scobey740 (Anonymous) says…

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

coldandhot (Anonymous) says…

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.

moderationman (Anonymous) says…

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 (Anonymous) says…

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

Godot (Anonymous) says…

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.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

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.)

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

“Notice every bill she signed will cause an increase in taxes and/or utility expenses.” - Godot

Notice every bill she signed helps children, people who need healthcare and attempts to keep politicians honest. I'm still “Waiting for Godot” to say something honest…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“(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?

Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…

Do you realize that St Louis has more registered democrats than ALL of the available voters in such prescint? huhmmm… that can't be due to voter fraud, can it? and those votes are counted, and the prescint is won by liberals all the time…

2010…. Go get a valid ID.. I hope they try to override her veto….

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…

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…

8ball (Anonymous) says…

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

cowgomoo (Anonymous) says…

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.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“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.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

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.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“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.

madmike (Anonymous) says…

I fervently hope that her veto is over-ridden.

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

“Sebelius is a complete joke, pandering to the far-left as mentioned above” - lucky_man

Nothing makes more sense in Kansas than pandering to the far-left. Wow, what an ignorant statement…

kansaskev61 (Anonymous) says…

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.

acg (Anonymous) says…

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?

autie (Anonymous) says…

It is not so much many people don't have the wherewithall to go get an ID. I know of some folks who for one reason or another..have no birth certificate record. doesn't happen so much anymore. but those people are out there..and have SS numbers and I know some with medicaid..but there is no record of their live birth in Topeka. Ergo, no state issued ID. Sounds crazy..but it's true.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

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?

Furthermore, it should be noted that this bill doesn't prevent Voter Fraud with a capital F. It prevents one very specific and ineffective (when it comes to changing the outcome of an election) type of voter fraud. The only type of fraud requiring a photo ID at the polling place will prevent is individual, in-person fraud—that may or may not be occurring (waiting for examples….). Affecting the outcome of an election through such a tactic is next to impossible because A) it requires cooperation of a extremely large group of people, and B) if done in mass numbers, is far too detectable to be feasible.

If we want to prevent election fraud, we should be focusing our efforts on the use of electronic ballots with no paper record and the fact that our election engineering is being privatized and left in the stewardship of a small number of companies whose interests may not always align with overseeing a fair and transparent election.

On a side note—as usual, the rightwing ideologues who post on this site display an utter lack of understanding regarding “socialism”. I can't help but laugh when someone calls Sebelius a “socialist”—read a book and you might figure out why.

salad (Anonymous) says…

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 governor….you 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.

srj (Anonymous) says…

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.

gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…

“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…

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…

so the nonsense argument that it's a poll tax, it's just a way to divert attention from the real issue. Every LEGAL vote MUST count. and the only way we can do that is by verifying they're legal.

This is not for next week's election folks… we're talking 24 months from now….

VTHawk (Anonymous) says…

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.

Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…

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!

igby (Anonymous) says…

Because you can vote several times at different locations.

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

I hope the veto is overridden.

I support photo ID at the polling place.

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

OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…

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!

salad (Anonymous) says…

“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?

VTHawk (Anonymous) says…

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.

salad (Anonymous) says…

“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.

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…

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…

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Except that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats, even when adjusted for different income levels and AFTER excluding donations to churches.”

–––––-

Sorry, but I'd like to see numbers on this claim.

I will concede that Republicans donate more to “charity” than Democrats, but every breakout on that statistic that I'VE seen has included church donations—which happen to make up the majority of Republican donations to “charity”.

The reason I say “charity” instead of charity is because counting a contribution to your church as charity is a bit of a stretch, seeing as how a large portion of church collections go back into that church, and not to a specific charity or cause. Yes, almost all churches participate in charity functions, and one could argue that without the church collection plate, the church would not exist and therefore, their ability to participate in charity would be defeated. However, to count a contribution to a church—that is just as likely to go towards revamping the bell tower as it is to go towards helping the needy—as a charity donation is a misleading notion.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

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.

ilikestuff (Anonymous) says…

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.

George_Braziller (Anonymous) says…

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…

RonBurgandy (Anonymous) says…

Good for you Governor! Keep up the good work.

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says…

Yep, Sebilius wins again, if I was a red-neck, xenophobe I would be pissed also…

KS (Anonymous) says…

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.

ENGWOOD (Anonymous) says…

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.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“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…

so the nonsense argument that it's a poll tax, it's just a way to divert attention from the real issue. Every LEGAL vote MUST count. and the only way we can do that is by verifying they're legal”

–––––––-

We already have a verification process—it's called registration.

And it's funny, for as long a list as you were able to come up with for things requiring an ID, none of those are fundamental rights of living in a democracy (or democratic republic). And while it may be hard for some to fathom the idea of people subsisting without any of the above, it is not impossible, and those that choose (or are forced) to live in a manner other than the societal norm should not be punished because they do so.

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. Then the poll-tax argument really does become nil.

If this is about voter security, then why unwavering refusal to find common ground? THAT is why it is hard to believe that proponents of this measure (at least those at the top) aren't just trying to play gerrymandering-type games with the electoral process.

Cappy (Anonymous) says…

Here's the real deal on voter fraud in Texas. Like compassionate conservatives it's a myth.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/19…

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“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!

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

“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 Waters

Just 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?

Cappy (Anonymous) says…

Asworstos says: “…show 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:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/06…

bunnyhawk (Anonymous) says…

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

ralphralph (Anonymous) says…

Gov Chatty Kathy = must go

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

gigolo, exactly what percentage of these so-called “illegals” register to vote or would, they are simply trying to earn money. they don't care what politician is in office. the biggest disgrace we have is current administration and mindless enablers such as you.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

gigolo, to be very specific i was referring to Bush administration, Think Sibelius is doing an excellent job. Proof being number of almost hysterical rants against her.

toe (Anonymous) says…

In Kansas, anyone can be Obama's Mama at the polls. No ID required.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

gigolo, I asked simple question. What percentage of illegals register to vote and can you provide proof that it is happening? toe, racist posts get old fast and actually accomplice nothing.
While you are at it gigolo, define Democratic Socialist for us ignorant souls. Other than the fact that it exists only in your empty head. Try making an an argument for once and not simply start mindless name calling.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

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?

parkay (Anonymous) says…

Bilious Sebelius knows that voter fraud will favor the Democrats.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

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 (Anonymous) says…

“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.

formerfarmer (Anonymous) says…

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.

purplesage (Anonymous) says…

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.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

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?

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Godot,

A “twisted mind,” to be sure.

But certainly not one as obsessive and pathetic as the kind of mind it takes to interject a completely unrelated issue into an argument… merely to sit back once again and engage in some sort of mental masturbation over the “shock value” of said unrelated issue.

So tell me, mah man… was it good for you?

—Ag

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.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

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.

VTHawk (Anonymous) says…

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…

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-C…

standuporget (Anonymous) says…

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

foodboy (Anonymous) says…

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

fundamental (Anonymous) says…

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, ind