Lawrence and Douglas county
Voter ID requirement up for consideration in Legislature
March 16, 2009
Advertisement
Topeka — Legislation headed for full Senate consideration would require that voters show identification at the polls or when getting an advance ballot. The ID would not have to have a photograph of the person.
The law already requires people new to a county to show ID, but Senate Bill 267 would require voters to show ID every time they voted.
An acceptable identification would be a driver’s license, utility bill, bank statement, paycheck or government document — something that has the voter’s name and address.
Last year, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a photo ID bill. She said there was no reason for the bill because there had been no instances of voter fraud in the state. Kansas Republicans have long called for such a requirement.
When SB 267 was in committee last week, several people called for the photo ID requirement.
Paul Degener, of Topeka, president of Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, said anyone could easily get a nonphoto ID. “If you don’t mind Dumpster diving, I think you can find a utility bill,” he said.
He said voters should have to show a photo ID or possibly a birth certificate when they vote.
Degener said he became engaged in the issue when he watched what he said were “illegal aliens” being encouraged to vote at a rally at the Capitol in 2006. “This is the United States of America, not Mexico, and only U.S. citizens should vote,” Degener said.
Tom Stoffors, of Tonganoxie, with November Patriots, said fraud at the ballot box is a problem despite what Sebelius said. “You’d have to be naive or just not willing to look at this to think this is not a problem,” he said.
Michael Byington, with the Kansas Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired, said he believed the identification requirement will result in some legitimate voters being refused the right to vote. But, he said, SB 267 is better than one requiring a photo ID.
“We’re not crazy about this, but if you do one, do this one,” Byington said.
Top ads RSS
- FULL TIME DIRECT SALES REPRESENTATIVES Positions Available In Lawrence/Eudora Basehor ...
- SEEKING FULL TIME TELLER • Requires good customer service skills. ...
- MARKETING & PROMOTIONAL WRITER The World Company, a local news ...
- PSYCHOTHERAPIST Community Mental Health Center Outpatient Serve adults, children and ...
- Brandon Woods at Alvamar - Assistant Director of Nursing
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Proposed constitutional amendment to block federal health care reform considered February 9, 2010 · 36 comments
- Eudora man hospitalized after head-on crash into tree February 9, 2010 · 10 comments
- ‘Tea party’ is Palin’s people February 7, 2010 · 215 comments
- Kansas Legislature considers poverty waivers for those looking to get married, but unable to pay fees February 9, 2010 · 30 comments
- Poll: Paper, plastic or, no thanks, I brought my own tote bag? February 8, 2010 · 45 comments
- Rep. John Murtha, Iraq war critic, dies at 77 February 9, 2010 · 89 comments
- KU employee suspected of charging personal items on university credit card February 9, 2010 · 22 comments
- KDHE orders salvage yard to change practices February 9, 2010 · 13 comments
- The only choice February 9, 2010 · 52 comments
- District delays moving freshmen February 9, 2010 · 41 comments
- Aldrich’s father gets to ‘live a dream’ — in Lawrence February 9, 2010
- Under her wing: Parent writes book on developmental disabilities February 8, 2010
- Chancellor Gray-Little supports schools February 9, 2010
- KU communication studies professor is a finalist for MU post February 9, 2010
- Eudora man hospitalized after head-on crash into tree February 9, 2010
- KU employee suspected of charging personal items on university credit card February 9, 2010
- HealthGrades releases list of hospitals with lower mortality, complication rates February 9, 2010
- Jayhawks knock off Longhorns to get first win in Austin under Bill Self February 9, 2010
- Open house to discuss Highway 56 moved to Baldwin City school February 9, 2010
- Love bonds February 8, 2010
16 March 2009
at 8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Paul Degener, of Topeka, president of Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, said anyone could easily get a nonphoto ID. “If you don’t mind Dumpster diving, I think you can find a utility bill,” he said.”
Only problem with your little “theory,” Paul, is that there is absolutely no reason for anybody to want to go to all that trouble to commit a felony that would most likely have zero effect on the outcome of an election.
“Tom Stoffors, of Tonganoxie, with November Patriots, said fraud at the ballot box is a problem despite what Sebelius said. “You’d have to be naive or just not willing to look at this to think this is not a problem,” he said.”
Tom, there is zero evidence that this happens in any significant way, and it would be easily detected if it were done in the systematic way that would be required to change the outcome of an election.
This is nothing but demagoguery.
16 March 2009
at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fairplay (Anonymous) says…
It's Bush's fault.
Thought I would get it out there before someone else beats me to the punch.
16 March 2009
at 9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
just another bozo on this emp-T supports the status quo because he knows that the Far Left, such as those who support ACORN, are much more likely to abuse our lax voter ID laws than any conservative.
It's time to appeal to commonsense. It's time for reasonable voter ID laws.
