Archive for Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Officials: First vote under new ID law was smooth

January 11, 2012

Advertisement

— The first election in Kansas under a new state law requiring voters to show photo identification appears to have gone smoothly.

But officials debated Wednesday whether the election in the small southwestern Kansas town of Cimarron was a valid test.

Cimarron voters overwhelmingly approved a 1.25 percent sales tax to finance a new municipal swimming pool. About 460 residents voted, with another 18 casting provisional ballots.

But only one of those provisional ballots involved someone without a valid photo ID. Gray County Clerk Bonnie Swartz says that person was protesting the new law.

Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who pushed for the law, says the election shows it won't be a problem. But some legislators said the law would get a better test in more populated areas.

Comments

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Of course, there's no way to determine how many people simply didn't vote because of the requirements, right?

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Of course, there's no way to determine how many people simply didn't vote because of the requirements, right?

According to a quick search, there are about 2100 people living in Cimarron, of whom probably about 1/3 are under 18. That leaves 1400 over 18 (eligible voters), of which only 460 actually voted.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

" of which only 460 actually voted."

Give Kobach a little time, and that number will be whittled down to a couple of dozen people-- all trusted members of the Republican Party/Chamber of Commerce/Country Club/Deaconry of the Church, all with lily white complexion, and mostly male.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

What was the percentage of voters in our most recent election here in Lawrence. I'm going on memory but wasn't it something like 18%? This election had about 33%, using your numbers. I might opine that the numbers who stayed home and simply didn't vote because of the I.D. regulations is exactly the same number as ineligible persons who voted previously. With the answer being "we don't know".

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

That's what I said - there's no way to know.

Just the way there's no way to know about voter fraud unless we detect it, right?

Fred Mertz 3 years, 3 months ago

jafs - I suspect at least a 1,000 poor democrats were disenfranchised because of the new law and your calculations prove it. Well maybe not.

Did you compare the turnout for this type of election with the turnout for a similar election?

For the 2010 general election, the Gray Co. turnout was higher, but for the 2008 primary election the turnout was lower (26%) than this election turnout based on your numbers. General elections often bring out more voters so unless your comparing the same type of elections you really can't draw any conclusions.

But if you want to believe people didn't vote because of the law....

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

As I said, we don't know.

So it's a mistake to say everything went well with the new requirements without knowing how many eligible voters didn't vote because of them.

A comparison of a city election with a county one doesn't seem to be comparing apples to apples to me.

Lots of people believed there was lots of voter fraud without any evidence - how would it be any different to believe there are lots of eligible voters not voting now?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

No, but I do find it curious that so many people really believe that any of this has anything to do with "ID's" or preventing something that already doesn't happen.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Since nobody's ever claimed they're too "stupid" to do so, your question lacks a foundation.

onemansopinion 3 years, 3 months ago

I am happier to see that there are still people in this state willing to increase taxes to better their community.

parrothead8 3 years, 3 months ago

I'm glad to hear this, because something clearly went so wrong in the last election that resulted in Brownback as governor. Maybe that'll get cleared up.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

I would suspect that Kobach knows very few Latinos, and probably doesn't really have anything against them as a matter of ethnicity.

But he definitely represents the interests of the .01%. But the problem for the .01% is that they have very few votes, so a politician doing their bidding must find ways to create divisiveness among the great unwashed. Playing "brown people" against "white people" is one way to do that.

And decreasing the numbers of votes cast by the 99% (or, more accurately, the bottom 80%) through measures like voter ID laws makes it just that much easier for the .01% to manipulate elections in their favor.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.