Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Letter to the Editor: Voting lesson

October 1, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

We saw in the paper where Kids Voting will take place again in Lawrence. We hope, in true fashion, a voter ID will be required. This will make a great teaching moment for the children. After research, the children will quickly learn how one segment of the society is trying to bully another segment. They will learn that the voter ID law is just a way to cheat people out of their most sacred right: the right to vote.

Comments

Benjamin Roberts 2 years, 1 month ago

Really? It took two people to write a letter this void of rational thought?

Children do not have the same access to, or reasons to carry, a picture ID that an adult has.

I do agree with the statement, "... will quickly learn how one segment of the society is trying to bully another segment." The constant demeaning and belittling of minority, elderly, and poor citizens by those who state that these groups are either too poor, too stupid, too dependent, or too recluse to have or obtain a picture ID needs to stop. Just stop it. No citizen of a country that provides so many opportunities should be categorized as too damn ignorant to obtain an identification card. Just stop it. Or, better yet, if you really know someone that is incapable of getting an ID card - offer a helping hand. And, stop belittling them just to make a political point.

3

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

You're the one belittling them by denying that there aren't significant hurdles for millions of people across the country in obtaining an ID card.

6

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

There are millions of people whose situations you know nothing about, but you have "confidence" that no matter what those situations are, they can get an ID.

"By the way, what are these "significant hurdles""

Those hurdles have been well-documented, and if you really care, google is your friend. But you clearly only believe what you want to believe, so I doubt that you'll spend the ten minutes it takes to educate yourself.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

Given the number of idiots on this forum who completely uncritically support the Republican Party, isn't that enough reason for no one to ever vote Republican?

1

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Once again, you are blaming Obama for a policy founded and implemented by the bush regime.

0

Take_a_letter_Maria 2 years ago

You need to send that link to the lady in the video. She is the one asserting that Obama provided her with the phone.

0

chootspa 2 years ago

She's not the one in this thread using the video of herself to dog whistle.

1

tomatogrower 2 years ago

Really???!!! That stupid email about Obama phones has been discredited. The program that helps get poor people basic phone services at reduced costs started in the '80's under Reagan. They should be called Reagan phones, except back then they would have been land lines, now they are cell phones. Quit spreading lies.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

0

Leslie Swearingen 2 years ago

President Obama did not give this woman a phone. In some cases DCF (used to be SRS) will give a client a phone to enable them to call 911 in case of trouble. If you get other service you can get free phone service for a home phone from Knology. Also ATT offers reduced fees to those who get food stamps, are on KanCare or Medicare.
I don't drive so I have a Kansas ID care that I got at the place across the river. There is a bus that stops right in front, but there are probably a lot of people who don't know this, and don't know that you can call the bus company to get help on how to get places on the bus. I like that they give you a receipt with your picture on it, so if someone steals or you lose your ID you can get a new one without a lot of hassle.

0

Liberty275 2 years ago

Whoopie for them. Obama got them a phone. I get me a phone every month too.

0

progressive_thinker 2 years ago

It is interesting that the tea-publicans are just now making an issue of this, given that the program of helping provide limited telephone service to the very poor and disabled has been around since 1996. The expansion of the program to include cellular phones began in 2008, under the Bush administration, so it should be a "Bush Phone" not an "Obama Phone."

It is nearly impossible to search for a job without providing a prospective employer with a number that the worker can be reached at. The limited assistance provided bridges that gap, improving the employment prospects of the person receiving the aid. As well, access to a phone can provide a disabled person with potentially life saving access to services.

0

tomatogrower 2 years ago

The tea-publicans think that Obama has a time machine. He went back and made sure his birth announcement was in 2 Hawaii newspapers, then forged his birth certificate, and stole someone's SSN. Then he went back in time and forced Reagan and Bush to provide basic phone services to poor people, so they could call for help or apply for jobs. Of course, tea-publicans probably wouldn't want an abused woman to be able to call for help, if her husband is beating her. They think women should obey and bow down to the man.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

And isn't that always the goal of America, to be more like other countries. Shall we adopt Canadian healthcare while we are at it?

