Advertisement

Archive for Monday, January 3, 2011

Coalition to fight photo-voter ID proposal

January 3, 2011

Advertisement

— A coalition of voting rights groups has formed to oppose an effort led by Secretary of State-elect Kris Kobach to require voters show a photo ID to vote.

The Kansas Voter Coalition said on Monday that the proposal by Kobach, a Republican who takes office Jan. 10, is "a solution to a problem whose existence cannot be demonstrated empirically." Gov.-elect Sam Brownback also supports voter ID.

The coalition said that of 10 million votes cast in Kansas over the past six years, there have been six reported cases of alleged voter fraud, and one was prosecuted successfully.

"You statistically have a better chance of being stricken twice by lightning than of encountering a genuine act of voter fraud in Kansas," the coalition stated.

The coalition includes the Kansas State NAACP, the Kansas League of Women Voters, the Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women, the Kansas Equality Coalition, the Kansas chapter of the ACLU and several other groups.

Comments

obamarocks 3 years, 11 months ago

Yet another attempt by the repuklicans to keep americans from voting!

Mr_B9 3 years, 11 months ago

Please explain. I am curious which americans would be affected. wannabee americans?

ivalueamerica 3 years, 11 months ago

well, you can pretend to be ignorant...but there have been so many studies that have found virtually zero examples of illegal immigrants trying to vote yet thousands of instances of qualified American voters, especially the disabled, poor and elderly are kept from casting their vote due to ID restrictions.

But please, you are not that ignorant..it is exactly what you want just guise it in a red herring issue of illegal voters what has already proven not to be true.

However, just between you and me..I think your argument might work, most Americans seem to believe sound bites much more than facts..something the GOP, especially the extremists have learned all to well...they ignore the Constitution, American Values and patriotism and replace them with wining no matter what the cost and no matter what Americans are hurt.

However, I find that personally to be distasteful and treasonous.

TopJayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

unfortunately, you have just described both parties. That is what is wrong with this country.

Mr_B9 3 years, 11 months ago

"ivalueamerica (anonymous) replies… "

"there have been so many studies " By whom, Acorn?

"yet thousands of instances of qualified American voters, especially the disabled, poor and elderly are kept from casting their vote due to ID restrictions." How are they restricted? You are definitely confusing inconvenience with grave responsibility. I will say it again, the only ones affected will be the wannabee's.......

Jake Esau 3 years, 11 months ago

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal... Is there enough voter fraud in Kansas to make a big stink about this? On the other hand, you have to show ID to do just about anything these days, I don't think the average citizen would care if they had to show an ID to vote.

MyName 3 years, 11 months ago

It's kind of a big deal because unlike going to the bar, which is optional, it is your right to vote. You don't have to show a photo ID to walk down the street, or to go to a political rally or to write letters to your representatives or to pay your taxes. The main things you need an ID for are things that don't require the government, and for driving a car.

lawrencechick 3 years, 11 months ago

I've always thought it was bizarre and pretty stupid that you don't have to show an ID to vote in this state. Who would have a problem with this ? (except of course those who profit from voter fraud)

onceinawhile 3 years, 11 months ago

As far as I know (and others can correct me if I'm wrong), you don't NEED to obtain a driver's license unless you plan on driving. So Kansas citizens could simply not even have, or want, a driver's license in everyday life but need to get one to show to vote.

Further, licenses cost money, and forcing to show a license to vote provides a disadvantage to those who can't afford to buy one.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

It's not just a driver's license, though, it's a photo ID. You already need one to buy smokes or beer if asked, you already need one to use a WIC check and to fly anywhere, you occasionally need one just to pick up kids at a day care. Is there a functioning adult in this state that does not already have one?

onceinawhile 3 years, 11 months ago

They still aren't required, nor are they free.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

Agreed, they are not free - and I've already proposed a solution for all the concerned liberals to deal with that.

So that said, is there a functioning adult citizen in this state that does not already have some kind of photo ID?

