Letters to the Editor

Voter ID

November 12, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

I greatly appreciated your editorial about Secretary of State-elect Kris Kobach's plan to impose a photo ID requirement on voting. Your suggestion that he make a real study of the "voter fraud" problem before radically changing our political process is eminently sensible. If he really thought there were a real voter fraud problem, he would want to have the evidence such a study could show.

However, I'm afraid a real study of the "problem" is the last thing he wants. The matter has been studied before, and Kobach knows there is no real voter fraud problem in Kansas. He wants to impose the photo ID requirement for other reasons -- reasons that he can't gracefully reveal.

I think you put your finger on the real reason: He wants to discourage people from voting. He apparently believes, probably correctly, that a majority of the legitimate voters discouraged by the requirement would vote for Democrats if allowed to vote.

I'm sure no legislator will be fooled by the fraud claim, but I'm afraid some would vote for the requirement anyway, to keep down the democratic vote. Let's hope there are enough legislators who take their oaths seriously who will vote to thwart Kobach's scheme. After all, the Republicans can now gerrymander the state to severely limit Democrats' chances for election anyway. Do they need this photo ID overkill?

Comments

labmonkey 4 years, 4 months ago

I do not see how someone can be against voter ID. If you are a citizen and have the right to vote, you should have no problem showing an ID. If you are unable to obtain a driver's license, you can still receive a state issued photo ID. Why would someone who has the right to vote take that right so lightly?

gphawk89 4 years, 4 months ago

I can... Individuals who are not eligible to vote due to citizenship (or non-citizenship) reasons. Individuals that want to (or are being paid to) vote under a different name or cast multiple votes. Individuals who are not eligible to vote due to their status as a felon. And most importantly, individuals or parties who would benefit from the above illegal votes. It's not the legal voters who are against voter ID.

gphawk89 4 years, 4 months ago

Defender, are you asking for proof that groups of individuals that vote illegally are against a voter ID requirement? Do I have to prove that? Really??

gphawk89 4 years, 4 months ago

Well, Def, I was at first a bit offended by your comments, but after reviewing some of your other posts I quickly realized that that's just the way you are. Always being offensive and asking others to prove their points, even if they're blatantly obvious. So, no hurt feelings.

Just for fun, let's see if I can do it, too:

You say I'm lying? Where's the proof? Huh?? Nothing? Then shut your trap.

You say satan loves liars? Please substantiate your claim with some links. Anything? Helloooo?? Echo, echo, echo... I didn't think so. Quit wasting my time.

ivalueamerica 4 years, 4 months ago

You do not see that?

There is a Constitutional right to vote...one should not loose that for lack of ID. There is a Constitutional mandate that US Citizens not be required to have papers proving citizenship on them at all times. There is a Constitutional right to due process.

There is clear evidence that ID mandates disenfranchise legitimate voters. There is no clear evidence that the disenfranchisement of qualified voters outweighs the undocumented and unsubstantiated claim of illegal voters.

Perhaps you need citizenship classes. You appear to not understand that you are supporting violating Constitutional rights of Americans in the process of a perceived but undocumented threat.

I think our country is strong enough and great enough to figure out how to address illegal immigration without violating the Constitutional rights of Americans, in fact we must, or we cease being America. Anything less, we fail.

Kobach is supporting the failure of America....simply looking at all the laws he has written that have been ruled un Constitutional should be evidence enough of that.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"There is clear evidence that ID mandates disenfranchise legitimate voters."

Wanna' try backing that up by presenting some?

"You appear to not understand that you are supporting violating Constitutional rights of Americans in the process of a perceived but undocumented threat."

Hate to burst your bubble, value (who'm I kiddin' - no I don't hate it), but the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you on that one. And, um, that would be their job to decide, not yours.

llama726 4 years, 4 months ago

www.alternet.org/rights/67161/

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/Court_declares_voter_ID_unconstitutional_20090917

http://www.morningsun.net/newsnow/x1946665599/ID-crackdown-mulled

The US Supreme Court may have agreed with it, but it's gonna cost taxpayers a lot of money to go through the litigation. Kobach participated in caging. Just dirty politics. Won't affect me, I'll vote anyway. You have to show your ID to register in the first place. I don't have to re-register for anything in the private sector after doing it once, it's inconvenient and wasteful, and how much do you put on election worker VOLUNTEERS to read IDs, and be unbiased?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Wow.

First link: The NAACP crying 'foul'. I'm shocked.

Second link: That ruling was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court.

Third link: Given the huge number of voters on the inactive lists, maybe the registrars and other elections officials should try doing a little caging of their own.

"You have to show your ID to register in the first place."

Tell ya' what. Deposit some money in a bank. Go back four years later and see if they'll let you have it back without some proof that you're the same person who showed them an ID four years previously.