16 March 2009
at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Thanks to ACORN & a lack of voter ID laws in this country, a record number of imaginary-Americans voted in 2008.
16 March 2009
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Hoots (Anonymous) says…
Your vote is important. I think you should have to prove you are who you say you are.
16 March 2009
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Thanks to ACORN & a lack of voter ID laws in this country, a record number of imaginary-Americans voted in 2008.”
Only in your imagination.
16 March 2009
at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
You have to show ID to cash a check, but you don't have to produce any to vote? Everybody but bozo and the rest of the looney left knows exactly what's wrong with this picture.
Yes, legislature, pass it!
16 March 2009
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“You have to show ID to cash a check, but you don't have to produce any to vote?”
What do you get if you forge a check? Money for nothing.
What do you get if you vote in an election you aren't qualified to vote in? Nothing.
16 March 2009
at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
bozo,
If you consider fraud to be “nothing,” then you are correct.
16 March 2009
at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ljreader (Anonymous) says…
What do you get if you vote in an election you aren't qualified to vote in?
Change-pocket change.
16 March 2009
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“You have to show ID to cash a check, but you don't have to produce any to vote?”
What do you get if you forge a check? Money for nothing.
********************************************
And a nice stiff jail sentence, with any luck.
============================
What do you get if you vote in an election you aren't qualified to vote in? Nothing.
*******************************************
Should be at least equal to forging a check. Minimum.
16 March 2009
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ljreader (Anonymous) says…
What do you get if you vote in an election you aren't qualified to vote in?
Change-pocket change.That would be for the rest of us- until Obama lets La Raza figure out a way to redistribute that to illegals.
Illegals will also get amnesty under this administration and all the goodies that come with it, at our expense.
Even without amnesty, they are expected to receive no fewer than 300,000 jobs of the ones we were promised in the stimulus bill
16 March 2009
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
bozo…
Remember a time, about 10 years ago, when we couldn't fathom anyone flying a jetliner into a skyscraper?
It's easy to discount the possibilities as “nothing,” today—but what about 5 years from now? 10 years from now?
I have to side with common sense on this one—mainly because the ubiquitousness of digital photography, ID cards, etc.
I would support paying for this system, via a small tax increase. I would agree to providing photo ID cards to those that do not have some other form of photo ID, such as a state driver's license, a college student ID, or a military ID.
Of course, if we're going to follow through on this, then we also have to ensure that our state drivers licenses are only given to legal citizens, and legal immigrants.
Showing my drivers license at my polling place is not a hardship for me… or for any other reasonable person.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
16 March 2009
at 10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Remember a time, about 10 years ago, when we couldn't fathom anyone flying a jetliner into a skyscraper?”
Yea, someday they will fly an airliner into a polling station.
“It's easy to discount the possibilities as “nothing,” today—but what about 5 years from now? 10 years from now?”
Given that it would be impossible to organize non-citizens to vote illegally in numbers large enough to have any effect on the outcome of an election, this is a non-issue. There are many other issues that actually deserve our attention. This is just a distraction from people who would prefer that truly important issues not be addressed.
16 March 2009
at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Someone who went diving for identification would have to A) pick someone who was registered to vote and B) figure out at which polling station they are eligible to vote.”
The fraudulent voter would also have to make sure to be the first in line to vote that day, since the odds are high that the real voter would eventually show up. If the fraudulent voter wasn't there first, polling officials would not only not allow them to vote, but would likely call law enforcement for the attempt to cast a fraudulent vote.
But heck, if you're a demagogue trying to whip up hysteria, you're not going to bother taking the 30 seconds required to think the above scenario through.
16 March 2009
at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
feeble (Anonymous) says…
Degener said he became engaged in the issue when he watched what he said were “illegal aliens” being encouraged to vote at a rally at the Capitol in 2006. “This is the United States of America, not Mexico, and only U.S. citizens should vote,” Degener said.
=============================
How did Degener know their immigration status? Why didn't he call ICE?
Sounds like someone angry at some people speaking “mexican” in the heartland of 'merica to me.
16 March 2009
at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deskboy04 (Anonymous) says…
There must have been a lot of voter fraud in the last election…that's the only way that my candidates could have lost. It couldn't have been because a majority of the people disagreed with their policies.
16 March 2009
at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ljreader (Anonymous) says…
A very few single votes CAN count- re: the Al Franken debaucle.
Possessing a picture ID means nothing anyway.
Illegal aliens are accomplished ID theives. They have forged birth certificates,and stolen SS #s and cards so they can steal jobs, medical and welfare benefits. Probably 99% have a forged driver's license with their picture. Even experts have trouble distinguishing these forgeries from the real McCoy- So don't get your panties in a wad or fret- Illegal voting is alive and well and will continue to flourish.
16 March 2009
at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
” Illegal voting is alive and well and will continue to flourish.”