MyName 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes, I'm sure there are lots of old people who don't have one, or who have a lapsed one because they aren't able to drive and don't do any of the stuff you mentioned.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

You're sure? Well, I guess that settles it.

kernal 3 years, 11 months ago

For those who don't drive, there is a comparable State ID card that is issued and that is true of most, if not all, states in the USA.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

The issue is a constitutional one.

Requiring a purchase in order to vote is akin to a poll tax, and unconstitutional.

pfunk81 3 years, 11 months ago

Nailed it! Of course all the republiklans don't remember 9th grade civics class, they just want whatever their heroes want, at any cost!

Melinda Black 3 years, 11 months ago

Oh, that pesky constitution, getting in the way of people trying to suppress voter rights. ;-)

kernal 3 years, 11 months ago

I don't remember my driver's license being free.

independent_rebel 3 years, 11 months ago

It's only "fraud" if one gets caught. Who knows how many are actually committing fraud without getting caught. With the influx of illegals in this country, it's only a matter of time before elections are swung based on the voting of people who have no right to vote, but gladly have their hand out wanting money they have no right to take.

nobody1793 3 years, 11 months ago

What if they gave away free beer when you vote, then they just check your ID for the beer part, not the voting part?

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 11 months ago

Because then all the 18, 19, and 20 year olds couldn't vote.

See how easy disenfranchisement is?

Heaven forbid some politician concentrate on making it easier for people to vote. What this state needs is less participation in elections...

booyalab 3 years, 11 months ago

I think way more 18-20 year olds would fake an ID to drink than to vote. Is that sad or what?

kernal 3 years, 11 months ago

Right. Have you not noticed the liquor stores and bars are closed until the voting polls close?

stuart 3 years, 11 months ago

Actually they are open, that law is no longer.

Bill Lee 3 years, 11 months ago

I know this goes against my latent liberal leanings, but I don't have a problem with this because I always have ID on me. It'll make it easy for them to identify my body when I drop dead at the polling place. What's the big deal?

whatadrag 3 years, 11 months ago

I only vote while showering, and I don't carry my ID when I shower most of the time.

Bill Lee 3 years, 11 months ago

No, but my shower is private, and since I live alone and have lots of photos around, my body will be easy to identify if I die in the shower.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

That's undoubtedly unconstitutional, if you care.

BrentS 3 years, 11 months ago

The 24th Amendment, specifically: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Write your representative and urge them to repeal it.

deec 3 years, 11 months ago

"For those lacking a driver's license or other government-issued photo ID such as a passport, the state provides a free voter ID card, issued through the Bureau of Motor Vehicles." http://articles.cnn.com/2008-04-28/politics/scotus.voter.id_1_voter-impersonation-voter-id-laws-voter-fraud?_s=PM:POLITICS How will Kansas pay for this? I thought they were broke.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

If that's in response to my post:

Corky said "People that do not ante up with tax money, should be banned from voting", and "About $20,000 should do it".

Requiring people to pay in order to vote is clearly unconstitutional, and has little to nothing in common with a voter ID requirement, if it is provided free of charge.

deec 3 years, 11 months ago

My post was in response to the guy talking about the Indiana law, which includes a free i.d. for those who can't afford to buy one. He forgot to mention that part.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, I was responding to kubacker.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

All these liberals could just purchase photo IDs for the three or four dozen poor people who have made it this far without one.

But that would not be as fun as making a coalition, I guess.

MyName 3 years, 11 months ago

Or they could make you show your photo ID to go to a political rally (Guns 4 Jezus anyone?) and then it would be fair. I mean you gotta show your ID to vote, you shouldn't be complaining if we check IDs to have a protest as well?

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

You should check IDs when someone wants to buy a gun, too. That will show people to exercise their rights!

kansastruthteller 3 years, 11 months ago

An ID costs less than twenty dollars, less than fifteen if your 65+. You're right to identify the simple solution. Instead of forming a coalition to fight the idea, organize to help people who cant ante up 20 bucks for an ID.

It is a no-brainer - want to vote, then prove who you are and that you live where you say you do.

tolawdjk 3 years, 11 months ago

Given the number of fake IDs I witnessed in my younger and not so younger days, I fail to see how a picture ID assures anything.