"I don't have to re-register for anything in the private sector after doing it once"

You don't have to register to vote again. You just have to actually be the person who registered.

llama726 4 years, 4 months ago

I'm going to pick my battles. Honestly, this is a distraction topic which isn't worth the effort. I'm sorry that you don't agree with my sources, in the end, it's feasible that voters could be disenfranchised by the measure if they forget their identification, if they lose their identification, etc. I think it's wrong. I think that if I weren't at work, and if this were a bigger issue to me, I'd probably take the time to refute all your points. But it's just waste on the part of the government to have to train volunteers further, on potential litigation - what if a volunteer rejects a voter who DOES have a legitimate ID? -etc.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

I'd be disenfranchised from my right to travel if I lose my car keys. My bad.

At least in the Indiana law, if a voter's ID is rejected they can still fill out a provisional ballot and straighten it all out later (assuming they're legit).

ivalueamerica 4 years, 4 months ago

what a stupid comment.

you nether have a constitutional right to travel or own car keys. you do have the constitutional right to vote. i realize the constitution means nothing to you, but that only makes you a traitor, not right.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel.html

"Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). "For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of free ingress and regress to and from' neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created."' Id. at 501 (citations omitted)."

Now don't you feel foolish, iva?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

If that one was a little bit obscure, how about these:

"It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966): "The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."

"In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/shapiro.html

ivalueamerica 4 years, 4 months ago

goofball, that is about the right to cross state lines, not traveling in and of itself.

what you do not know could fill the moon.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"He wants to discourage people from voting."

Gee, Robert - you managed to do exactly what you're attempting to accuse Kobach of doing. See, Robert, it's YOU that doesn't want a study, because it has been studied, and there is absolutely no proof - none - that a single person has been prevented from voting, or has been unduly inconvenienced, by voter ID laws passed in other states.

"He apparently believes, probably correctly, that a majority of the legitimate voters discouraged by the requirement would vote for Democrats if allowed to vote."

Why is that, Robert? Why do YOU - not Kobach, but YOU - assume that those who would have a problem producing an ID at the poll would be mostly Democrats? Are Democrats too stupid to know where the motor vehicle office is? Are they so scatter-brained as to be constantly misplacing their wallets? Maybe you're insinuating most of them wouldn't be able to get birth certificates, not knowing who their parents are? Or maybe it's your assumption that most felons are Democrats, or most illegal aliens?

I'm not just being facetious here, Robert (well, maybe a little, but not just facetious). I'd really like to know what the basis of your assumption is. Because it's not Kobach's assumption, YOU are attributing motive to his actions (that's called "projection", BTW), and you even said that assumption was 'probably correct'.

So, seriously, Rpbert - WHY, exactly, would any voter ID requirement be a disproportionate hardship for Democrats? Especially in light of the evidence that such laws do not present a hardship to anyone at all?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Dead link, but I found it.

Perhaps I should have specified "serious research". Come on, vertigo, did you actually read the study, or just the sound bites from the abstract?

"Because only a few states have changed their policies since 2000, and because these states probably differ in other significant ways from states that did not have a policy shift, it is not feasible to provide a simple before-after analysis of the impact of changes."

In other words, the study you cited does not measure the direct effect of a specific voter ID law, or even a specific type of voter ID law (the study mentions several types, then lumps them all together) on a specific population. It took data from several states, with various kinds of laws (they lumped the states with ID requested in with those states with ID required, for example), over several election years, lumped it all together, and jumped to a bunch of conclusions. Let's look at one you cited: "voter ID policies reduced Asians’ registration and diminished voter turnout by blacks and Hispanics"

This is a completely specious claim. Even if one assumes their methodology and data were accurate, you simply can not say that voter ID policies reduced registration or diminished turnout. You can only say those things happened at the same time. Again, from the study: "Any remaining differences associated with voter ID after taking into account these other variables are interpreted as evidence of the effect of voter ID." In other words, if they couldn't find any other explanation, then it must have been because of the voter ID laws.

How about this variable: How about if there weren't any candidates that particularly excited or appealed to certain demographic groups in 2004? The conclusions of the study you cited demonstrate only the likelihood that persons of various groups might choose to participate, not whether there is any significant effect on whether they can participate. (Similarly, other studies have shown that certain demographic groups are less likely to have ID's, not that they can't get ID's.) You are aware, are you not, that minority participation increased significantly from 2004 to 2008, after the implementation (and subsequent Supreme Court decision upholding that implementation) of Indiana's law, considered the most stringent in the country? What conclusions do you draw from that?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"composite" is a good word. They took bits and pieces of different studies on different topics and tried to mold it all like a research McNugget of 'evidence' that voter ID laws disenfranchise voters.

They didn't succeed.

"You, apparently, didn't read it."

I even quoted some of it. Pssst - that's what those words inside those two little marks like " are.

"Nota said there was "no proof - none" that voterID reduces voter turn out. I provided evidence to the contrary. Is it proof? No"

So your evidence "to the contrary" of my contention that there was no proof was to provide a study that - in your own words - was not proof.

Brilliant.

