Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, August 16, 2012

Ballot rejected for using foreign ID

August 16, 2012

Advertisement

The Douglas County election canvass committee on Thursday rejected the provisional ballot of a voter who presented a Russian identification card during the Aug. 7 primary in protest of Kansas’ voter ID law.

Related document

Write-in candidates ( .PDF )

How the canvass worked

Douglas County Sheriff Ken McGovern and County Commissioners Nancy Thellman and Mike Gaughan performed the election canvass for the Aug. 7 primary in a meeting Thursday in the County Courthouse. They reviewed the poll books, ballot tabulator tapes, provisional ballot requests and list of write-in candidates.

County Clerk Jamie Shew said that none of the races was close enough to have been affected by acceptance or denial of provisional ballots.

The committee rejected 59 votes that Shew had recommended not be counted. These contested ballots included 23 from people not registered in Douglas County, 13 who broke party affiliation rules, six advance voters who didn’t sign their ballots and 15 provisional voters who did not provide the clerk’s office with proof of ID between the primary and Thursday’s canvass. Shew said most of these 15 people had been contacted and had told clerk’s office employees that they did not present ID in protest of the law. In total, 170 provisional ballots were cast.

County Clerk Jamie Shew presented Nathan Pettengill’s ballot to the committee Thursday morning as one of two votes he suggested the committee decide whether to accept. Pettengill told the committee he did not intend “to make a political statement but to point out a need for clarification in the law.” Kansas law doesn’t specifically state that the ID presented to vote has to be issued by the United States federal government, he said, and it does not require an ID to not be expired.

Pettengill chose to identify himself as the voter in question by attending the canvass and speaking to the committee. He is an employee of Sunflower Publishing, which, like the Journal-World, is owned by the World Company.

Shew gave committee members — Sheriff Ken McGovern and County Commissioners Mike Gaughan and Nancy Thellman — a letter from Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s office contesting Pettengill’s claim. According to the letter, the term “federal” in the Kansas law refers only to the United States federal government. Regardless, Pettengill said, only the Legislature should define laws, not the secretary of state.

He wasn’t the only voter to attempt a protest. Out of the 46 provisional ballots given because of the new law, 15 people told the clerk’s office they had no intention to provide proof of ID because of their political objections, Shew said.

Gaughan said that he thought the voter ID law “is poorly written” but that it wasn’t the committee’s place to protest or try to change it. Thellman agreed, saying that the arena for making the political argument about the law should be outside the election. All three committee members voted to not count Pettengill’s provisional ballot in the official election results.

The other “no recommendation” ballot was cast by someone who attempted to vote five minutes after the polling place had closed. Citing that the committee had voted before to not count these kinds of ballots, all three members voted against counting this ballot in the official results as well.

Shew recommended counting 109 provisional ballots, all of which were accepted.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

So, in addition to the 25 disenfranchised voters in Shawnee County, we can add another 15 in Douglas County. Kobach's vote suppression campaign is working.

4

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

"Fifteen people told the clerk's office they had no intention to provide proof of ID because of their political objections" - They suppressed their own vote. And I respect them for having done so. They made a political statement that they felt needed to be made. Now if that number doubles at the next election and then doubles again and again, this law will be overturned. Or perhaps those 15 will simply bring their IDs to the next election.

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

If they had intended to suppress their own vote, they would have stayed home rather than going to the polls and casting a ballot.

Therefore, it was the state that suppressed their vote, not they.

6

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

They voluntarily went to their place of voting knowing they had no intention of complying with the law. And at least according to the article, they did so because of their political objections. The point is, that political statements come in all shapes and sizes. I could protest outside city hall. I could write letters to my representatives. I could start a petition. I could donate to political causes. Or, as in this case, I could voluntarily disenfranchise myself as a political act to bring to light my objection to what I consider an unjust law. And as I said, I respect them for having done so. I believe we need more grass roots political activity. Even if their statement is not one I share. That's why I supported OWS here in Lawrence. Not because I believed in what they were saying. But I believed we all need to be involved.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

"Or, as in this case, I could voluntarily disenfranchise myself as a political act to bring to light my objection to what I consider an unjust law."

But they didn't "voluntarily disenfranchise themselves." They are eligible, registered voters who cast their votes, just as they always have in the past, and it was the state that disenfranchised them by disallowing their votes. Granted, there is a new law that has been interpreted as requiring the state to disenfranchise them, but that disenfranchisement was an action by the state, not the voters.

1

Brock Masters 1 year, 11 months ago

Sounds like a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

What the state did was change the requirements. So, just because they followed all the rules previously, they did not follow the current rules. Add in the fact that they said they knew of the new requirements and chose for political reasons not to comply with those changes, the burden falls upon them.

I think the problem with you logic is the assumption that the requirements for voting can never change. Or that the state is powerless to make any changes. That's simply not the case. The state does have that right, as long as it's reasonable. And it's up to the courts to determine what is and what is not reasonable. I believe the courts have ruled on this matter and they have ruled it is reasonable.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, the state did change the rules. And with that change in rules, they disenfranchised legitimately registered voters. It's not really that difficult a concept.