If life has taught me anything, its that if someone creates a "system" then someone that wants to break that "system" will devise a way to do just that. If Kansas institutes this system, it won't be long that someone will be complaining that someone else is making it easier for "people who don't vote like me" to be able to vote. Either by driving them to the DMV to obtain an ID (and I fully believe that based on past precedent, in order for this to pass constitutional muster, there will need to a "free" govt photo ID option) or registering them and assisting them to vote via absentee/early ballot.

No matter how many "voter fraud" cases the system might stop, if the proposed system makes it impossible, for one legal citizen to vote, it is a piss poorly thought out idea.

Ralph Reed 3 years, 11 months ago

I see no problem if the State provides photo identification free of charge - without an increase in any taxes to cover the cost. If the State charges any money to issue an "official" photo ID, then it becomes a poll tax for Federal elections which is unconstitutional per the 24th Amendment to the US constitution. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment24/)

I can see the State issuing, for a cost, an official State photo ID for state and local elections. The problem is that the ID could not be used for identification during a Federal election and the gratis ID could not be used for state and local elections. But, that's the kind of thing the wingnuts like to get themselves tied up with.

Brownstripe This is but another example of KKKobach being a solution in search of a problem. Brownback, the "Family" man, supports this because it tightens government control over who can vote.

Kathy Getto 3 years, 11 months ago

Thank you Ralph! I doubt, however that Kobach and Brownshirt are concerned with our constitution.

This is voter suppression, pure and simple. Welcome back to Jim Crow and the like.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

Perhaps there's a Crow Corollary to Godwin's Law?

Kathy Getto 3 years, 11 months ago

Godwin? Nah, this has nothing to with Hitler or the Nazis, don't you know? This is all about "The Family" of Brownback - the cult started by Abraham Vereide. Read up on it - be informed! :-)

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

The term "Brownshirt" refers rather directly to the National Socialists. Read up on it - be informed.

Kathy Getto 3 years, 11 months ago

Just a loving nickname for our soon-to-be-leader snap, brings to mind the color of caca.

RKLOG 3 years, 11 months ago

"Say 'NO' to Photo!" Or, 'Voto-booth, not photo-booth!" Or, "Snap judgments should be made with the pencil, not the lens!" Or, "This is a Shot Heard Around the Polls!" Get your signs ready!

George Lippencott 3 years, 11 months ago

IMHO, despite all the hand ringing, it is appropriate to be asked to prove that you are whom you claim to be when you go to vote. How you do that I leave to the student.

To cash a check or board a plane you must do so. Isn't our Democracy as important? What is the real fear? Almost all of us have a photo ID called a drivers license. Getting one is relatively simple. If cost is an issue - means test it. The process is trivial - anybody can do it. If they cannot - well maybe there is a bigger problem.

woodscolt 3 years, 11 months ago

Tom shewmon says, just the other day,...... "Just highlighting more leftist hypocrisy, that's all. Libs pick and choose when gubment interferes and when they don't.".........

Or did Tom Shewman mean to say, Tom and his right wing extremest pick and choose when gubment interferes and when they don't.

Sorry tom, couldn't pass on your hypocrisy this time.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

You mean the way you and other right wing folks became unhinged and hysterical when Obama won?

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

"What is the real fear?"

Marginal voters tend to vote 'left.' Any addition to the 'burden' of casting a vote suppresses the marginal vote (pretty much by definition) more than that of regular voters. Ergo, making people show ID hurts Democrats.

It really is that simple.

equalaccessprivacy 3 years, 11 months ago

Good news! It seems like this coalition aims to be on on the right side of history. As mentioned above likely there isn't much voter fraud in KS, but it's still the principle of the thing. The Republicans well may be doing what they doing because they hate immigrants -and civil rights in general. They would vote for requiring ID cards with everyone's iris scan on them. Just no respect for the honor system, decent privacy, or equal opportunity and representation.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

"It seems like this coalition aims to be on on the right side of history."

Or the left side.

Scott Morgan 3 years, 11 months ago

An absentee vote can be verified easily. There is a record of the vote.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Good point.