And, um, BTW, it wasn't "evidence" - it was conjecture and hypothesis, and if you'd read the article you attempted to link to, you would have seen that they pretty much admitted the limitations of their 'findings'.

"but it could indicate that there's no proof that voterID laws DO NOT hinder voter turnout as well.."

You mean you can't prove the null hypothesis? No kiddin', thanks, I didn't know that.

Uh, vertigo? By that same logic, no proof that voter fraud exists does not prove that it does NOT exist.

"There's more than this one study saying the same."

Again, no kiddin', ya' think? Hmm, maybe that's why I alluded to them when I said "other studies have shown". Seen em' already, thanks. And already addressed that, if you bothered reading the post you were trying to respond to.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

How legit was it?

Were these your words or not:

"Is it proof? No"

My contention - that you selectively quoted to match the 'evidence' you provided - was that there is "no proof - none". And in your own words, you didn't provide any.

We won't even get into the fact that you changed where I said - which was "a single person has been prevented from voting, or has been unduly inconvenienced" - to something that matched the article you tried to link to, "reduces voter turn out". Next time you post something you claim to be "evidence to the contrary", it should at least be contrary to what I said, not what you made up.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"I didn't counter that it was proof."

You're correct, you didn't. You just tried to. Your statement: "Nota said there was "no proof - none" that voterID reduces voter turn out. I provided evidence to the contrary." Evidence to the contrary of "no proof" would be "proof", vertigo.

"So why don't we hold off until we know definitively?"

Gee, I dunno'. Maybe I'm just one of those people that believes watching the horse running off into the distance shouldn't be your best reminder to close the barn door.

"Why risk possible disenfranchising voters when we don't even have proof that voter fraud is a problem?"

Because 1) it does not disenfranchise anyone, and 2) to paraphrase your own argument, 'Just as there's no proof on your side that voter fraud doesn't affect election results.'

In the Supreme Court's ruling on Indiana's law, they found that the state has a valid interest in protecting the integrity of their elections, and that there really is a risk of fraud affecting a close election. Now maybe you'd prefer to wait until there's incontrovertible evidence that an election in Kansas was decided fraudulently - hey, wait a minute, now I see why liberals don't want voter ID laws in place.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"You are also aware that other states have had their Voter ID laws overturned in court? Missouri for one. Arizona another. "

Missouri's was overturned In their state court, not federal court.. Arizona's wasn't about ID, it was about proof of citizenship. Nice try, though.

Poor, poor Ms. Vaughn. That poor dear lady. Why, she never would have had to go to all those agencies and replace all those documents if only she didn't want to vote. /sarcasm

"Evidence speaks to the contrary."

Evidence. When are you going to present any, by the way? You know, something without a "may" or "might" or "suggests" or "possibly" or any of the exact same tactics you accuse everyone else of using for voter fraud?

Oh, but that's different, one of the last desperate gasps of the liberal. The other, of course, being playing the race card.

You used to at least make attempts at logical arguments based in fact. Now you just fall back on the same old pedantry and propaganda and making your best attempt at taking porch_person's place as the garfinkel king. Why don't you come back when you've got something. I'm sure I'll still be around.

Scott Drummond 4 years, 4 months ago

Nonsense. Checking ID will necessarily slow the voting process. Increased wait times and hassle will reduce the numbers of working class voters who may not be able to wait through the ID checks because they have to report to jobs. Elimination of significant numbers of working class voters from the process produces an electorate that skews toward older and more conservative voters who, surprise, surprise tend to vote more conservative.

Now, I'd be OK with showing ID if we either created a national holiday to allow citizens to vote more conveniently, or moved to weekend voting. I don't expect to see much republican support for that idea, of course, for the reason listed above.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Checking an ID should not significantly increase the time necessary - they're already looking for our names on a list - they could simply look at the ID instead of just asking our name.

All of the hassles you mention can be avoided or mitigated significantly by voting in advance.

I generally agree that if we were really serious about making voting easy for people, we'd hold elections on weekends.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Well, first of all, all those welfare people that vote Democratic have lots of time on their hands, compared to people with jobs, scott.

But that's a moot point, since it appears that states with ID laws haven't seen that huge drop-off in voting that you're alleging.

xclusive85 4 years, 4 months ago

Voting by law cannot be cause for disciplinary action at work, even if you are late or have to leave early to do so.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

How about showing ID to purchase one? That's a better analogy.

And, interestingly enough, there is, according to a little research I did, no constitutionally protected right to vote.

There are specific criteria on which people are not allowed to be excluded, like gender, age, etc.

But states can define "qualified voters", and as long as they don't violate the specific prohibitions, people can be disallowed to vote.

It's striking, and a bit scary, but seems to be true.

Liberty275 4 years, 4 months ago

"None of which are constitutional rights. "

Would you mind pointing out where in the constitution you are given the right to vote?

Scott Drummond 4 years, 4 months ago

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." - the 26th Amendment

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

That only means you can't deny people the right to vote based on their age.

There are a few other criteria that aren't allowable as well.