2

blogme 2 years ago

It's called Obamacare, and yes congress did adopt it. Just hope it gets overturned before the 47% plus get on it other wise we won't be allowed to take away that so called "safety net" either. I mean why should anyone pay for their healthcare either? And explain this to me, if you have to provide an ID for cough syrup, why is it somehow only a problem when it comes to providing an id to vote?

0

grammaddy 2 years, 1 month ago

Because it's not always as easy as people assume. I recently went to renew my ID. It expired 2 years ago, (shows how much I use it) so I was told I would have to provide a birth certificate to renew it.Guess what. You cannot get a birth certificate without a picture ID. Expired won't cut it. I was lucky to find an old copy, along with a copy of my old marriage license, to prove name change. I was lucky but I wonder about others. Especially those without transpo to Topeka. I have voted in every Presidential election since Nixon and never had to produce ID (except when registering) until now.

2

grammaddy 2 years ago

Personal responsibility? I did not say I was resistant to it,only that it can be difficult.And I've never heard Obama say anything like that.

0

grammaddy 2 years ago

Not what I was told by Vital Statistics inTopeka. You must be able to prove who you are, or that you have a vested interest. My daughter could request one for me by proving she was my daughter but I needed proof.

0

blogme 2 years ago

And it's the voter ID law that is somehow at fault? Expired for 2 years? Always someone else's fault right?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

And I bet you don't "get" the difference between apples and oranges, either.

1

tbaker 2 years, 1 month ago

Requiring an ID to vote means you are bullying and trying to cheat someone?

Aside from the good laugh I got out of this, Mr. Sack and Ms. Coker's letter is pure fallacy, utterly void of any foundation worthy of serious discourse. Must have been a slow day at LJW if baseless tripe like this makes it to the blog. Moving on.

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

"baseless tripe" leave it to baker to always accuse someone else of what he is doing. A tried and true republican strategy that Karl Rove has become famous for exercising.

2

tbaker 2 years ago

So requiring someone to show a photo ID to sign up for welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, ObamaCare, buy a beer, get a driver's license - is bullying and trying to cheat someone? How could there be record turn-out of the so-called disinfranchised voter groups in states with voter ID laws during the 2008 and 2010?

Like I said - the aurgument has no foundation. It's just demogogary, and a clumsy example of it at that.

BTW, Im not a Republican. Wise up.

0

woodscolt 2 years ago

It appears that msez was commenting on your comments which are "baseless tripe and pure demagoguery" not whether your a republican.

0

lunacydetector 2 years, 1 month ago

it isn't the republicans who suppress the votes, it's the democrats and their state run media.

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 1 month ago

Paranoia is striking deep for luny this morning.

2

FlintlockRifle 2 years, 1 month ago

Hey you two , guess you are the type the voter I.D law was written for, what's the big deal here anyway----------

0

booyalab 2 years, 1 month ago

Ironically, the kids would probably enjoy showing their "ID"s. But I guess the average kid wants to grow up more than the average Democrat gives them credit for.

1

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Sadly, watching Republicans taking glee in supressing voters' rights is common.

2

somedude20 2 years, 1 month ago

This sums it up. First, where is this "voter fraud" that is causing all this fuss; second, House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) states..... S T A T E S that voter id will hand PA to Willard. Of course, the R's also stated their only goal is to get Obama out of their White House and have been killing the country to do so. Republicans have shifted so much and are EVIL for America. Republicans created this "Merica" bs, and if sucks!!!!. Damn crooks and I bet their version of voter fraud is anyone who would vote for a black man!

2

NoSpin 2 years, 1 month ago

This letter is pure nonsense. Period. Voting is a very serious act and should be monitored. How do you prove who you are to get money? How do you prove who you are to receive government assistance? This is Dems' fear mongering. Do they mention how the military vote is surpressed? Heck, no. Try to mail an absentee ballot from a hole in Afghanistan. The Dems blocked a bill to allow the troops to vote online or give them an extension because it's not fair that EVERYONE can't do it. Your letter only will enlighten the fools and the "intellects". Let's get back to the real issue that our country is going down the tubes with debt and overspending.