3

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Well, I disagree. Now if they had raised the voting age to say 25, then those between 18-25 would be disenfranchised, even though some may have previously voted. If the residency requirement was raised to 5 years, then those here for 4.5 years would be disenfranchised, even if they had previously voted. No one was disenfranchised. Every single eligible voter remained eligible.

The concept you're having difficulty grasping is that the courts have ruled on this. You may disagree, that's certainly your right. And if the Supreme Court reverses, I'll be the one needing to adjust my thinking, as I have with Obamacare. Ultimately, the law of the land is the law of the land.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

They showed up and cast their votes just like they always had, and the state refused to count them as they always had before. That's disenfranchisement, any way you want to slice it, regardless of whether the courts have ruled that that disenfranchisement is legal/constitutional.

3

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

They showed up to cast their votes just like they always had while knowing about the law change and willfully disobeying it. They "disenfranchised" themselves.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

No, they allowed the state to disenfranchise them as a form of protest against an unreasonable law.

2

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

I'd like to ask you another question, Bozo. The article mentions a provisional ballot that was ruled ineligible because the voter arrived 5 minutes late. Would you say that that voter was disenfranchised? By whom?

I would argue that that ballot was rejected for the same reason as the 15, because they didn't follow the rules.

0

Linda Endicott 1 year, 11 months ago

If the voter was five minutes late, why was the polling place still open? Why hadn't they already locked the doors? And if they were five minutes late, why did they give them a ballot? Just so they could make it null and void later?

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

"they allowed the state to disenfranchise them"

There's idiotic............and then there's bozo.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Well let me ask you something, Bozo, if it's not the rulings of the courts that we're to follow, what rules are we to use? If it's not the Constitution, then what?

0

optimist 1 year, 11 months ago

As citizens we are responsible for following the law. These people were logically aware of the law, its meaning and intent. They chose to object to the law and suffer the consequences. Life is a series of decisions and consequences. When I went I proudly presented my photo ID proving that I am who I say I am thus assuring my vote was cast only by me. There is absolutely no evidence that any law abiding, legal voter's vote was suppressed by this law. Each of the people in this story were physically and mentally able to report to the polling station. I have little doubt that they were just as capable of obtaining a valid ID at no cost to them.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

"There is absolutely no evidence that any law abiding, legal voter's vote was suppressed by this law."

Read the article-- every one of these voters was legitimately eligible and registered, but their votes were indeed suppressed, and they were suppressed very specifically by this law.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

"law abiding" being the key phrase.

0

JJE007 1 year, 11 months ago

I'll posit that you are not aware of the meaning and intent. You do seem proud of your ability to follow. You "have little doubt" and that, in itself, seems ignorant and foolhardy, IMHO. You trust our governors? REALLY? You are an optimist in the most horrible sense of the word made flesh-eating.

0

JJE007 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes. We all must suck that big toe of our political slave masters.

0

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

It's time to return to the traditional, historic values and beliefs upon which the State of Kansas was founded.

When the state was founded, Kansans explicitly allowed non-US citizens to vote. See http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/elevate-them-guns-a-little-lower/2012/aug/17/traditional-kansas-values/

I stand for traditional Kansas values and practices. Do you?

2

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

I do not believe non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in elections anywhere in the United States.

1

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

You thus put yourself in opposition to nearly a century and a half of American tradition. Why?

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Times change. I also believe that blacks and women should be allowed to vote. That would not have been allowed if we went back a century and a half. Unless you wish to exclude blacks and women, along with allowing non-U.S. citizens the rights to vote, then you're picking and choosing which values you wish to adhere to and which we will not adhere to. Why?

1

JJE007 1 year, 11 months ago

It's so big of you to mention them there blacks and womens who was formerly denied any rights can now vote. It does seem now that you think that this is the time to end times changing to allow any more changes. Heaven help us if we allow people who WORK any say in how things progress!~0

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

I did not say these are the end times for change. Changes may or may not come in the future. What I am saying quite clearly though is that in my opinion, non-citizens should not be allowed to vote. And should some 13 year old be hard at work on the family farm, or in the family business, that person should also be barred from voting, in my opinion. That goes for the 16 year old who serves up Big Macs, 20 hours per week after school. Work does not guarantee the right to vote, nor should it. The same is true for paying taxes. If some of my tax dollars goes to Zimbabwe in the form of aid, am I suddenly entitled to vote in their elections?

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

Ummm... .because it's against the law?

0

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

Kindly be more specific, because Kansas' Constitution explicitly gave non-citizens the right to vote.

How are the values behind that practice alive in Kansas today? It's clear that the modern conception of who should be able to vote is at odds with historic practice in Kansas.

2

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

The principle you're having difficulty with is this. The state, now as then, has the right to determine eligibility for voting. There is no requirement that eligibility must remain static.

0

JackKats 1 year, 11 months ago

Maybe you should have read on.

SEC. 4. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be necessary for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established.

So you agree with having to provide proper proofs. Good to see you agree with Kobach in asking for IDs.