But states have the right to determine "qualified" voters, and as long as their criteria don't violate any of the specific disallowed criteria, they can disallow voters.

It would certainly seem that amendment assumes a pre-existing right to vote, as the 2nd amendment does with the right to bear arms, but if you do a quick google search, you can find evidence that states have denied groups of people the right to vote, and the Supreme Court seems to have upheld their right to do so.

It's odd.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 4 months ago

BUTTTTTTTTTT we voters should not need a special ID to vote. Kobach wants a special voter ID. A special voter ID would not stop fraud. Anything can be made counterfeit = no real protection. Kobach wants to blow some tax dollars.

A drivers license or a state ID obtained through the driver license bureau should be sufficient.

Kobach wants to blow some tax dollars. And Kobach did his job which was to distract voters from any real issues on the table. Kobach seems like he wants a military government not a people's government.

Where ID's should be checked but so very very frequently are not is when people are writing checks or using credit/debit cards. Now Chris Kobach here is a huge source of fraud....get with it!

AlexHamilton 4 years, 4 months ago

Kobach most definitely does NOT want a "special voter ID." Driver's license and state ID are more than adequate. He has said so repeatedly.

As for credit card fraud - when did financial regulation become the duty of the secretary of state? I find it humorous that you are all in favor of ID to keep the unscrupulous from defrauding banks or storekeepers of cash (I'm inclined to agree with your position, btw), but have no such concerns regarding defrauding citizens of one of their most precious Constitutional rights. Every illegally cast ballot defrauds a citizen - and you're apparently ok with that.

Finally, the man's name is Kris, not Chris. C'mon, merrill...get with it!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

It's pretty simple, Alex. There is next to zero motivation to commit voter fraud, and about as much chance of actually pulling it off in a significant way.

There is considerable motivation to commit theft, and its detection is considerably more difficult than the detection of voter fraud.

voevoda 4 years, 4 months ago

It's easy to procure a fake driver's license or state ID--just ask any student or any bartender. It's not easy to tell the fakes from the real ones. Poll workers would not have the training or the equipment to tell real IDs from the fake ones. So Kobach's proposal will either be ineffective, or extremely expensive.
I'm a lot more concerned with election fraud--deliberate miscounts, "lost" absentee ballots, manipulation of computerized counting programs, insufficient polling places in the opposition party's districts. All those sorts of election fraud have been rampant in recent years. They also change outcomes in a way the occasion improper voter (the most ever reported in Kansas) never could.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

A bartender checking an ID at a dimly lit bar is quite a different situation than a poll worker checking one in a brightly lit polling place.

Also, unless bars are punished for serving alcohol to minors with fake ID's, they don't have a huge incentive to make sure they're not doing so.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 4 months ago

Not only that senior citizens have a medicare card which should be good enough.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Uh, yeah, merrill, 'cause lord knows there's never been any fraud in the Medicare system.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Also, if I remember correctly, the lowered Medicare payments are mostly the payments the government pays to private companies who are administering the programs, and have been determined to be "overpayments" to them.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

If the Medicare payments are simply payments that are going to increase insurance company profits, then lowering them will simply result in lower profits for those companies.

Hardly a "death panel" type of event.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Are those directly related to the money you mentioned earlier?

Sorry for the double conversation.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Best of luck - I hope the coverage will be sufficient, at least, for both of you.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

There are cuts to Medicare that are not part of the reform package, however. There has been an automatic cut in reimbursement rates that never ends up happening, because of the implications if they were allowed to.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A74R220101108

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-doctors-brace-big-medicare.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/207948.php

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/731298

Congress always comes through and postpones the cuts. You simply can't have two-thirds of doctors - correction, two thirds of the doctors who are still taking Medicare patients - refusing to accept Medicare.

Now, you're correct that these cuts were not part of the 'reform' package (you can thank Clinton). However:

1) The so-called savings in Medicare that were supposed to make the legislation affordable were based on the assumption that the 23% cut in reimbursement rates would happen.

2) The looming crisis related to the cuts in reimbursement rates demonstrate one of the biggest problems with government-funded programs: What gets paid out is less dependent on what needs to be paid out than it is on budgetary factors.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"If you use a social service and then b1tch about people using social services you are, by definition, a hypocrite."

If you compare someone receiving social services (aka welfare) to someone who earned their care in service to his country, you're quite a bit worse than a hypocrite, but naming most of them would get the post yanked.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"How do you know they aren't both the same?"

You mean other than the fact that nothing was said about the person you called a "disabled vet who is mooching off us taxpayers" other than he went to a VA hospital?

Guess I know because I know how to read, and actually read the posts I reply to.

Nice attempt at weaseling out of your crummy statement, but to use your word, "Fail." The fact that you're a combat veteran yourself only makes your statement more despicable.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Wow, I haven't seen anyone go through this much spin, this many twists and contortions trying to dig themselves out of a hole since porch_person got disappeared. You called h_c's uncle "A disabled vet who is mooching off us taxpayers" before the post of mine you quoted, vertigo.