1

woodscolt 2 years, 1 month ago

Do they mention how the military vote is surpressed? by the bush campaigns, heck no

Well what do you think about voting machines producing receipts? Heck no?

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 1 month ago

During the 2000 Florida recount, Gore argued in court that military ballots received beyond the allotted time frame not be counted, even though there was no evidence that the voters themselves had done anything wrong. Just poor postal service where they were stationed.

1

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

That is correct, jhawkinsf. Gore was consistent in this in that he also included "all" votes that weren't received by the legal deadline. However Bush argued in court against allowing military votes to be counted (for multiple reasons) in predominately democratic precincts and argued in court the "opposite of that argument" in areas that were predictably republican precincts. See, who ever said you can't have it both ways.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 1 month ago

Both sides behaved badly during that time. Neither candidate, neither party can claim any moral high ground when it come to encouraging some voters to get out and vote while simultaneously discouraging other voters. That has been a common theme of both political parties for many decades, perhaps even since the very beginning. Anyone claiming that high ground for either party is part of that ongoing problem.

0

msezdsit 2 years ago

That is the usual response, "oh, they all do it" and to a degree that is right except in the 2000 election gore was using the existing laws as his basis for law suits and bush was using any excuse he could come up with or in most cases "invent". Thus Gore was basing his law suits on legality and therefore argued the same argument in every case. Bush was not consistent with "existing law" and flip flopped on which side of the issue he thought best served him. He literally filed law suits supporting both sides of the same arguments.

If you recall, Gore was protesting counting "all" votes that were past the legal deadline. The bush camp spun this into "disenfranchising military votes" since they could be cherry picked from the body of "all" votes cast beyond the legal deadline. Gore never singled out military votes, Bush just cherry picked this out as a possibility and claimed it was gores intent while bush was in fact trying to disenfranchise military votes in predominately democratic voting precincts. You may also remember the Bush campaign enlisted Bob Dole to be the militaries "talking head promoting this spin.

As for the voter id laws, they are undeniably designed to cause difficulty for people to be able to vote and the republicans are solely behind this. The voter ID is just the carrot they put out because you can make a fairly plausible case for this, just as everybody repeats over and over on these threads. The real problem with this is all the problems that the voter id law creates. Long lines at DMV's such as they have had here in Kansas. The logistics of people who don't have a car or can't get off work the several times that may required of them to get an ID. I just went through the process of helping an elderly women who has been voting (republican i might add) for over 65 years to get her ID, as she hasn't had a drivers license for several years. The process was more like a campaign and I barely put up with all the hassles but we did get the ID. She would never have been able to get it on her own. You will also see voting places that will just plain reject the ID's and then not be able to produce a provisional ballot. People will not always be able to wait in the lines required of them to get an ID. There are infinite problems with the voter ID law. Their should be a long term campaign of helping people get IDs before these laws should ever be able to go into affect. So your "they all do it" does apply but the republicans have been winning that battle by a landslide.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years ago

I remember lots of things from 2000. I recall Gore arguing that legal timelines need not be followed because they were, well, inconvenient. I recall Florida law that stated that no hand recounts should even be done unless the machines malfunctioned. And while the machines were not perfect, they functioned exactly as they were designed to. (BTW - each county bought their own machines and some bought very expensive machines with low mistake rates while other counties bought cheaper machines with higher mistake rates. But they did operate as designed).

As to the ID issue, I agree that it's likely to help Republicans and hurt Democrats. Of course, having an election on a working day hurts working people and for years it's made voting more difficult for rural voters, though with early and electronic voting, that has been lessened. (If we looked at percentages of working people and rural residents, might we find more Democrats or Republicans? More or less minorities? More or less of some protected class?) There is always going to be something that someone can point to and say, "that's unfair". The question is, is it reasonable? I'm OK with whatever the courts rule.