If we're requiring proof of identity, it should be required of all voters.

deec 3 years, 11 months ago

I don't have a constitutional right to board an airplane, write a check, or buy booze or smokes. I have a constitutional right to vote, assuming I meet the requirements of the constitution (citizenship, age). If you want to make a photo i.d. a requirement, it seems you might need to change the constitution, and provide said i.d. for free, or else it becomes a form of poll tax.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

"I have a constitutional right to vote, assuming I meet the requirements of the constitution (citizenship, age)."

And assuming you meet the legal requirements of location (I cannot vote in New York), are not a felon, show up on the right day, register properly, vote only once, vote under you own name, and a host of other extra-constitutional but well-accepted precedents. So what is it that gives a person the right to show up to exercise that right, and yet refuse to demonstrate that they are the person to whom the right belongs?

You have the right to vote. All the law is asking is that you show that you are you when you exercise it.

Mr_B9 3 years, 11 months ago

"Fossick (anonymous) replies… "I have a constitutional right to vote, assuming I meet the requirements of the constitution (citizenship, age)."

I do not believe voting is a constitutional right. Please read below:

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?

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

Not that I disagree - "my" quote, you will note, is actually a quote of deec's original message.

That said, even granting that one has a constitutional right to vote - which I am happy to because it does not change the argument - states have the right and power to set limits and requirements, and proving that you are the person to whom the right belongs fits neatly among them. After all, certain people have the right and others do not, how can the state ensure that foreign corporate moguls aren't sneaking in to vote for Republicans if it can't ask them to show who they are?

The idea that a required ID is a "poll tax" is as ludicrous as insisting that the gas money you spend to drive to the polls is a poll tax and that the government must bus you to the polls or pay the postage on your absentee ballot. I for one would happily live without voters who cannot be bothered to put any thought, planning, or effort into the process.

But that's why I do a rain dance every election day: to keep marginal voters snug and comfortable at home. It doesn't always work, but we all have to do our part, effective or not.

Mr_B9 3 years, 11 months ago

Thanks Fossick. I saw the error after I posted. I did intend this to go to deec. Keep doing the rain dance.....woohoo

MyName 3 years, 11 months ago

You have the right to vote. All the law is asking is that you show that you are you when you exercise it.

No, the law is requiring that you went through an entirely different process that has nothing to do with voting or (purportedly) to proving your ID. It's called a "Driver's License" not a "Citizen ID Card".

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

While a driver's license is a photo ID, a photo ID does not have to be a drivers license. Put in higher math so you smart people can understand, that group A is a subset of group B does not make every B an A.

The law does not require a driver's license. It requires that you provide identification.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

I believe there are some people who object to their image being taken for religious reasons. Courts have ruled that in order for these individuals to drive (not a right), they may either submit to the photo requirement or forego driving. Is this proposal suggesting that these individuals also forego their right to vote?

kernal 3 years, 11 months ago

jhawkinsf, that sounds more like the old superstition that if you have a photo image taken of yourself, it steals your soul.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 11 months ago

The case involving the drivers license was real and went all the way to the Supreme Court. Granted, the numbers would be small, but I'm not comfortable denying the right to vote to even a small group.

llama726 3 years, 11 months ago

How much does it cost to train all poll workers to read IDs? What do you do about absentee ballots? What do you do if corrupt election workers say someone's ID isn't valid? What about fake IDs? What if your ID is stolen on election day, or the day before? Let's think about this critically before we just cheer it on.

itwasthedukes 3 years, 11 months ago

Wow even if the problem didn't exist would it be that bad to strengthen the legitimacy of elections?

MyName 3 years, 11 months ago

Right, because all of the 130+ years of elections in this state before now were illegitimate because no one showed their ID. I mean clearly what counts is not whether the people who are counting the ballots are honest but whether each person has to show a stupid card with a picture at the poll worker.