"There's nothing despicable about calling out a hypocrite. "

Great. Especially since that's not the part I was referring to, as you well know. Again: "A disabled vet who is mooching off us taxpayers."

"If you use a social welfare program and then cry that others are using a social welfare program you are a hypocrite. "

Health benefits earned in service to this country, especially service in combat that resulted in disability from wounds received during that service, are not a social welfare program. Which was, since you couldn't figure it out on your own, the point of the passage from my post you quoted.

"Why would one choose the VA over private healthcare?"

Gee, I dunno', maybe because he already paid for the care he receives at the VA? Maybe it makes sense to you to go pay for something that you already paid for somewhere else, but most people have a little more common sense than you seem to.

"Could the lack of income be a reason?"

What color is the sky on your planet, anyway, vertigo? Here's a clue for you, since you desperately need one: I have a small pension coming to me from a former employer when I reach retirement age. Know what? It really doesn't matter if I need the money or not when I get there, I'm still taking it.

"Would it be safe to assume that if one has a lack of income that one may also be receiving some other types of social welfare benefits? "

It would be safe for you, apparently, to assume a lot of things. And we all know what assume means, vertigo.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Just keep garfinkeling. It's what you seem to do best these days.

Let me put this in terms you might understand (that's a leap of faith, but stranger things have happened). There's a difference between you getting a meal as part of your pay for your shift at McDonald's and the manager giving a hamburger to a homeless person on the sidewalk. If you can't understand that difference, then that job would probably be above your capabilities, too.

"How did he pay for the VA already?"

If you really have to ask that question, if you're really serious about that instead of just using your usual pedantic tactics to avoid manning up and taking responsibility for despicably insulting a disabled veteran, I find it extremely hard to believe you ever wore a uniform.

voevoda 4 years, 4 months ago

A poster recommending that patients consult their physicians about end-of-life care is as far from a "death panel" as a stop sign is from traffic rampage. Its purpose is to empower the patient to decide care for him/herself.
It's the right-wing that is planning "death panels"--for women who have problem pregnancies. The right-wing wants to take the decision away from the woman and her doctor, and instead give it to a government committee, which will decide whether she gets life-saving care or not.

Scott Drummond 4 years, 4 months ago

And, lest we forget, enjoys diagnosing people's medical condition from the floor of Congress and imposing their views over that of doctors who have actually examined a patient. As usual, all the right wing nonsense about death panels is nothing but projection of their own perversity.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Only if that reduction actually results in lower care for seniors.

If it simply lowers insurance company profits (which I believe is what it will do), then the answer is no.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Is that directly connected to the money you mentioned?

There is an article in the paper today about lowering payments to doctors, but that article claims it is a result of a 1990's balanced budget process that the government has been dragging its' heels on until now.

One of the problems is that our system is so **** complex that it is often hard to analyze what's affecting what and how it works exactly.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 4 months ago

Where ID's should be checked but so very very frequently are not is when people are writing checks or using credit/debit cards. Now Chris Kobach here is a huge source of fraud....get with it!

kernal 4 years, 4 months ago

Good grief! Not the "not born in America" card - again?

Cai 4 years, 4 months ago

What, the birth certificate from Hawaii doesn't count as ID?

You're just spouting a bunch of crap that's been spouted to you - have you even once sat down to critically think about what you're writing given the evidence?

ivalueamerica 4 years, 4 months ago

you do realize that repeating a lie only makes you a repeat liar, donchano?

Ron Holzwarth 4 years, 4 months ago

"A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth." Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945)

cowboy 4 years, 4 months ago

Tom , You are now posting outright lies ! Why not get some level of ethics.

The video you reference in your post is actually from a humor site which combines snippets of comments edited together to provide a humorous result. Google it ! You will also note that the top results are fox losers Hannity et al ilk playing what any idiot with ten keystrokes can identify as a spoof. For you to post references to this indicates either you swallow every twisted false lie that Hannity et al spew or you really just don't care that they are false and repeat them incessantly. This is as pathetic as you can get. Credibility = large zero

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

That's the most honest thing I've ever seen you post here, Tom-- an admission of being a troll.

Ralph Reed 4 years, 4 months ago

@cowboy. You should realize by now that Tom has no sense of ethics at all. He'll spout anything he can and generate whatever lies he can to spray the KoolAid around.

Even though it's hard to do, just ignore what he says. Now, regarding President Obama, Tom has only one real reason he doesn't like him. I think most of us know what it is and it has nothing to do with politics or policies.

ralphralph 4 years, 4 months ago

If you think Obama rocks, then you KNOW that it's all about rights and not responsibilities.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

And yet, in the challenges to the voter ID law in Indiana, both the United States and the Indiana Supreme Courts noted that the plaintiffs were unable to produce a single person who had been prevented from voting. Imagine that.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

Actually, the Indiana case included the affidavits of 44 specific persons who had been denied having their votes counted including a dozen nuns.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

In the case before the Indiana Supreme Court the justices noted that the plaintiffs did not produce a single person who had been prevented from voting. The rather weak response from the plaintiff's attorney was that they had - allegedly - been contacted by 'numerous' voters, and that they could be produced if the case was sent back to the lower court. Seems like a case of a day late and a voter short.