0

NoSpin 2 years, 1 month ago

Let's not forget our tax dollars pay for student identification, so voter fraud will not be an issue.

0

woodscolt 2 years, 1 month ago

The Bush regime paid gop operative,Nathan Sproul, over 7 million bucks to work on his campaigns in 2000 and 2008. Translated, what he did is trick democrats into registering as republicans, re-registered democrats and independents as republicans and shredded democratic registration forms. When his criminal activity was outed, suit was filed in a Las Vegas court, in which case the judge was a republican and his wife was the head of the republican party in Nevada. What the suit tried to accomplish was to just extend the deadline for registration so the tens of thousands of people he criminally disenfranchised could still go and re-register and still vote. The judge ruled that while he acknowledged that these people had been criminally disenfranchised, it wasn't within his power to extend the voter registration deadline and he didn't and the republicans won their scam by keeping these people from voting.

Recently, in Florida and Colorado, to name two states (there are more) the RNC paid 3 million dollars and the Romney campaign paid over 70K to none other than Nathan Sproul to work on behalf of republican party candidates campaigns. However, since they knew Nathan Sproul would set of red flags because of their previous criminal relationship with him, they told him he would have to set up a shell company they could send the 3 mill to so as not to look suspicious. He did and he registered over 180 non citizens in Florida to vote. When the republican party was outed on this(as well as Romney campaign) the RNC moved quickly to distance themselves from this alias company stating that there are always a few bad apples that must be weeded out. The RNC tried to pull it off as if they didn't know Nathan Sproul while they have a long and continuous criminal history with Nathan Sproul.

So when the republicans are complaining about voter fraud, it is because they are holding the evidence and it is them. The real red flag is this: The republican party has made their enormous campaign for voter ID but when you say to them: "OK, I'll see your voter ID if we can get voting machines to produce receipts. They go ballistic on the idea of voting machines producing receipts. You can raise almost the same argument the repubs use for voter id as you can for requiring receipts from voting machines.

Republican hypocrisy plus their criminal activity in the manipulation of voting equals voter fraud. That is why the exit polls in key swing states in 2000 and 2004 were decisively in favor of democrats but, shocking as it was, the actual vote count went to Bush and other republican candidates. Accuracy in exit polls has beeb nearly 100% with exception to the Bush elections.

1

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Didn't you mean "elections 2000 and 2004"

1

Satirical 2 years ago

woodscolt...

So...it looks like you agree that there needs to be more integrity in the voting process. I completely agree with you that photo IDs should be supported by Democrats. Hooray for common sense!

Also, I haven't heard about the issue of receipts from voting machines. Is the purpose to show the machine correctly recorded your vote? If so, couldn't it be just as likely that what is printed is also flawed? Or are there other reasons for receipts?

0

woodscolt 2 years ago

Yeah, I would support the voter ID if it were done for the right reasons and guidelines were established to make it equally possible for all voters to obtain them. There should be a grace period prior to this election for people to obtain ID's. The laws being shoved through now will not allow many people to be able to get ID's in time and that is part of the objective of the laws. That should not be allowed. While I don't claim to be a computer expert, I do understand that it is very easy to hack the voting machines and it has been done extensively. It is far more likely than any 'voter fraud' that the so called voter ID laws claim to be inhibiting and far easier. So doesn't it stand to reason if your intent was to prohibit voter fraud that you would also simultaneously want to insure that the voting machines were not being manipulated? If not, then it stands to reason that voter fraud is simply the excuse used by the republicans who are pushing these laws through.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9583

Check this out if you haven't already. This girl is working for Nathan Sproul and the RNC and the Romney campaign.

0

Satirical 2 years ago

woodscolt...

I agree there should be a reasonable time and opportunity for people to get ID's. I am not aware of any Republican who is against that. I also agree that the integrity of a voting machine should be ensured, but I am not sure if a receipt necessarily accomplished this. If hacking is a potential problem, wouldn't it be just as possible to hack the results after the receipt is issued? Without knowing more about a potential problem, I feel ill equipped to offer solutions.