Well, no, it's not. There is zero evidence that's it's happening in any significant way. And the Minnesota election is just too close to call. We'll never know for sure who won that election— illegal voting plays absolutely no part in that.
16 March 2009
at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
Bozo,
In Minnesota you have either incompetency or illegal voting ….. there were numerous precincts in Minnesota with more votes than there were people registered to vote in the precinct.
16 March 2009
at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Given that it would be impossible to organize non-citizens to vote illegally in numbers large enough to have any effect on the outcome of an election, this is a non-issue.
***************************************
Really? Tell that to the people of Minnesota.
16 March 2009
at 1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
” Illegal voting is alive and well and will continue to flourish.”
Well, no, it's not. There is zero evidence that's it's happening in any significant way. And the Minnesota election is just too close to call. We'll never know for sure who won that election— illegal voting plays absolutely no part in that.
***************************************
Who told you that? Your dog?
16 March 2009
at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“there were numerous precincts in Minnesota with more votes than there were people registered to vote in the precinct.”
If there is fraud (as opposed to just human or computer error) involved, it's almost certainly on the part of the vote counters, not the vote casters, upon which a voter ID requirement would have zero effect.
16 March 2009
at 2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“there were numerous precincts in Minnesota with more votes than there were people registered to vote in the precinct.”
If there is fraud (as opposed to just human or computer error) involved, it's almost certainly on the part of the vote counters, not the vote casters, upon which a voter ID requirement would have zero effect.
**************************************
Still listening to your dog, we see. If you're so cock sure there is no voter fraud involved in Minnesota, let's see your evidence. Show us where it's the vote counters and not the vote casters who are the fraudulent ones. Back it up, bozo. And your dog doesn't count as a source.
16 March 2009
at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Who told you that? Your dog?”
–––––-
A hilarious statement coming from someone whose posts rarely contain any substance.
Perhaps you're projecting?
*************************************
If my dog were talking to me, which it doesn't, it would make a whole lot more sense than bozo's dog. And it would have the evidence to back it up.
More likely, though, it is bozo who is projecting. A voter fraud practitioner who is afraid of getting caught.
16 March 2009
at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
I'm not the one claiming that there is fraud, of any kind, involved in the Minnesota elections. I'm merely conjecturing that given that there is a) little to no evidence of fraud by individual voters in recent years and b) little motivation for anyone to do it, that it's much more likely that the sources of any problems in the Minnesota elections are to be found elsewhere.
So what's the evidence for your claims, Pilgrim? (not holding my breath.)
16 March 2009
at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deathpenaltyliberal (Anonymous) says…
Voting is a RIGHT, therefore the government should be working to increase the pool of voters, not decrease.
Driving is a privilege, subject to government restriction. Please note the difference.
Requiring voter ID is an example of Republicans using Big Government to suppress voter turnout. The number of voter fraud cases nationwide in the last decade is miniscule. If you do a cost-benefit analysis, this voter ID bill is just wasteful.
16 March 2009
at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
I'm not the one claiming that there is fraud, of any kind, involved in the Minnesota elections. I'm merely conjecturing that given that there is a) little to no evidence of fraud by individual voters in recent years and b) little motivation for anyone to do it, that it's much more likely that the sources of any problems in the Minnesota elections are to be found elsewhere.
***********************************
Well, let's re-visit what started this. Earlier in this thread:
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Given that it would be impossible to organize non-citizens to vote illegally in numbers large enough to have any effect on the outcome of an election, this is a non-issue.
*********************************************
“…impossible to organize non-citizens … in numbers large enough to have any effect on the outcome of an election.”
There has been a swing of less than 500 votes in the Minnesota re-count. Hell, that would be a bad day at the office for an outfit like Acorn. So your premise is bogus from the start. It CAN happen, and you have no idea whether it is happening in Minnesota or not. So why not take a step in the direction of assuring that it doesn't happen in Kansas?
16 March 2009
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
deathpenaltyliberal (Anonymous) says…
Requiring voter ID is an example of Republicans using Big Government to suppress voter turnout.
****************************************
I have to show an ID at the polling place to prove I am who I say I am, just like I have to do in a myriad of other situations in life. How does that suppress my ability or desire to show up at said polling place? The only logical answer is that I'm afraid of getting caught doing something fraudulent/illegal.
16 March 2009
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deathpenaltyliberal (Anonymous) says…
Pilgrim2
Only first-time voters are required to show ID, so I don't know why you are being asked for ID.
The only logical answer to your response is that you are too busy parrotting Republican talking points to think for yourself.
This Voter ID bill is just another Big Government solution to a problem that does not exist.
16 March 2009
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“There has been a swing of less than 500 votes in the Minnesota re-count. Hell, that would be a bad day at the office for an outfit like Acorn.”