Wayne Propst 3 years, 11 months ago

The only example of possible voter fraud was former Senator Roger Pine and his wife Sue...........they were never charged .

ronwell_dobbs 3 years, 11 months ago

I've got a better idea. How about we make it absolutely required to vote if you receive any type of monetary payment from the government, whether that be social security, a paycheck, TANF/WIC/etc., a tax refund, Medicare, Medicaid, corporate tax breaks, etc. Then it would be understandable and necessary to have an ID to vote.

I know some will think I am joking with this proposal, but I clearly am not. The more participants in the process of electing our leaders SHOULD result in more candidates, which SHOULD result in clearer messages from those candidates as to why they should be elected.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 11 months ago

It cracks me up that the "get government off our backs" crowd is so gung ho about proving citizenship in order to vote. These are the same folks who used to get up in arms about using your social security number as a form of identification because it smacked of a national ID. Did y'all just tear up that previous memo or did you eat it so there'd be no trace of evidence? Or both?

How ironic! Complain about how the regulatory agencies are impinging on our way of life while clamoring for using some form of picture ID to protect us from that 1-in-10 million person who cheated in the electorall process!

All right. I'll behave now.

avoice 3 years, 11 months ago

Good point. And equally, it's laughable that the left, usually scoffing at the right's defensiveness, is so gung-ho against requiring the picture ID for this purpose.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 11 months ago

It's sad that this is seen as a partisan issue at all. Perhaps part of this is due to the well documented history of the Republicans hassling the legitimacy of voters in urban/multicultural precincts who vote heavily democratic, as part of an overall strategy of electing a Republican to a statewide/federal office. That has been going on for decades and if it were done across the board, then it might be seen as legitimate, but sadly it has been very focused.

true_patriot 3 years, 11 months ago

Pushing voting fraud as an issue in a state that has such lopsided electoral votes is clearly disingenuous even on its face. It's one thing to use it to score political points in a campaign, but another entirely to waste precious time and tax payer dollars on it.

If there was voter fraud in a state with such lopsided elections (the evidence shows there is not), common sense would dictate which side is committing the fraud ...

Richard Heckler 3 years, 11 months ago

Wasting time and tax dollars = typical of D.C. beltway thinkers!

meanbean101 3 years, 11 months ago

Does ANYONE care/realize that the implications of requiring an I.D. for almost everything we do , including going so far as to restrict a constitutional right without one, may have further reaching implications than just election day? Come on people. Let's think outside the box here.

avoice 3 years, 11 months ago

Absolutely! Whether it comes from the right OR the left, We the People need to let these organizations know that our civil rights will always come before their political maneurvering.

meanbean101 3 years, 11 months ago

It's to see another citizen thinking beyond divisive party lines. I'd hate to see our rights wither away at our own hands for petty political gains.

zzgoeb 3 years, 11 months ago

Kobach needs to focus on ELECTION fraud, (see Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004). Republicans want to talk about voter fraud(their delusion) which doesn't exist. What a waste of our time and taxes! Let's start a recall campaign for him now!!!

Yawnmower 3 years, 11 months ago

You have to speak up when it's time. And the time is now.

The request for Photo ID is the equivalent of saying "This is a state run checkpoint, show me your papers"

Martin Niemöller

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

I like the quote.

But requiring proof of identity to vote is akin to requiring it to buy a gun, not akin to your example.

Since gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right, why is it ok to require an ID to buy one?

itwasthedukes 3 years, 11 months ago

Insanity lives on the left, and the Journal World is attempting to fire them up. Is it time for the revolution because you don't want a photo ID?

meanbean101 3 years, 11 months ago

I don't think this is a left or right issue. I'm sure there are many libertarians and Republicans who are against state issued I.d..'s as a political ploy to control who gets to exercise their rights in any given situation. Example: The REAL I.d. was and still is protested by Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians alike.

mr_right_wing 3 years, 11 months ago

You think this is bad...just wait until you have to have a "666" on your forehead to vote or even do financial transactions!!

Did you know "666" is the most common combination of numbers on most Kansas picture identifications?? Check yours and see...

kernal 3 years, 11 months ago

I a Not putting Fred Phelps ZIP Code on my forehead, thank you very much!