As far as the U.S. case, there are way too many exhibits and affidavits to sift through, so perhaps, you being such an expert, could answer a simple question (I know, I know, it's extremely unlikely that somehow you've found the capability of answering a simple question, but what the heck, let's hope):

Were any of the 44 not allowed to fill out a provisional ballot?

BTW, don't say the nuns were - the nuns chose not to fill out the provisional ballots because they said they couldn't get their ID's in time to verify a provisional ballot. That was their choice. Maybe the Democratic Party in Indiana, as concerned as they are with voters rights and all, could have gotten the nuns to the motor vehicle office to get their ID's instead of getting them to an attorney's office to fill out affidavits.

Jimo 4 years, 4 months ago

All filled out a provisional ballot, none of which was counted.

The Indiana court conceded that, if true, any of these people could bring an individual lawsuit for remedy, which is really a sad joke seeing that there is no such thing as a remedy for being prevented from voting particularly long after the election is over and the wheels of justice finally grind out a decision.

Of course, these 44 were only voters who were determined to show up to vote and insist on casting provisional ballots. The real problem lies in the thousands of less determined individuals who won't do this, which, of course, is the whole purpose of the GOP obsession: voter suppression. When your entire base consists of rapidly aging (and dying) white people, desperate, even panicked, action is imperative.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"All filled out a provisional ballot..."

Um, no, all 44 did not, if the nuns were included in your 44. Try getting your facts straight.

"...none of which was counted. "

Why not? Did they comply with the requirements for getting their provisional ballots counted, namely to return within the specified amount of time with the required form of ID?

"which is really a sad joke seeing that there is no such thing as a remedy for being prevented from voting"

None of them were prevented from voting. According to you, they filled out provisional ballots. If they chose not to return to validate those ballots, that was their choice. Of course, they could have showed up at the polls with an ID in the first place.

"When your entire base consists of rapidly aging (and dying) white people... "

Maybe you oughta' take a gander at the exit polls from last week, spanky.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

The primary goal is most certainly to decrease voter turnout, and while the voter ID law will mostly have the effect of reducing the number of disadvantaged voters (who are more likely to be Democratic voters) I disagree that it is targeted specifically at Democratic voters.

Republican election strategy over the last several election cycles has been to suppress voting in any way they can imagine. With reduced voter turnout, the strategy is to push hot button issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and engage in other forms of outright demagoguery to get just enough radical right voters riled up to vote in close elections, tipping them in their favor.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"The primary goal is most certainly to decrease voter turnout"

Care to take a whack at explaining why Indiana - whose voter ID law is generally considered to be the most stringent in the country's - saw an increase in voter turnout from 54.8% to 59.4% from 2004 (before the law) to 2008 (after the law)?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Very good, bozo! I'm proud of you.

Now, if only you understood what that means, and how it doesn't support your contention that voter ID laws suppress turnout. See, bozo, if there's a candidate or issue that people are enthusiastic enough to want to vote, they'll vote. Indiana's voter ID law didn't keep them away from the polls at all, particularly in the demographic groups you contend would be affected.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

59.4% is still very low turnout, especially for a historically significant election like that one.

Republicans don't expect to be able to win every election by this strategy, but they do expect to win well over half of the elections in which they can successfully suppress turnout.

And this year, they succeeded.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

If we're talking about the percentage of registered voters showing up, in 2008 it was about 70% for Indiana, compared to about 78% nationwide. However, that 70% is quite an increase from the 49% of registered voters actually voting in Indiana in 2004.

The 59.4% figure is for the voting-eligible population, which was also a little below the national average (yet still significantly higher than the last presidential election).

Indiana didn't have great turnout before or after the law passed. In 2008 they were 1-1/2 points behind the national average for eligible voter turnout, yes, but that's better than the 5 points they were behind the national average in 2004. Especially as there was really nothing "historically significant" about the turnout in 2008, which was only up about a point and a half from 2004 (62.2% VEP from 60.7%). In other words, of the voting eligible population, Indiana showed a bigger increase in 2008 over 2004 than the country did overall.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

BTW, Obama was really only half the reason. Bush (as in anybody but) was the other one.

Supremely bad governance also has consequences.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Even were that true, boohoozo, it again reinforces my point that if people want to go out and vote, they will go out and vote, regardless of whether they have to show an ID to do so.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

You mean the 30% of registered voters, or the 40.6% of eligible voters? What about them? Not everyone votes, bozo. Those who chose not to vote represented a smaller number of those registered or eligible than in the general election just before the law was passed. Keep trying to spin it, but more people voted after the law than before it.

