery. The only result of this bill would be to make it harder for poor, elderly and disabled voters to vote. (as noted above, the type of voter fraud this bill would purportedly eliminate just doesn't happen, anywhere, ever.)

kansaskev61 10 years ago

When you vote in a far left liberal demo for govenor why are you at all surprised by her far left liberal demo voting. When you vote in a socialist you get socialism. Voter fraud might help her get elected to another term. Except she will dump Kansas as fast as she can when Obama is elected and offers her something bigger and better. She's a Hillary in training. Power not to the people but to Kathleen's unlimited need and want of power and prestige. God Bless The People's Republic of Douglas County. You get what you vote for.

salad 10 years ago

"Even if very few people commit in person fraud, it is still good policy to require ID to vote."Then the govt. should provide such ID to people who can't get it themselves for whatever reason free of charge, which will be expensive, and tax payers have to pay for it. I have no problem with that, I also don't mind paying my share (even to the govt.), or donating time and money to charity. If we are to be equitable and free, then we need to be so for the least among us.

Steve Jacob 10 years ago

I read that before the Indiana primaries, they tried to overturn the voter ID law. Anyway, they said 19% of blacks in that state did not have ID. So yes, it is a democratic issue.

notajayhawk 10 years ago

kubacker (Anonymous) says: "Anyone in an accident 3 days after taking a RX for a tooth extraction would not be impaired at the time of the wreck, but even if he/she was it would be a once-every-10-years event versus the daily risk that regular users of street drugs will be taking. I'll let you worry and wonder everyday about which street drugs they're testing for. You'll never know for sure."Congratulations, kub, for hitting the nail on the head, even if by accident. And also for clarifying and expounding on your ignorance of what that law means. If only you understood the implications of what you just said.Yes, genius - you're absolutely correct, that a person will not be 'impaired' three days after taking a Vicodin. They can, however, still test positive for opiates. That's the point. Maybe before you put any more feet in your mouth you should read the bill. One thing you might notice missing is any definition of impairment. Or any specific requirement for the type of testing that must be done. So yes, three days after you took that Vicodin, there will still be enough metabolites of the drug floating around your system to test positive in an immunoassay screen, and the only evidence before the court will be that you tested positive for a controlled substance - not how much you took, or how long ago, or whether or not it impaired your driving, just that you were positive. And maybe you should do a quick check on how many people in this country take medications and how many of those can cause drowsiness or other forms of impairment before you start thinking it'll be a once every ten year occurence.

dirkleisure 10 years ago

The AP found some Indianans who were unable to vote in the very first election held after the Supreme Court upheld that state's ID law: before you cut and paste the "didn't want to do that quote," pay more careful attention to the real culprit:---They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said."We're going to take from now until November to get them out and get this done. You can't do this like school kids on a bus," she said. "I wish we could."---Nice to see so many anti-Catholic posters on this thread. Better look out, the archbishop will deny you communion.

acg 10 years ago

I love Kathleen and generally think she's spot on. However, I disagree with her position here. We have to show proof of age or ID for just about everything, including purchasing Mucinex DM (I just recently learned). The arguments don't stack up, in my opinion. Nearly everyone has an ID and if they don't, they can get one, and if they can't, there's a reason for it. If a person is so old or infirm that they can't get to the DMV across town to get a state ID, then how are they bopping off to the polling place to vote anyway?

gphawk89 10 years ago

"Do you realize that St Louis has more registered democrats than ALL of the available voters in such prescint?"St. Louis City is a cesspool of voter fraud. News stories about it for every election. But nothing is done about it - it's almost like it's expected.Vote early, vote often...

cowgomoo 10 years ago

If you have the ambition, means and ability to get yourself down to the polling location you have more than what it takes to get an ID. It's not difficult. This only disenfranchises the lazy. Ask the democrats in Florida and Michigan what it really means to be disenfranchised.

dirkleisure 10 years ago

I'm confused - did this bill require a drug test to vote? Because that's going to knock a lot of nursing homes right out of the picture!Genius! Old people vote Republican, so this evens everything out!