As far as your blog, I would submit that this isn’t all that odd. Democrats target voter registration in areas that tend to be Democratic. Seems like partisan voter registration to me, but I don’t find anything objectionable about the practice. The blog even said it isn’t illegal to ask who you would vote for before encouraging registering. Seems like free speech to me. And it isn’t like either side has clean hands with this issue (see ACORN). I submit all of this evidence substantiates the need for greater integrity for voting.

0

tomatogrower 2 years ago

And this is probably the real reason that Republicans get elected in Kansas. I know very few people who say they voted for Brownback. Or maybe they just don't want to admit it now that he has shown his true colors.

0

woodscolt 2 years, 1 month ago

Now you see the right wing mass campaign of accusing the current polls of being skewed by the democrats (which is a total bs) taking off like wild fire. They are already setting the stage for using their tried and true methods of stealing the election and all they have to do is say, "See, we told you the polls were wrong all along"

1

woodscolt 2 years, 1 month ago

Great LTE. Hits the nail right on the head.

1

woodscolt 2 years, 1 month ago

It has to do with the right wing republican party campaign and strategy of disenfranchising voters in which case voter id is the kingpin card they play to accomplish this. I realize Fox doesn't inform you on this so i excuse your confusion.

1

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

You have posted twice now with no substance whatsoever.

0

somedude20 2 years ago

Funny how it's only the Republican right talking about how the voter ID laws will deliever PA to Romney. Why would he say that? Why can't they back up their claim of voter fraud that is all over the US? How can voter ID laws tip the scale for one party. Funny how R's care about the integrity of elections after they bullspitted the 2000 election. Sure you wont get it, but hey, you can lead a horse to water, can't make it drink!

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Just one example: If you are recently divorced (or for that matter married) , the clock may run out on you before you can get a new valid ID. I guess you should just not plan on a wedding several months before an election or camp out at the court house and force them to finalize your divorce so you can get your proper ID for voting. Oh well, its just a women's right to vote that is at stake. Seems I remember something about some amendment regarding women's right to vote. Oh, must just be my imagination. Amendments only count if they favor the republican ideology of the day.

1

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

You change your name when getting a divorce? I think I did.

2

Katara 2 years ago

Many women's name no longer matches the one on their birth certificate. If you marry and change your last name, you must provide your marriage certificate (and you have to be sure that your maiden name matches what is on your birth certificate). If you are divorced, you will need to provide the birth certificate, the marriage certificate & your divorce certificate to prove who you are for a picture ID. Copies of all those documents cost money.

In Kansas, a copy of your birth certificate is $15.00. A copy of your marriage certificate is $15.00 and a copy of your divorce certificate is $15.00. While one can get a birth certificate free for voter ID (if one was born in KS), there are no free copies of the other 2 forms needed.

1

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Yep, that is the problem with America -- too many people voting. Better put limits on voting.

This is Amerika -- SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!!!!

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

People still rent movies from a store?

Anyway, Hastings is a private business and I'll bet far more people have stolen movies than attempted to vote illegally. Unlike paying $2 to watch Private Benjamin on VHS tape, voting isn't a commerce transaction, but a right. Also, you can pay in cash at Dillons without showing your ID, and many probably do. Students without a current state ID would be a perfect example.

What other rights will require an ID in this new Republican view of Amerika? Ready to show your ID to gather peacefully? Will you need to SHOW YOUR PAPERS before you speak freely? How about just walk down the street?

Sorry, but it isn't a strawman argument. Laws have been put in place to limit people's ability to vote when there wasn't an actual problem of people attempting to vote illegally. New laws to prevent crimes that aren't happening, and it is all supported by those who want "smaller government." HA.

YOU (and your lot?) are the ones wanting to limit people from having the ability to vote, and it is all in a desperate attempt to get Obama out of office. Pathetic, and Obama is going to win anyway.