Scott Drummond 4 years, 4 months ago

Not so, many working people must vote before or immediately after work. Introducing delay in the process by checking ID increases wait times and decreases the numbers of voters from this segment of our citizenry. What remains are retired, older voters who tend toward more conservative voting.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Then how do you explain the vote totals in 2008 compared to 2004, scott?

Scott Drummond 4 years, 4 months ago

Point of clarification. The election of President Obama and a relentless campaign of fear mongering and distortion by the right wing propaganda apparatus.

Kyle Reed 4 years, 4 months ago

So I'm curious...is the claim that all these black and hispanic people are just so financially strapped they can't get an ID? I see plenty of black and hispanic (minorities in general actually) driving around town every single day. Am I to assume that none of them have a drivers license on them? I see them in the line at the bank as well. Am i to assume they are all turned away once they get to the teller since they can't produce any form of ID?

These assumptions are as ludicruous as the assertion that "they just can't afford it" or that "it's just too difficult".

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"So I'm curious...is the claim that all these black and hispanic people are just so financially strapped they can't get an ID?"

It isn't just about blacks and hispanics. It's about depressing voter turnout because when turnouts are low, demagoguery is more likely to be effective in close elections. (and it doesn't hurt that those least likely to vote are more likely to vote Democratic if they do vote.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"Actually, liberals like bozo believe an ID is a form of 'voter suppression'. "

Suppressing voter turnout is just its primary effect, since there really is no significant level of voter fraud for it to eliminate. So it's pretty obvious what the motivation has been for Kobach demagoguing it the way he and the Republican Party have done.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"Suppressing voter turnout is just its primary effect, since there really is no significant level of voter fraud for it to eliminate."

Suppressing voter turnout isn't an effect at all, since there really is no significant impact on voters.

There, fixed it for ya', boohoozo.

Ralph Reed 4 years, 4 months ago

@Healthcare_Moocher. re: your 0926.

Do you really expect us to believe you have no idea what that poster was saying? I find it difficult to believe that you are so naive. I've seen information like that poster at the Topeka VA since 93 and in other hospitals for years.

Take a look at these links, it will provide you some initial information on End of Life Care.

http://www.nhpco.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3254

http://www.growthhouse.org/

camper 4 years, 4 months ago

Is Kobach interested in looking into the robo calls that told voters to be sure to come out and vote on Wednesday, the wrong day?

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

1) That would be up to the attorney general, not the secretary of state.

2) I, for one, would rather not have my elected officials chosen by people stupid enough to think election day fell on a Wednesday.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"That would be up to the attorney general, not the secretary of state."

Judging from the campaign, that's the office he was running for.

Mr_B9 4 years, 4 months ago

Folks, I do not believe voting is a constitutional right.

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

Who knew?

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

I believe you are correct - I did a little research.

It's surprising, and a little scary.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

If it's a fundamental right, then what would give states the right to deny it?

To the mentally incompetent or those on probation, for example.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"Here's some more evidence that voter ID laws may very well suppress voter turnout"

You really used the words "evidence" and "may very well" in the same sentence? You would have made a great prosecuting attorney - I can see you in the courtroom, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have evidence that the defendant may very well be guilty - kinda' ... sorta' ... possibly ..."

There's a reason why "manuscripts" like the one from Barreto, Nuño, & Sanchez you linked to, show up as presentations at conferences instead of being published in reviewed journals. Do you read any of this stuff, vertigo? Are you capable of a little independent thought and analysis of the article?

This is actually one I'd already read, one of the ones that I addressed up above when talking about your other "evidence". It says nothing about whether any particular group of people can exercise the right to vote (let alone whether they've been prevented from doing so), but whether they choose to. Oh, so-called 'researchers' like the eminent Barreto, Nuño, & Sanchez try to make it sound like it's an access issue:

"voters were asked to select which forms of identification they would be able to provide the next time they voted, if their state were to ask for identification before they could vote."

But let's look at how they actually asked:

"Respondents could check a box – yes or no – for whether they had each of the following types of identification: state driver’s license, U.S. passport, bank statement, original birth certificate, utility bill, state ID card, naturalization card, or property tax statement."

Um, vertigo? It's a pretty big frikkin' leap from checking a box that says they don't have a birth certificate and not being able "to provide [one] the next time they voted".

"I find some evidence that VoterID laws may decrease the turnout of Latino populations, and PhotoID laws may affect African American populations similarly. The evidence also indicates that VoterID laws may also widen the income gap associated with voter turnout."

May decrease the turnout.

May affect African American populations

May also widen the income gap

At least now I know why you use "evidence" and "may" in the same sentence. But hey, vertigo, here, let me tell you a secret: The absence of a voter ID requirement MAY make it easier to commit election fraud. There, proved it - after all, saying it may happen seems to be all the proof you need.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"You, other the other hand, have stated there was proof that it doesn't affect voter turnout."

I said that where, again?

"Maybe you should have your daughter in third grade explain that to you."