MrMister 3 years, 11 months ago

I don't have a problem with this. For those that think you don't have to cary an ID, how do you get around the legal requirement to positively identify yourself at the request of law enforcement officers. If they ask and you can't produce identifacation they can (although not likely) detain you until you are identified. The only people I can think of that would care, are people with something to hide. And yes, It is well known that many illegal aliens are running around with other people's identities. How many of them registered to vote and then did so on the Anointed One's promise of amnesty?

jaywalker 3 years, 11 months ago

"The issue is a constitutional one.

Requiring a purchase in order to vote is akin to a poll tax, and unconstitutional."

Fair enough, though it could probably be argued that 'akin' to a poll tax is not the same thing as a poll tax, nor is being required to prove who you are. However, if hardship is proven then the state should be required to provide legitimate ID to those without, free of charge. Shouldn't be that big a deal nor expense as most already have proper ID. But the notion that ID shouldn't be required is just plain silly. Unfortunately, the amendment was necessary because of the efforts of those to disenfranchise blacks since Reconstruction 'til the '60's when it was passed. Requiring ID is not an effort to marginalize a segment of the population today, but merely a safeguard against fraud and/or non-citizens voting, another unfortunate but realistic concern. I have no idea how many actual cases of fraud there are, but I reckon there's little to no empirical evidence because an elementary accounting system like being able to state 'they're who they say they are, they voted, they're' done' isn't in place. Could there be anything more fundamentally logical in order to uphold the integrity of the system?

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

I agree completely.

It makes sense that people should prove they're who they claim to be, and it makes sense that they should prove they are in fact citizens, since voting in our elections is a right of American citizens.

And you're supposed to vote once, for yourself.

George Lippencott 3 years, 11 months ago

There is a lot of argument on here as to the lack of any data that suggests that there is voting fraud needing to be addressed. Perhaps some of you could help me here. Exactly what process is there today that would identify voting fraud if it did occur? To my knowledge there is no process to cross check voting lists between jurisdictions to see if there is multiple voting going on (like voting at KU and at home). I am unaware of any process to verify you are who you say you are (some jurisdictions require at least a bill showing your address but that does not establish identity or eligibility). How can you determine if there is a problem if you have no process to detect a problem? Would it be so bad if we spent a few years examining the system with some safe guards (hard ID) to see if there is a problem?

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

I'm sure this is a waste of time but,...

NAACP is an organization that was formed in order to help black people gain equality in our society, after our shameful history of slavery and the widespread mistreatment of black people.

ACLU is an organization that exists to protect our constitutional rights.

"womens coalitions" probably refers to groups that advocate for the equality of women, given the (again) shameful history of the treatment of women in this country as property, and the denial of the right to vote, etc.

I may not agree with all of their positions, but that doesn't mean they are "leeches" or "pathetic".

jaywalker 3 years, 11 months ago

Don't think like that, jafs, the effort is noble on it's face.

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

There is no "liberal" party, there are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens.

Where exactly in the constitution do you find a right to the internet or talk radio?

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

It would be nice if you didn't fall into the name-calling nonsense.

His point is actually a good one - without a way to detect voter fraud, it's hard to know how much of a problem it actually might be.

George Lippencott 3 years, 11 months ago

I love you too. If you have no process to detect abuse, how do you know there is none? I guess we take your word. Be nice if we knew who you are and what level of credibility we can attach to your word?

By the by, business spends a lot of money to detect fraud because there is fraud and because you can see it in the bottom line. Voting provides no "bottom line" that can be used to detect fraud. It does not help when at least one jurisdiction had more votes cast than registered voters? But that was not in Kansas.

dogsandcats 3 years, 11 months ago

I've lived in KS a few years and I've thought it was weird that we were not required to show ID in order to vote. Currently, all you would need to know is someone's name and which voting precinct they are in and you could go around town voting at each one.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

"someone's name and which voting precinct they are in"

And it's all public information. In fact, a clever little monkey could get a copy of the voter lists, figure out who is unlikely to vote (for example, many people habitually don't vote in primaries), and then bring a busload of Somalis poll to poll to vote on their behalf...