Godot 10 years ago

Bozo asserts that the poor, elderly and disabled do not have the wherewithall to provide ID at a voting place; yet I am sure these same individuals are required to produce ID to get food stamps, medicaid, medicare and social security.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

if you don't think it's any big deal for the State to force you to carry identification in order to secure your rights, then it's not a big deal...for some, on principle, it is a big deal... as it is an unnecessary government control...if there was evidence that there was a problem with voter fraud, some kind of ID may be necessary...but that doesn't seem to be the, it would seem that this is an unnecessary government control...unless... one is a fascistic-socialist... then no government control is's all for the good of the people...

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years ago

"yet I am sure these same individuals are required to produce ID"Are you really sure? Is it the same ID, with the same requirements for obtaining one?There could be a system put in place that would make it possible, and as easy as possible, for someone to obtain a voter ID. But the fact that this is solution in search of a problem is a pretty good indication that no such ID system will be put in place. There is one reason and only one reason for this law, and it's to keep the poor, the elderly and the disabled from voting because they too often vote the "wrong way." And if you can put your ideology down for awhile, there is plenty of evidence that that is the only demonstrable effect.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

and requiring "papers" is textbook fascistic-socialism...

bunnyhawk 10 years ago

you bilious racist bozos!!!!Obama's Mama IS FROM KANSAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Haiku_Cuckoo 10 years ago

If you can't even figure out how to obtain a photo ID, how can you possibly determine which candidate will make the best president??Scary!

ilikestuff 10 years ago

People keep going on about voter ID legislation being detrimental to the "disabled" person's "ability" to vote. I'm disabled yet take full advantage of my responsibility or duty to vote. It's the least I can do and I fully support voter ID legislation. When this type of legislation is eventually signed into law, those claiming to be concerned about the disabled, elderly and poor can be of service. You can give rides or donate money so those people who would otherwise be unable to vote can do so.

salad 10 years ago

"so the nonsense argument that it's a poll tax, it's just a way to divert attention from the real issue."False, it's clearly a defacto poll tax on the poor, elderly, and disabled. The govt. of Missouri itself estimated that as many as 45,000 Missourians would be prevented from voting with such a law. As mentioned before, it also solves a problem that doesn't exist. But hey, it's just the repugnicans answering their favorite question: Who would Jesus stick it to? "If you can't even figure out how to obtain a photo ID, how can you possibly determine which candidate will make the best president?? Scary!"Well, people with valid ID's voted for the worst possible candidate in the last two elections, so what's your point? Scary indeed."the "super rich" are majority Democrat."I dispute that, Johnstons book on tax law "Perfectly Legal" has precisely the opposite statistics. Where did you come to this conclusion VTHawk?

notajayhawk 10 years ago

From the story (for the benefit of those who don't bother to read the articles before commenting):"And she signed into law a proposal to increase drug testing at traffic accidents, ..."

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

verity thanks for sharing...there are a lot of things that people take for granted...

OnlyTheOne 10 years ago

scobey740, coldandhot, 8ball, Godot, Jimbo............Oh, I see the rabble rousing non-news-readers are active again.The vetoed Law would have required a Photo ID. The one most popular with the states that are adopting the requirement is the US Government's version. One step closer to a national id. But of course you'se folks don't fully read the articles so you've such great commens!Read more, type less!

VTHawk 10 years ago

1) For the "super rich", it depends on where you draw the line.2) People in Florida didn't have to show ID, and no state had a comprehensive ID law prior to Indiana 2 months ago.3) There almost 7 million Missourians. The 35k without ID could obtain one prior to the next election cycle.

VTHawk 10 years ago

Salad:Except that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats, even when adjusted for different income levels and AFTER excluding donations to churches. Also, the "super rich" are majority Democrat. We can disagree about how much should go to the government without being "misogenistic" [sic], as you accuse lucky_man of being. I like Governor Sebelius, and think that she is doing a decent job as governor (future VP?), but disagree with this veto. I show ID to get on a plane, buy alcohol, cash checks, purchase anything using credit, and (yes) prove my identity for any reason. Even if very few people commit in person fraud, it is still good policy to require ID to vote.

igby 10 years ago

Because you can vote several times at different locations.

