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

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 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.

0

Satirical 3 years, 3 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

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 3 months ago

Fossick (anonymous) says… "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...."

B.S. An election judge could challenge them, that's what they do. Then the voter would vote with a provisional ballot, and it would get sorted out later. That way, nobody is disenfranchised, and nobody votes fraudulently.

So you think that if someone is going to bring in a "busload of Somlalis", they won't have fake IDs? Does logic escape you, or is it overrun by fear?

"Massive" voter fraud is a myth perpetuated by the GOP to prey on bitter old white people who are afraid of brown people.

0

rockchalk1977 3 years, 3 months ago

Cheating is the only way Democrats win elections.

0

gudpoynt 3 years, 3 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.

0

Fossick 3 years, 3 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

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 3 months ago

Great, the system works. Why spend anymore tax dollars?

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

0

dogsandcats 3 years, 3 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.

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 3 months ago

"Moderately stupid (George Lippencott) says… 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?"

Your post is as trivial and rambling as your "Blog". Why do we need to spend any tax dollars at all, when there is no proof of any fraud? Have you ever run a business? Would a business spend a dime to fix a problem that does not exist? No.

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 3 months ago

"pigballin (anonymous) whines… Jeepers , look what ugly heads show against picture identification. The usual naacp,aclu,womens coalitions. What is it that these groups are trying to hide? You would think they would be for something to stop voter fraud or illegal immigrants from voting. Their reasoning is pathetic and an embarrassment. These groups will whine about anything . If not,they would not having any funding to stay afloat. They are leeches."

Your reasoning is pathetic and an embarassment. Are you trying to hide your ignorance of the Constitution? You will whine about anything. You are a leech on the backs of the Founding Fathers.

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 3 months ago

"MrMister (anonymous) says… 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?"

Something to hide? Ever hear of "presumption of innocence"? You must be comfortable with the East German/Soviet era spying on neighbors. Traitor.

Yes, many illegal aliens have fraudulent ID. So why would they put themselves at risk by voting? What's in it for them? Nothing.

That would be President Obama, and he never promised anything more than President Bush or Senator McCain. But because it's Obama, it's okay to smear him. Like it's Obama fault the GOP looked the other way for years in order to have cheap labor.

Please take your bitter, hateful, and partisan arguments back to your mom's basement. Americans (and how do we know that you're really a citizen?) such as yourself are an affront to the Founding Fathers. George Washington did not cross the Delaware on Christmas night for the likes of you.

0

MacHeath 3 years, 3 months ago

To get along in today's world one needs an photo ID. Why would anyone not have one? Is there any adult out there that does not have either a drivers license or a photo id?

Not having to prove who you are when you vote, trivializes the process. I am not a Brownback fan either.

0

pigballin 3 years, 3 months ago

Jeepers , look what ugly heads show against picture identification. The usual NAACP,ACLU,WOMENS COALITIONS. What is it that these groups are trying to hide? You would think they would be for something to stop voter fraud or illegal immigrants from voting. Their reasoning is pathetic and an embarrassment. These groups will whine about anything . If not,they would not having any funding to stay afloat. They are leeches.

0

George Lippencott 3 years, 3 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?

0

jaywalker 3 years, 3 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?

0

MrMister 3 years, 3 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?

0

twobigones 3 years, 3 months ago

2 x 333 = liberals....oh no it is the end of times we have exposed the dark liberal one!

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 3 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...

0

itwasthedukes 3 years, 3 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?

0

Paul R Getto 3 years, 3 months ago

KK likes to hunt unicorns in his spare time. This is yet another attempt to find a herd of them to shoot at.

0

Yawnmower 3 years, 3 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."

0

zzgoeb 3 years, 3 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!!!

0

deathpenaltyliberal 3 years, 3 months ago

Ironic that the 'small govt" types go all nanny state for political reasons when they are in power.

The amount of fraud is negligible (7 complaints (not convictions) out of 800K votes in the previous election cycle).

The GOP is wasting our tax dollars. Period.

0

meanbean101 3 years, 3 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.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

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

0

true_patriot 3 years, 3 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 ...

0

Ken Lassman 3 years, 3 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.

0

ronwell_dobbs 3 years, 3 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.

0

wprop 3 years, 3 months ago

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

0

itwasthedukes 3 years, 3 months ago

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

0

llama726 3 years, 3 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.

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 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?

0

kubacker 3 years, 3 months ago

This coalition can form all it wants - photo voter will be passed in a landslide by the KS legislature and will be the enforced law in Kansas - end of story!

0

vanguard3 3 years, 3 months ago

Why would any law-abiding citizen ever have reason to not show an ID, unless you've done something to fear the government? You got nothing to hide but have a problem showing an ID, that reeks of paranoia. Last time I checked, we were a civilized society, whether dems or reps controlled the local, county, state or federal government.

I even show my Ace hardware card and Dylan's card to rack up discounts and rewards. No big deal for people doing what is legit.

Tolawdjk makes a point. Some people are always going to try to get over on the system. To say that there is no voter fraud would be ignorant of this truth.

I would guess that this is window dressing for a much tougher stance on anyone abusing the rules with regard to democracy, residency, state tuition or government entitlements.

Wouldn't it be insanely ironic if most of the folks who are against showing an ID have the smart phones that transmit their exact location. That would be quite comical.

0

LJ Whirled 3 years, 3 months ago

You gotta have ID to get your Gub'munt Cheez, so you should be able to use that one to vote.

0

deec 3 years, 3 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.

0

none2 3 years, 3 months ago

No one has explained why people that go to the polls should have to show ID, but someone voting absentee doesn't have the same requirement.

0

equalaccessprivacy 3 years, 3 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.

0

George Lippencott 3 years, 3 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.

0

RKLOG 3 years, 3 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!

0

Ralph Reed 3 years, 3 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.

0

tolawdjk 3 years, 3 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.

0

kansastruthteller 3 years, 3 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.

0

Fossick 3 years, 3 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.

0

CorkyHundley 3 years, 3 months ago

Like the Dude said: "Everybody's got to have some skin in the game."

Therefore,

People that do not ante up with tax money, should be banned from voting.

About $20,000 should do it.

0

Bill Lee 3 years, 3 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?

0

nobody1793 3 years, 3 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?

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 3 months ago

"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.

"You statistically have a better chance of being from Lawrence if you're involved in this coalition than anywhere else in the state," Tom Shewmon stated. Shewmon, accused of being a far-right wing nutbag by hysterical Lawrence far-left nutcases went on to add, "I would rather these nutcase coalitioners be struck by lightning.

0

lawrencechick 3 years, 3 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)

0

Jake Esau 3 years, 3 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.

0

obamarocks 3 years, 3 months ago

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

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.