Really? Given that there has been no evidence anywhere, ever, that ACORN has been involved in any sort of fraudulent voting, what is the basis for this statement?
“It CAN happen,”
Well, that can apply to all sorts of highly unlikely events.
“and you have no idea whether it is happening in Minnesota or not.”
But you're the one making wild assumptions about what is going on in Minnesota, not me.
What I believe is happening is an election so close that their (and our) current election system is just plain inadequate to declare a winner with any certainty. Whoever is eventually seated will obtain it by something equivalent to a coin toss.
16 March 2009
at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“There has been a swing of less than 500 votes in the Minnesota re-count. Hell, that would be a bad day at the office for an outfit like Acorn.”
Really? Given that there has been no evidence anywhere, ever, that ACORN has been involved in any sort of fraudulent voting, what is the basis for this statement?
******************************************
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMa…
16 March 2009
at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
deathpenaltyliberal (Anonymous) says…
Only first-time voters are required to show ID, so I don't know why you are being asked for ID.
*****************************************
I am thankful my election officials are more diligent than you want them to be.
=========================
The only logical answer to your response is that you are too busy parrotting Republican talking points to think for yourself.
***************************************
The only logical answer to your response is that you are busy parroting Acorn, La Raza, et al talking points to understand that the same standards that are required for cashing a check should be the minimum requirement for participating in the election of the officials that pass our laws, levy our taxes, and have a hell of a lot more influence over the conduct of our lives than an illegal paper hanger.
But you still haven't answered the question. How does an ID requirement suppress anyone's desire to participate in the election process unless they're trying to do something fraudulent and are afraid of getting caught?
16 March 2009
at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“It CAN happen,”
Well, that can apply to all sorts of highly unlikely events.
**************************************
If you are obeying the laws, it's unlikely you're going to get into a traffic accident, too, but the law still says you have to wear a seat belt as a preventative measure against injury. So answer the question. Why shouldn't Kansas be more preventative against the possibility of voter fraud than a state like Minnesota? What are you afraid of?
16 March 2009
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deathpenaltyliberal (Anonymous) says…
P2,
The officials at my polling place have only asked for my ID once, the first time I voted in a new precinct. I don't know why you are always asked for your ID, maybe you are transient?
You seem to be struggling with these contradictory ideas;
1. Republicans are telling you that there is massive voter fraud and the country needs Voter ID.
2. Voter ID is a Big Government “solution”.
3. There is no evidence of massive voter fraud.
16 March 2009
at 5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
A seat belt actually prevents (or mitigates) something bad from happening. Voter ID laws don't. But they do have the effect of suppressing turnout of otherwise eligible voters, especially those pesky poor and/or old people who tend to vote the “wrong” way. It's easy to see why it's such a hot issue for you, Pilgrim.
16 March 2009
at 6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
markbr52 (Anonymous) says…
There is a benefit to insuring that voters are “properly registered”. People who are not properly registered probably aren't paying their proper taxes either. Every voter should have their residency verified and insure that they have registered their vehicles in the state and COUNTY.
Have you ever watched the tags at your polling place? I have. Probably 1 in 10 is out of county or out of state. These are tax dollars that are going the wrong direction or not being paid at all.
Why don't we have an officer at every polling place that observes and records for follow-up the tags that are not in county? Maybe we will be able to decrease taxes if all that should pay them do pay them!
16 March 2009
at 6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
deathpenaltyliberal (Anonymous) says…
The officials at my polling place have only asked for my ID once, the first time I voted in a new precinct. I don't know why you are always asked for your ID…
**********************************
We have a misunderstanding. I am not being asked every time. But even if I am, how is that suppressing my vote? It doesn't keep me from cashing checks, and it wouldn't keep me from voting. So I'll try this one more time. If an ID requirement keeps a person from voting, the only logical reason would be that they are attempting something fraudulent and are afraid of getting caught. In that case, bravo! So what's the problem?
16 March 2009
at 6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
A seat belt actually prevents (or mitigates) something bad from happening. Voter ID laws don't. But they do have the effect of suppressing turnout of otherwise eligible voters, especially those pesky poor and/or old people who tend to vote the “wrong” way.
**************************************
Why is that? Are they up to something fraudulent? What are they afraid of? What are YOU afraid of? You trying to pull something shady, bozo?
16 March 2009
at 9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Thinking_Out_Loud (Anonymous) says…
Marion wondered “Why should proof of identity not be required for voting?”
To which the answer is “Because I may not be disenfranchised without due process of law,” of course. Innuendo such as that provided by Pilgrim2 not only involves a logical fallacy, but is blatantly unAmerican. I never have to prove that I am not breaking the law. The government must always make a case, if it has reason to believe I am, that I am indeed breaking the law. But I must be presumed innocent; I must be afforded due process; and I must not be disenfranchised without that due process.