0

OonlyBonly 1 year, 11 months ago

What a bunch of......... The most important duty in this country is to vote yet you Liberals think anyone should be able to just walk up to the table and vote. Absurd! They didn't chose to "suppress" their vote they chose to "make a statement."

1

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

Your comment implies that Kansas was founded as a Liberal state, since the state Constitution explicitly allowed non-US citizens to vote.

Why are you on the opposite side of the traditional values and beliefs that motivated the founding of the State of Kansas, Oonly?

2

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Alyosha - At that time, Kansas would not have allowed women to vote. Are you suggesting that we return to those traditional values as well?

1

Alyosha 1 year, 11 months ago

That's a valid question. I'm motivated by the general value of extending the franchise, not restricting it; so, no.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Fair enough. Do you also envision allowing 17 year olds the right to vote? 16?. 15?. How about residency requirements? Is six months too long? 24 hours too short? How about convicted murderers?

The point being that some restrictions are reasonable. And while you may believe that non-U.S. citizens should have the right to vote here, I politely disagree.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

"The point being that some restrictions are reasonable."

Can you be more specific?

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, Bozo, I will politely answer your question. Hopefully, you'll do the same with the question I posed just a moment ago, below this comment.

I think an age requirement is reasonable and I'm comfortable with the age being 18.

I think a residency requirement is reasonable. I don't know what it is exactly, but if it were something like 90 days, I'd say that's reasonable.

I think the requirement for an ID is reasonable. Then again, if there were no requirement, that wouldn't bother me that much either. Reasonable, yes. Necessary, probably not.

Loss of the right to vote if convicted of certain crimes sounds reasonable to me. The list of possibilities is very long, so I think reasonable people could disagree here.

As I mentioned above, I do not think non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote. That would be reasonable, in my opinion.

I can't think of any others off the top of my head, but feel free to ask about other potential restrictions and I will try to answer.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Even if every non-citizen in Kansas were allowed to go to the polls and participate in elections, it'd likely have no effect on the outcome of elections.

But Republicans are all about fear-mongering, so we must be made to fear those evil foreigners who, in reality, have little or no interest in participating in our elections. Hell, the majority of citizens don't even bother to vote most of time.

3

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

So do you, like Alyosha, believe that non-U.S. citizens should be given the right to vote here in Kansas?

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that despite all the hysteria over "voter fraud," allowing non-citizens to vote would likely have no effect on the outcomes of elections.

But to answer your question, yes, I do believe that legal residents, whether citizens or not, should be allowed to vote.

0

tomatogrower 1 year, 11 months ago

jhawkinf, I'm not sure that Alyosha is even advocating that. I think he/she is making fun of the so called "conservatives" who talk about going back to the traditions on which we were founded, but then when confronted with a tradition that doesn't jive, they are suddenly wanting to change. Which is it? Evolve and change with the times, or go back to the old traditions? I personally believe in evolution, genetically and socially. What worked in 1776 does not work for today. That's why they constitution did set laws in stone. For example, what do you think the founding fathers would have thought of modern guns that can shoot a whole bunch of people in just a few seconds?

3

JJE007 1 year, 11 months ago

"what do you think the founding fathers would have thought of modern guns that can shoot a whole bunch of people in just a few seconds?" They probably would have thought..."AWESOME! We have to get some of those." ..same as any crooks.

0

Phoghorn 1 year, 11 months ago

So, should I, as a resident of the USA be allowed to vote in Canada? Would Canadians just be a bunch of evil-fear mongerers for denying me, a non Canadian citizen, the right to vote?

0

Phoghorn 1 year, 11 months ago

Nice dodge there buddy - and no I am not talking about your truck.

0

Greg Cooper 1 year, 11 months ago

No, it's really geermane to the subject. If one were a resident worker in Canada, one would have a great deal to say about Canadian policy, and, thus, policy-makers. So, yes, I can see why one would have a desire to have a say in the elections of a country that had a direct effect on their lives.

1

Phoghorn 1 year, 11 months ago

It is only asinine because you have no answer.

0

verity 1 year, 11 months ago

We are not Canada. Not really relevant.

And do we know that they don't allow voting by non-citizens? Maybe we're making some unwarrented assumptions here.

0

Tomato 1 year, 11 months ago

They don't. And they require ID to vote. They also have some very specific requirements for what constitutes a valid ID for the purposes of voting.

The preference is that you show a single piece of photo identification that shows your name, address and photo (driver's license).

But the second easiest is to show your government issued health card (which has your photo and is required to receive health care) in conjunction with a utility bill with your name and address.

0

mccgirl80 1 year, 11 months ago

It doesn't say this anywhere in the article, but Nathan Pettengill is a United States citizen. Just wanted to clarify this as some of the comments have alluded to non-US citizens having the right to vote.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

I assumed as much. I assumed he was making the same political statement as the 15 who showed up to vote without IDs and said they knew of the new requirements and for political reasons, chose not to comply.

0

jaywalker 1 year, 11 months ago

To do otherwise is to ignore the law. Period.

0

JackKats 1 year, 11 months ago

According to Alyosha, and the document that is referenced, he or she agrees with Kobach.

Maybe you should have read on.

SEC. 4. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be necessary for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.