1

jhawkinsf 2 years, 1 month ago

Not long ago, I was talking with someone who was 17 years old and upset that they would not be able to vote this year. Of course, he was talking to someone old enough that when I turned 18, I was not yet eligible to vote, the voting age then being 21. The point is that eligibility to vote changes from time to time. As does the responsibility of the voter. The only question is are the new requirements reasonable. That's a question for the courts to decide.

0

beatrice 2 years ago

jhf, yes, I agree that it is a question for the courts -- but we can have fun discussing it here. : )

0

beatrice 2 years ago

"Again no arguement is valid in my eyes for showing an ID to vote."

Thanks for letting me know you refuse to keep an open mind to the issue.

0

Satirical 2 years, 1 month ago

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen (to vote)" - Ben Stein

*parentheticals added

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 1 month ago

"Ferris Bueller? Ferris Bueller? Ferris Bueller?

0

Satirical 2 years, 1 month ago

Actually, I think it is just..."Bueller...Bueller....Bueller..."

0

jhawkinsf 2 years ago

You may be right. I just liked Ben Stein's deadpan tone in that movie. And I liked the movie overall.

0

Satirical 2 years ago

"may be right????"

I was wrong once. It was when I thought I made a mistake ; )

0

Satirical 2 years ago

If I weren't a US citizen, I could get free healthcare, I could still vote, I wouldn't have to serve on jury duty, I would never be subject to the draft, I could get in-state tuition in several states, I could recieve 4.2 billion from the federal government (see link), receive unemployment beneifts, receive numerous other government benefits, and if I am being paid in cash I would pay no federal taxes or social security, etc.

It looks like one gets all the benefits of being a US citizen and few of the burdens. Plus, I would have half of the country (liberals) protecting the free stuff I currently get, and go out of their way to get me more free stuff. Bonanza!

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/tax-credits-for-illegal-immigrants/

0

beatrice 2 years ago

Much of your argument here boils down to illegal activity. Yes, if you are willing to partake in illegal conduct, you can get lots of stuff. Carry a gun into a store and demand they give you stuff. See how easy it is?

You can't vote if you aren't a citizen, unless you are willing to break the law. Think on that. How many people are going to flee their home country for a chance to pursue a better way of life by working in fields or cleaning toilets, to not become a political prisoner, etc..., and then are going to risk it all by standing in line and pretending to be someone else in order to cast a single vote? Seriously. This is why voter fraud is virtually non-existent. It isn't an issue. The Republican supported voter ID laws will mean thousands of citizens won't be allowed to vote, all in the hopes of stopping a crime that doesn't exist. That is shameful.

Again, having too many people voting in America isn't a problem that needs to be solved.

1

Satirical 2 years ago

Beatrice… Hey bea, how is life treating you?

First, several examples I gave do not require further illegal activity (if you were already here illegally you wouldn’t be subject to jury duty or the draft and could get in-state tuition in Kansas, and get many government benefits without another affirmative illegal act). Second, your analogy of carrying a gun into a store is misplaced because those who are in this country illegally already have a predisposition to commit non-violent crimes which would benefit themselves. For your analogy to be closer to the mark, it would be like a person who is robs at gun point liquor stores deciding to rob at gun point a 7-Eleven.

I could think of many reasons why someone would “risk everything” to vote. First, I propose that it isn’t really a risk since there is almost no enforcement of illegal voting. It isn’t as if a police officer is standing there and asking for every voter’s birth certificate. Second, I would contend that even in situations with a greater risk, undocumented residents will take the risk to voice their opinion. This was apparent during the Immigration Rally on Washington in 2010 with the Mexican flags being flown by several supporters.

Anytime a new voting measure is passed there will likely be bumps in the road. Hopefully no one is disenfranchised, and if they are temporarily, they can cast provisional ballots. I submit it is more likely Republicans would be disenfranchised then Democrats, because I think it is more likely the elderly (who tend to be conservative) are disenfranchised than the poor (because the IDs are free). Too many voters isn’t a problem, but when the potential benefits far outweigh unrealistic and easily mitigated burdens, the choice is common sense.

