Archive for Friday, July 20, 2012

Voter rights

July 20, 2012


To the editor:

This voter ID law is obviously a poll tax levied against Americans who are mostly likely to vote for a Democratic candidate, a direct attack on the Constitution of the United States of America. The Supreme Court is the final authority on this issue, and it has already outlawed “the poll tax” which was used in the South to keep blacks from voting. That and de-facto intimidation.

If these laws are left on the books as written then a large group of voters will have been denied their constitutional rights and, like the founders of our nation, can look for a higher God-given right to equal treatment under the law and declare in referendum that the results of such an election should be declared invalid  and any actions taken by this group be declared null and void with that governing body  regarded as enemies of the people and resisted by any means deemed necessary to achieve equal rights and privileges of all its citizens.

Never forget this nation was born of revolution. It is our history and heritage. Just as it is our right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Are they such fools as to push us that far afield? We shall see what we shall see. I never thought I would see the Berlin Wall crumble in my lifetime or a black president, so change is in the air — like the Arab Spring.


Flap Doodle 1 year, 8 months ago

If voting is such a sacred act, why did Holder's Department of (selective) Justice let voter intimidation go unpunished?


Agnostick 1 year, 9 months ago

As previously mentioned, SCOTUS has already ruled on the constitutionality of this.


George Lippencott 1 year, 9 months ago

Just exactly why is it so difficult for us to ask a potential voter to once in their lifetime obtain a form of identification to use when we really need to know who you really are? We look for ID to travel, to cash checks, to drive cars, to obtain medical care and for a number of other functions. People seem to be able to negotiate the arguably difficult task of obtaining a picture ID for these purposes. Perhaps it would behoove our lawgivers to consolidate all the requirements for such an ID so as to minimize the complexity of obtaining a picture ID. Many other nations have a national ID card. Maybe it is time we join that group.

As to the need for a voter ID, how do we know one way or the other? My experience supported by some level of fact checking suggests we have no way of knowing if there is voter fraud unless the number of votes cast exceeds the voting population of a particular local. We have had acknowledgement in these pages that different counties do not have an organized way to verify if people are voting in more than one local. States seem to have the same problem. There are other forms of fraud that are also unlikely to be detected except by accident or voter stupidity. If you have no way to detect a particular problem then you certainly have no way to quantify it.

Frankly, it would seem to me that if all the people complaining about this requirement were to offer their services to assist those without ID, no one would be inconvenienced in obtaining the necessary credential.


beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Okay, did this letter just call for armed protest against the ID laws? Wow.

While I am strongly opposed to the laws in various states requiring an ID to vote at the polls, the thought of starting a revolution over the requirement to show an ID seems extreme and not by just a little.


Flap Doodle 1 year, 9 months ago

Don't you have to have an ID to sigh up for welfare?


Liberal 1 year, 9 months ago

I have to say I love the nashing of teeth, whimpering and whining...That is just my sick Republican side that loves to see people suffer.


Brock Masters 1 year, 9 months ago

Provisions are in the law for free I D so there is no cost and so it is not a poll tax.


labmonkey 1 year, 9 months ago

The letter writer brings up the second amendment... you not only have to have an ID to buy a gun, but they make a call to make sure you aren't a felon. Do you suggest we do that for voting also?


cato_the_elder 1 year, 9 months ago

"The Supreme Court is the final authority on this issue...."

That's correct. It's already ruled that Indiana's voter I.D. law is constitutional. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

Sorry, whiners.


Steven Gaudreau 1 year, 9 months ago

"mostly likely to vote for a Democratic candidate" Based on what assumption?


Lawrenceks 1 year, 9 months ago

Go get an ID, you can't do anything without one anyway! Get over it. Just love all the excuses!


geekin_topekan 1 year, 9 months ago

Where's the "You're forcing us to buy something we don't want" whiny bunch on this one?

Where's all the bagging about "tyranny" here?

Somehow it's suddenly okay for the gubment to force someone to buy something? What's next, Broccoli?


Richard Heckler 1 year, 9 months ago

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004, four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system:

"We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater. Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions. Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one the republican party. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to republican campaigns. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

Voters using Diebold machines should immediately report any suspected malfunctions or deficiencies at voting precincts to their Board of Elections. Voters should also urge their legislators to require a voter verified paper ballot trail for random audits and independent recounts. Count every vote!


Richard Heckler 1 year, 9 months ago

Paperless Electronic Voting

A bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend.

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it. Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.


Richard Heckler 1 year, 9 months ago

All of this voter ID/voter fraud chit chat is a bogus approach to convince voters that republicans are concerned about voter fraud which cannot be further from the truth.

According to radio news on Thursday voter fraud has been available to the republican party for several years. It is accomplished by way of paperless voting.

According to the news story it has been successful for the republican party because democrats do not pursue the fraud which it seems to me is anti American. Then again so is this nonsense voter ID law. The need for voter ID has been based on fraudulent information that there is voter fraud taking place but it has nothing to do with voter ID and never has.

Voter ID cannot protect the voters from electronic fraud at the computers no matter it voters have a dozen ID's each. Computers are set up to vote wrong in favor of the republican party. This has been going on for years.

The republicans have dreamed up this scheme for the voting that does not take place on computers. How many ways can republicans keep voters away from the voting booth is what Kobach has been working on in Kansas and other states.

Democracy/Law and Order and Kobach are not partners.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.