fundamental 10 years ago

It is interesting to me that this is a bill that Sebelius vetoed. The Supreme Court just decided a case based on a similar bill in Indiana, stating that the bill was, in fact, constitutional, by a 6-3 vote. Furthermore, in the two years of litigation regarding the Indiana bill, lawyers who represented the parties who wanted the bill declared unconstitutional were unable to produce "evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote" as a result of the the photo-ID law.Interestingly, Georgia passed a similar bill requiring voters to produce ID in order to vote. In an attempt to overturn that law, the ACLU sent out a desperate e-mail hoping to find an individual who would not be able to vote because of the ID requirement, but did not find one. Weird. The NAACP, which also sued, was unable to bring forward a single person unable to vote. The Georgia court stated that this failure was "particularly acute in light of Plaintiff's contention that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable Photo ID."Seriously, folks. What's the big deal here?

fundamental 10 years ago

jayhawklawrence,In case you weren't aware, historically, Fascists were Socialists. The Nazi ideologist Gregor Strasser stated it quite clearly: "We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money." Mussolini (historically recognized as a Fascist) said "Socialism is in my blood."Is it just me, or does the Strasser comment sound a lot like the Democrat Party's platform? Weird.

dirkleisure 10 years ago

it is good policy to require Id to vote.Unfortunately, this bill specifically required a government issued photo id. That is bad policy. It is also bad policy to turn away voters. You know, like telling nuns who have no means or reasons to acquire photo identification that they aren't worthy of casting a vote.Create a reasonable policy and it will become law. Continue with the demagoguery and racist comments and it will not.

fundamental 10 years ago

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says: and requiring "papers" is textbook fascistic-socialism:The two are quite separate, actually. In a fascistic-socialist society, you might be asked to produce your papers at any time for any reason. The failure to produce said papers would likely result in your being thrown into prison or worse. I'm pretty sure that in Indiana, if you are asked to verify that you are who you say you are (and that you are legally eligible to vote) and you cannot produce such an ID, you are not thrown into prison. In fact, you're not even prevented from voting. You just have to cast a provisional ballot and prove within 10 days that you are, in fact, who you presented you were, and that you are legally eligible to vote. What is the big deal with this again?

fundamental 10 years ago

dirkleisure,Can you try the link again? It didn't pull up. I'd like to read the article.Fundamental

formerfarmer 10 years ago

Why did no one catch she signed a bill allowing for money to be spent on a proposed nuclear power plant, after vetoing coal plants.

jayhawklawrence 10 years ago

If you want an example of voter fraud just watch Melvin Nuefeld and his cronies carry out their juvenile little games in the Kansas legislature. Not only is it a fraud on voters expecting responsible government, it is an embarrassment.I guess if someone has the stupidity to call Democrats socialists and communists, we can call the Republicans Fascists. Neither line of ridiculous and inappropriate mislabeling will lead us any closer to reasonable and responsible government.

George_Braziller 10 years ago

The issue is about providing a photo ID -- NOT about providing some sort of ID. Did you have to show a photo ID the last time that you bought a house, vechicle, connected to utilities, get a library card, etc.? I didn't.You have to have a birth certificate to get a photo ID but also have to have a photo ID to get a birth certificate. It's a catch 22.Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says: it's not a poll tax: stop w/ the nonsense:you need id to:1. buy a house.2. lease a house.3. buy a car.4. get utilities.5. open a bank account.6. cash your check if you don't have a bank account.7. board a plane.8. get a library card.9. get a fishing/hunting license.10. get a job.11. etc:

Godot 10 years ago

Seblius disrespects the Supreme Court decision that determined that requiring ID to vote is constitutional. Why? Because she fears it might disenfranchise some unknown voter. Yet she uses her veto power time after time to defend the Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to end a voter's life in the womb, therefore permanently disenfranchising that citizen from ever voting, or partcipating in life.What twisted mind can justify that position?

ASBESTOS 10 years ago

"I still haven't seen any of the pro-IDers give any reason why we can't compromise by having the government provide the photo ID, free of charge."IF you read the Bill and the SCOTUS case on Photo ID, it is easy. It woudl make sens if the PARTIES that hadted ID voter laws took THEIR money and bought the POOR and the ELDERLY their IDs in Kansas. They cost all of $12.50. Oh yeah that's right, you have to prove legality and residency. Additionally in some instances if Queen Kathy was so set against it, they PROVIDE the ID's.Additionally, if there is "no problem" as som see it in Voter fraud occurring, show me the proof that there are all these people "disenfranchised" by requiring an ID, because the proof is not there, AND that was in the SCOTUS case.You people that want to all this stupidity of Voter fraud are 2nd class loons.You suck!