0

Satirical 2 years ago

beatrice...

I forgot to add that some undocumented immigrants undertake additional illegal acts to avoid the risk of being caught. For example, many choose to be paid in cash because it allows then to fly under the radar. As you said, how many are going to risk a better life when all they have to do is ask to be paid with cash.

0

Satirical 2 years, 1 month ago

I think everyone here agrees there should be integrity in the voting process. In other words, there should be a way to verify that a person showing up to vote has a right to vote in that election. There are rules currently in place to do just that.

There always have been and always should be burdens/obstacles with voting. There is the burden of registering, the burden of getting to the voting booth, the burden of showing some evidence that you live in the jurisdiction, such as a utility bill. So, if someone recently moved to a new state, and lives with someone else, and doesn’t have any bills in his name with that address, that person could be prevented from voting. There are of course provisional ballots, and absentee voting to mitigate some of these concerns. But in the end there are still hurdles/burdens.

If the voter ID law required a picture ID, but those IDs were free and easy to obtain (while still ensuring integrity in the system), and if you didn’t have one you could still cast a provisional ballot until you can adequately verify you have the right to vote, would you support it?

In other words, if the voter ID burden where mitigated like the other voting burdens are mitigated, what then is your basis of disagreement?

0

beatrice 2 years ago

Yet it isn't "free" and certainly not easy for many people, yet it is being implimented immediately. Why do you think Republicans are pushing for this? Why do you think Turzai in PA feels it will help Romney win? It is clear that the goal is not to stop voter fraud -- evidence has proven that it is a crime that basically doesn't exist -- and instead is inteaded to limit the number of people who will be voting. It is limiting a right that isn't needed. That is why it is a problem.

0

Satirical 2 years ago

bea...

Google, "free photo id kansas" and you get a bunch of information on House Bill No. 2067, when it was passed and went into effect (not "immediately" as you claim), where to get a free ID, how you can still cast a provisional ballot if you forget one, and exceptions to the photo ID rule, such as for people with permanent physical disabilities, etc.

My favorite was the third link down (PDF, so I can't copy and paste URL) from rockthevote.

Oh, and Turzai is a idiot, voter ID laws are probably more likely to disenfranchise elderly (R) voters than (D) voters.

0

Satirical 2 years ago

If I don't need to show a photo ID to exercise my right to vote, do I still need to show a photo ID to exercise my right to carry a gun?

0

beatrice 2 years ago

That clearly depends on the state in which you reside. For the most part, no, you do not need a photo ID to carry. To the best of my knowledge, police do not have the right to just stop someone for lawfully owning and carrying a gun. You do need an ID when first purchasing, except from private individuals, and you need an ID when registering for a conceal and carry license in most states. You also need an ID when registering to vote. I don't have a problem with the registering process, but with the voting process of requiring ID. What if you have your wallet stolen day before the election -- too bad for you? Is that how easily we disregard rights?

Personally, I also hate laws that favor a certain segment of the population. The law that allows people to carry guns into businesses but don't allow you to carry into the capital building, for instance, bugs me. Same with ID laws -- how are people who mail in their ballots going to be showing their IDs? Why is it only targeted at those who line up to vote?

1

Satirical 2 years ago

beatrice...

Actually some states require carrying a concealed carry permit whenever someone wants to use that right. I actually meant to say "purchase" a gun, rather than "carry," but I think you still understand my point that arguing against photo ID laws because it is an undue burden on exercising one's rights isn't a very convincing when the same is required to exercise the right to bare arms.

If your wallet was stolen the day before the election you should be allowed to cast a provision ballet. Your example is similar to my example of someone moving to a new area and moving in with someone else, but doesn't have any utility bills in his/her name yet, and therefore can't verify residency. In both situations (the new voter ID law, and the old voting verification laws) provisional ballots mitigate this burden.

I agree with your sentiment about requiring a photo ID only for those who physically appear to vote. While I am not an expert on absentee ballots, (I plan to do it for the first time this year) I must assume there is adequate verification. Perhaps the difference is because in one situation a photo ID is practical and it is not for the other situation. If there is a way to have more integrity in absentee ballots with few drawbacks, I am all ears.