She could do a better job than you could. She appears to be a lot brighter. Not that that's saying a whole heck of a lot.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

[continued]

"In sum, the immense literature on the costs of voting has shown that costs ranging from the registration requirement to strict voter-ID laws do reduce voter turnout to some degree and that the impact seems to fall disproportionately on the least educated and the least wealthy."

Aw, gee, why'd you stop there? Didn't like the next sentence that followed that quote?

"There is less evidence, however, that reducing the costs of voting necessarily increases the turnout of these groups, probably because advance registration and photo-ID rules are only two of multiple burdens on their likelihood of voting."

BTW, didja' happen to notice that the claim that "the impact seems to fall disproportionately on the least educated and the least wealthy" happens to come, at least in part, from a source that we're already familiar with? Yep, our old buddies Barreto, Nuño, & Sanchez.

repaste 4 years, 4 months ago

A voter id law would have to end mail in ballots. There is no way to prove a valid vote. Anyone remember a cnn blurb couple of election cycles ago where an officer was waving around a fistfull of ballots claiming, "I made my men fill them out, if they did not, I did it for them"

Fatty_McButterpants 4 years, 4 months ago

Sorry, but the Supreme Court has already upheld state laws requiring people to show a photo ID in order to vote. Whiners. The case is Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 128 S.Ct. 1610 (2008).

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 4 months ago

The Supreme Court has said there is no proof of disenfranchisement in that case and that they will not strike down a voter ID law based upon the possibility it will curtail voting.

That is not the same as upholding state laws requiring people to vote. Litigation in Indiana is ongoing.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

That certainly suggests that the SC:

a) Doesn't believe that a voter ID law with curtail voting in a significant way. b) Doesn't care if it does. c) Thinks that people who can't vote because of one should have to prove that to them, and then may take action.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 4 months ago

It in no way suggests SCOTUS believes anything about the voter ID law other than the case before them did not involve actual disenfranchisement.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

"It in no way suggests SCOTUS believes anything about the voter ID law other than the case before them did not involve actual disenfranchisement."

Maybe the opinion itself might give you a little clue as to what the SCOTUS believes:

"...the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."

"Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

"JUSTICE SCALIA, joined by JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO, was of the view that petitioners’ premise that the voter-identification law might have imposed a special burden on some voters is irrelevant. The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified."

"Petitioners argue that Indiana’s interests do not justify the burden imposed on voters who cannot afford or obtain a birth certificate and who must make a second trip to the circuit court clerk’s office, but it is not possible to quantify, based on the evidence in the record, either that burden’s magnitude or the portion of the burden that is fully justified."

"Further, the deposition evidence presented in the District Court does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification."

Or, gee, just as the man said, they believe it does not present an undue hardship, they don't care if does, and the plaintiffs need to prove something actually happened, not suggest what might happen.

Hey, but at least you're getting better, bobbie. Just a few months ago you were didn't even know the SCOTUS had upheld Indiana's law:

Bob_Keeshan: "Requiring a photo ID would be thrown out in court before the ink was dry on the Governor's signature"

[And after I asked: "Is that why the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law, bobbie?"]

"Which photo id law was upheld? The one that doesn't exist?"

"A photo ID requirement will never fly, so what are you arguing?"

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/aug/22/voter-fraud-serious-problem-kansas-needs-address/#c1341166

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 4 months ago

Equally harsh language can be found on the other side of the SCOTUS decision.

Only the feeble minded are drawn in by the rhetoric.

For example, you seem to have taken the bait quite nicely.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

You mean the minority side, bobbie?

The dissenting side, bobbie?

The losing side, bobbie?

The majority opinion supports everything in the post you lamely tried to dispute. But hey, I guess you couldn't be expected to know what beliefs the Supreme Court expressed about the issues in the case, since less than three months ago you didn't even know there'd been a case.

Interesting that you think the Supreme Court, in its written opinions interpreting Constitutional issues, is merely spouting "rhetoric", buffoon.

notajayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Hmm... maybe if you actually read the decision - you know, actually made an attempt at being informed instead of blathering - you'd know that the opinion states the law is not discriminatory. Gee, the fact that they weren't targeting poor people doesn't seem to fit too well with your liberal delusions.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Yes - that's the partisan problem - when their side is in the majority, they love majority wins. When it's not, they hate it.

I wonder what the actual split was - I'd guess it's another 5-4, with the liberal justices in the large minority.

Ron Holzwarth 4 years, 4 months ago

Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere, bitte!

German for "Show me your papers, please!" That was heard quite often in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s. I hope we don't hear it very often here in the USA, especially when voting.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

This really seems like an over-reaction to me.

Do you think people should have to show ID to purchase a firearm?

That's a 2nd amendment right.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

There is a clear constitutional right to own a weapon, based on the 2nd amendment.

There may be a constitutional right to vote (although I'm not certain that there is).

Most folks seem to think it's fine for someone to have to show ID to buy a gun (exercise their 2nd amendment right).

Why wouldn't the logic be the same regarding voting? Show an ID in order to exercise a constitutional right.

And telling people to "shut up" shows your lack of respect for our constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.