notajayhawk 10 years ago

kubacker (Anonymous) says: "A very bad day for the all the dopers who've believed all this time that it was their birthright to do illegal drugs on a regular basis and drive a car."Demonstrating a pathetic misunderstanding of the law in question and its related issues.We can all only hope, kub, that you're the first one to go to jail and be sued for everything you own because someone runs a stop sign and slams into you 3 days after you took a legally prescribed painkiller following a tooth extraction, while the 'doper' who hit you lives literally high off your money 'cause they didn't test for any of the thousands of drugs that he might have been whacked out on.

verity 10 years ago

This is not a comment on whether this law or the veto of it is good or not. It's a comment on how difficult it might be to get a photo ID.It is not necessarily that simple to get a birth certificate to use to get a photo ID. My mother was born in the Territory of Arizona and moved around a lot with her parents. When she wanted to get a birth certificate in order to get a passport, she and my father had to gather a lot of information---grade school records, old letters announcing her birth, etc in order to prove her date of birth. It took quite some time and a good deal of driving to different places.They had the means and ability to do so. Not everyone is that lucky.

RonBurgandy 10 years ago

Good for you Governor! Keep up the good work.

standuporget 10 years ago

I didn't sign or show anything to vote in Douglas County or prove I was registered. I thought it was strange but I helped get Bush in office. Say NO to ID's. lmaoudl

ENGWOOD 10 years ago

Obama's Mama and her cronies couldn't sneek any votes in if they had to have a valid picture ID. And what is wrong with a Government issued ID. if you are in our country Legally then you should have no problem coming up with a legal ID. You may have to wait in line at the county courthouse but people do that everyday waiting to register a vehicle or buy a tag.

KS 10 years ago

She must not have seen the recent US Supreme Court decision. It's legal, Queen Kathy. It will happen, not only in Kansas but in most states. Just a matter of time. A sign of the times. Thank God for term limits in Kansas. Folks didn't want the far right in Kansas these last two terms so we got the far left. You know what they say in the old country.....sometimes you win some and sometimes you lose. She won't be around forever, thank God.

beatrice 10 years ago

"I'm voting two times for Obama and once for Hillary. It's easy when you know how to steal IDs." -- writer and director, John WatersJust ask any college freshman on a friday night how difficult it is to get a fake ID, and I think we will see that this isn't the fix-all some would hope it to be. engwood: "Obama's Mama and her cronies couldn't sneek any votes in if they had to have a valid picture ID."Obama's mother is dead. Care to try again, but perhaps with a touch of civility this time around?

Kirk Larson 10 years ago

Asworstos says: " me the proof that there are all these people "disenfranchised" by requiring an ID, because the proof is not there"Try this on for size:

bunnyhawk 10 years ago

Wow!! If nothing else, this discussion highlights that ignorance doesn't limit internet access!!!!!

purplesage 10 years ago

She's got it wrong again. The voter roles are NEVER cleaned up. Living in a smaller community, as I do, where the elections officials know us by sight, is the only way that there is any way that people are not, as they say, voting early and often. No, it is not Chicago, but the Gov has her head in the sand - again.

VTHawk 10 years ago

logicsound04:As I mentioned, contributions to churches and religious organizations are not counted. Here is a link to a Syracuse University professor that has researched the topic, and I can link you to a variety of other sources at a later date. I graduate in 1 week, so am limited in my free time. Also, you might have to actually check-out and read this book, because I haven't found an online version. Enjoy...

notajayhawk 10 years ago

just_another_nazi_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "Really? Then you can probably give us some concrete examples of how this bill would prevent such fraud, can't you, Jimbo?"Really? Then you can probably give us some concrete examples of how anyone has been disenfranchised by states that have passed similar laws, can't you, bozo?

notajayhawk 10 years ago

I somehow find it amusing that certain people in this thread are defending our governor when on the same day she signed into law the bill requiring mandatory drug testing following a car accident that they so vociferously opposed. Yep, our governor, a true champion of civil rights.

local_support 10 years ago

"If the bill Sibelius vetoed is truly about preventing voter fraud, then why are so many of the supporters vehemently against having the government provide the ID free of charge?"Best point made so far.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.