0

progressive_thinker 2 years ago

In the state of Kansas, private sales of used firearms are unregulated. There is no requirement that an ID or proof of citizenship be provided, nor is there any requirement of a background check. In Kansas, it is easier to purchase a firearm than it is to vote.

0

Satirical 2 years ago

progressive_thinker ...

How easy is it to regulate and/or enforce private sales of anything? How could the state enforce requiring a photo ID for the private sale of anything?

0

progressive_thinker 2 years ago

My post was not in advocacy of any new firearms restrictions; I was merely pointing out the fact that one can exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the State of Kansas without showing a photo ID.

As to your question "How could the state enforce requiring a photo ID for the private sale of anything?", I will respond as it applies to firearms. The state of California requires that all firearms sales be done through licensed dealers.

Again, I am not advocating for that or any other new restrictions on firearms. I am merely pointing out the fact that, in Kansas, as in most of the rest of the US, a person can purchase a firearm [from a private party] without providing an ID.

Given that: 1. There are no registration requirements for firearms in most of the US, and 2. That no ID is required to make a private purchase of a firearm, it appears that it is easier to purchase a firearm than it is to vote.

0

Satirical 2 years ago

What if those "difficult(ies) with the picture ID thing" were removed? What if it were free and easy to get?

0

grammaddy 2 years ago

I managede to function "day to day" for two years before I realized it had expired.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago

No one has asked to see my ID for months-- even when using credit cards it's unusual to be asked for an ID. That's largely because I generally deal with people who know me, or at least recognize me-- you know, kinda like what I see when I go to my local polling location.

0

Richard Heckler 2 years ago

It's like a special voter ID cannot be reproduced counterfeit.

About voter fraud. In Florida voter fraud is turning up. All fingers are pointing at the RINO party. It must be taking place here under the exclusive direction of Kobach.

These RINO repubs destroy property values and voting rights. I say they must go to prison.

1

Liberty275 2 years ago

This is all a pretty good idea. Take your kid to vote - but take him to get an ID first. You can't withdraw money without ID, so they are going to need it anyway.

0

beatrice 2 years ago

Not everyone has an ID, whether you like it or not. They are still citizens and have the right to vote. Many, many people do not fly.

0

Armstrong 2 years ago

Why is the left so wound up about the voter issue ? Per all the rants these last months the election is a slam dunk and locked up. Barry can run on his record of success and delivery of the promises he made the first time he ran. Right ! End the experiment, November - Mitt's turn

0

Satirical 2 years ago

Google, "free photo id kansas" and you get a bunch of information on House Bill No. 2067, where to get a free ID, how you can still cast a provisional ballot if you forget yoru photo ID, and exceptions to the photo ID rule, such as for people with permanent physical disabilities, etc.

My favorite was the third link down (PDF, so I can't copy and paste URL) from rockthevote. The facts blow out of the water most arguments by liberals.

No burden + lots of benefits = what should be an easy bi-partisan compromise (or did Pres. Obama make compromise a dirty word?)

0

Katara 2 years ago

double post due to LJW's internal server error.

0

Katara 2 years ago

I noticed that while Kansas provides a free birth certificate (for those born in KS), they do not provide free marriage certificates ($15) or free divorce certificates ($15). Those documents are required any time that one's name does not match their birth certificate for ID purposes.

$30 can be a barrier to someone who requires a free ID and this requirement is discriminatory toward women as they are the ones who usually change their names in a marriage or divorce situation. It also puts a higher burden on them to prove they are who they are.

0

gbulldog 2 years ago

Suggestion. Raise the penalty substantially on anyone who helps procure or participates in an illegal vote. If appealed, and voter fraud proven, person would be banned from entering the USA or territory for every or be subect to summary execution.

My right to vote is important to me. The illegal vote takes away my rights. So follow what our neighboring countries have done.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.