But such things only happen in Missouri: "Throughout primary election day, an unidentified Rizzo supporter brought groups of voters to various precincts who appeared to be Somalis who did not speak or read English. According to affidavits from several election judges, the Rizzo supporter handed out the ballots and told the Somalis to vote for Rizzo." http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_498eb9fd-e146-5986-878f-9c52a97a8f86.html

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

"I would think that a 'busload of Somalis' would be noticed in Kansas. Just sayin'."

But that's the point: even if they were noticed, an election judge could not say to one of them, "Prove that you are Hymie Goldstein as you claim." They could notice them, but could not require they prove the right to vote.

But I'll admit, you have a strange definition of "the system works," when it entails multiple recounts, a court case, and allegations of vote fraud, brought by several election judges, that was so blatant that the legislature may not even seat the winner pending investigation.

And the best part is there was not a Republican in sight. :O

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

This requirment would be a small roadblock for anyone who currently doesn't not have a photo ID.

Since your DL is a photo ID, the population of those without a photo ID is immediately reduced to those who don't drive.

So which demographics include the highest concentration of those who doesn't drive?

  • The very old.
  • The very poor.
  • The homeless.
  • The physically disabled.
  • The developmentally or mentally disabled.

For those who DO drive, they would only be denied if they did not fill out an absentee form, forgot their license when they went to the polls, and didn't leave themselves enough time to go retrieve their ID and return to the polls. So I'll add

  • forgetful procrastinators.

as a demographic, and one that I personally would most likely fall into.

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

So unless there's a significant population I'm not considering, I don't see how there would be any immediate benefit for one party or another should the photo ID requirement be implemented.

So the liberal argument that requiring photo ID would somehow keep Democratic votes away from the polls is pretty thin.

The liberal argument that requiring photo ID to vote equates a poll tax might have merit, but apparently similar requirements in other states have been passed, challenged, and upheld by the courts. (Not to mention, it makes a liberal look silly to argue against requiring Kansas voters to purchase IDs, and then turn around and argue in favor of requring all US citizens to purchase health insurance).

The liberal argument about Kobach wasting taxpayer money on a non-existent problem, give me a break.

The elephant in the room, as I see it, is that liberals don't have the courage to just come out and say why they are against it... which of course, is simply because Kobach is for it.

Kobach's stance on immigration has been the opposite of secret. Increasing the frequency that citizens prove their legal citizenship is part of his anti-immigration agenda (e.g. the new Arizona law that allows police officers to detain any who fail to have such proof, which Kobach is proud to have helped craft).

It's much easier to do crack down on immigration in this way, when there is a precedent in place.

And since the logical arguments AGAINST requiring photo ID at the polls are are pretty flimsy, it shouldn't be too hard to get it to pass, especially with unprecedented support from the legislature and governor's office.

Nevermind how flimsy the logical arguments are in FAVOR of requiring a photo ID at the polls. Nevermind that the requirment was originally pitched as a measure to prevent a non-issue that was totally fabricated during his campaign.

He got elected. Now he gets to set his precedent and simultaneously fulfil a campaign promise.

And what better place for an anti-immigration precedent than to attach it to our most cherished of democratic principles, our right to vote.

From what I see, that's what's going on. He made up a problem. He's offering a solution. And his solution conveniently falls in line with his anti-immigration agenda.

That's why anyone as smart as Kobach (and he IS smart, judging by his academic achievements) would so adamantly insist on making a case for voter fraud prevention, while staring at a complete void of evidence to back his argument -- because setting the precedent is quintessential to the agenda.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

"So the liberal argument that requiring photo ID would somehow keep Democratic votes away from the polls is pretty thin."

While I think that's the actual fear of the opposition, I don't see them making that argument, for the obvious reason that it's just too self-serving. But if we look at your list, excluding procrastinators, which of them is likely to vote more Democrat than Republican?
The very poor? Almost certainly, especially if they are a racial minority.
The very old? Not as certainly, but my bet is probably. FDR was once God, you know. The homeless? The actual homeless might have trouble proving residence, so that's a null. The physically disabled? Conceivably, but not probably. The mentally disabled? Conceivably, if they can vote at all, and probably if they are part of a group home where the workers are more likely Democrats.

Now, one can obviously argue with any of the above, but I suspect it's going to be even more difficult to imagine a scenario in which any of them are going to vote solidly Republican.

So I do think it's a legitimate fear on their part, and especially on the part those who are so quick to pull the race card. They are simply protecting their own votes, votes or those who are marginally attached to the process anyway and only turn out when there is little cost to doing so.

gudpoynt 3 years, 11 months ago

regarding the very poor, I would say those in urban areas and minorities would vote primarily Democratic, while whites in rural areas would vote primarily Republican.

Since we're in Kansas, I would not at all be surprised if the latter outnumbered the former.

Regardless of the numbers, and although it would be a travesty if even a single eligible voter were denied the right to do so by the future law, I doubt the figures would be sufficient for the Democrats to rally enough opposition to get the GOP juggernaut to back down. Especially since it is measure that, for all intents and purposes, merely solidifies an already existing rule and will ultimately affect a very small population.

Like I said. It will pass. Kobach will fulfil a promise. And in doing so, will be a step closer to his broader agenda.

I think it would behoove Dems to choose their battles. Let this relatively innocuous measure pass and wait vigilantly for said juggernaut to try to pass something truly bold in the direction of anti-immigration, where their opposition thereto might have more teeth.

Fossick 3 years, 11 months ago

"B.S. An election judge could challenge them, that's what they do."

But they didn't. Why, I have no idea. The system didn't work, the fraud went through, Rizzo won, and now the legislature has to be involved.

"Does logic escape you, or is it overrun by fear?"

If it was logic, it might escape me, but it is not. It is manifestly harder to create fake IDs than to not, which means that having to create fake IDs throws at least one roadblock into potential fraud.

If it was logic, we could apply it to any of the following: a) So you think that if someone is going to a bar underage, they won't have fake IDs b) So you think that if someone is going to buy a gun, they won't have fake IDs c) So you think that if someone is going to buy certain medications, they won't have fake IDs as a reason to not ever check IDs. But for some reason we don't. I wonder why not?

Satirical 3 years, 11 months ago

(1) Response to argument that this proposed law is a solution w/o a problem – First, see broken widow theory. Second, showing statistics of people going over the speed limit does not accurately reflect how many people (almost everyone) who actually drive over the speed limit. Seriously, how is making a function essential to our democracy more secure a bad idea if there are only benefits and no costs?

(2) Response to argument that requiring someone to bring an ID is a burden –

(a) Solution: free IDs to the 7 (probably zero) people who don't have, can’t afford an ID, and for which this law might negatively affect. And/or make exemption for the fictional 2 other people who have a genuine religious issue with getting their photo taken. Easy as pie.

(b) Also, which is a bigger burden; making people find a way to get to the polling place if they live in rural area and are poor, or making someone bring an ID? Yet which one are you opposing?

(3) Response to argument that fake IDs will mean no real protections are provided by this law – Of course..because no one could be trained to spot a fake ID when they are trained as a poll worker. Again, see broken window theory.

(4) Response to argument that an ID for driving doesn’t isn’t equivalent to this law since driving isn’t a right, (i.e. if it is a Constitutional right, there should be fewer barriers) my response is -- Voting and the Right to Bare Arms are both Constitutional rights, but most people still think it is okay to require an ID for one. Perhaps reasonable precautions are a good idea in both circumstances to prevent abuse.

(a) And to think the power of the ballot box in America isn’t more powerful than the sword is just foolish.

This isn’t a (R) or (D) issue, it is a common sense issue. Any potential costs is either fictional, or has an easy solution. There are only benefits. The dissent is likely by those who care more about politics (oppose anything the other side supports) than strengthening our democracy; or by fools who can’t think for themselves and fall prey to those who endorse that brand of politics over progress

Richard Heckler 3 years, 11 months ago

I'd rather have legislation passed that required business people to check ID when a credit card,debit card or check is presented. That does not require special identification. Most people in Kansas I suspect have plenty of ID.

Wasted time and tax dollars is what this voter ID thing is all about.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.