A. No one posting here is more in favor than I am of single payer national health or legalized abortion or serious criminal penalties for racial discrimination verified beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
B. Few posting here think less of Reagan and the "good" Republicans than I do, and no one posting here holds The Bush League in more contempt than I do.
C. Anyone too stupid, incompetent, or lazy to be able to obtain a free government ID for the purpose of voting should not vote.
C,1. Does that mean we're going to hear the odd tear jerker about someone who lost their ID card when the road washed out under their pickup killing their dog as they were on the way to put out the fire at grandma's house? Sure. So what?
Bottom line: One of the most valid reasons Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as frequently as they do is idiot stuff like being against FREE voter ID cards and for open borders. And while I don't see me ever voting Republican, I sure as hell would vote against a Democrat stupid and hopelessly banal enough to publicly oppose the requirement for FREE voter ID cards.
Elections Can't Really be Fair, Free and Accurate if Eligible Voters Can't Vote
Last week, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. This week, that new law garnered national attention when 12 elderly nuns were prevented from voting because they did not have the required government-issued ID.
This is the predictable result of a flawed law. We've been facing the same battle in my home state of Missouri. In fact, in 2006 our state Supreme Court struck down a similar law as unconstitutional. But now, the debate over whether to require government-issued ID's in order to vote is back.
This week, as the Missouri House of Representatives began its debate on this voter suppression legislation, I spoke to Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of St. Mary the Angel. After she heard the story about the Indiana incident, she did a quick survey of the 35 nuns in her convent and found that 15 did not have a government-issued photo ID to vote -- therefore, no right to vote.
Another Missourian, Birdie Owen had a different story. Birdie relocated to Missouri after Hurricane Katrina and still uses her Louisiana ID. That's because she can't get a Missouri photo ID.
Why? Because her birth certificate was lost in the hurricane. And because a birth certificate is one of the documents required in order to get a Missouri photo ID, without one, no government-issued ID... therefore, no right to vote.
Another affected citizen is Kathleen Weinschenk. Kathy has cerebral palsy and because of her disability is unable to make a consistent signature or mark - so her signature might not match the signature on her voter registration record required by the Missouri law...therefore, no right to vote.
As Missouri's Secretary of State, it's my job to help ensure that our elections are fair, free and accurate. But it is also my job to protect the voting rights of every citizen. Not, 95% of our citizens. Not, just Missourians who have a drivers license or a passport.
Elections cannot be fair, free and accurate if eligible voters are not allowed to vote.
Across our country in recent years we've seen a disturbing trend. States have begun debating and passing restrictive laws allowing only those voters who can prove their identity by means of government-issued photo identification to vote.
I support the idea of voters identifying themselves at the polls. That's common sense. In Missouri, we ALREADY do just that.
So what is this debate all about? It's about whether we should only allow those Missourians with a certain kind of GOVERNMENT ISSUED photo ID to vote.
For most Missourians - and most Americans -- presenting a government ID is not a burden, most of us have a drivers license and we carry it with us all the time.
But for those citizens who don't have a drivers license or other government-issued ID, but nevertheless are legitimate, registered voters, it can be a great burden indeed.
My office has calculated how many Missouri voters risk being disenfranchised by this law. Our estimate, after comparing the state drivers and non-drivers license list with the list of registered voters, is that up to 240,000 Missourians could be impacted.
A new restrictive voting law would impact mostly the elderly, the disabled, the poor or even young people who may be 18 registered to vote but not yet drive.
The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Indiana's restrictive voter identification law now puts the idea of fair and free elections in jeopardy.
Let me give a couple more examples:
If you are married woman whose name has changed and you want to get a government-issued ID to vote, you need to bring your marriage license. If you lost that marriage license, it will cost you time and money to get a new copy. If you are divorced and remarried, you better bring along a copy of your divorce decree.
If you were born out of state and you want to get a Missouri government issued ID to vote you will need to write a letter to that state and ask for a certified copy of your birth certificate. It may cost you up to $30.00 to get a copy.
But in many states you'll face yet another problem...you are required to show a photo ID before they will provide a copy of your birth certificate.
In the case of Birdie, a natural disaster washed away all the bureaucratic documents required in order to get a government-issued photo ID. Tornadoes, floods and hurricanes shouldn't be cause for eligible citizens to lose their right to vote in this country.
If you lost your social security card, and you want to vote, you better make a trip to the social security office. You will also need to remember to bring along a copy of your birth certificate.
Supporters of these restrictive government ID laws falsely claim that because the state will provide "free" photo ID's to those who need them there is no hardship. But what the supporters of these laws fail to mention is that no government issued ID is really free.
As Missouri's Secretary of State, I will continue to fight for free, fair and accurate elections that allows all eligible Missourians to participate in the political process. But across the country, people need to know the real story and the real impact of these laws. Quite simply, they are undermining our democracy.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The problem with your argument is that voter ID laws make it much more dificult for the "new Democratic coalition" to engage in mass voter fraud. How do you expect Obama to win if it's only one person, one vote?
Think about it. You're being silly.
Good grief. Should the government come in and tell me who to vote for? Sounds like the Catholic Chruch does not treat its nuns very well. With an organization that large, there was no one to help them with the paperwork. And do not families help each other anymore? All are on their own and only the government can make thing so easy an insect could do it? This is a thin viel to try and make ACORN and other Dem supporters as free as possible to gin up votes and do fraud as they will. If we are so stupid and alone and without any support that we cannot get an ID, maybe we are too stupid to vote anyway.
The supporters of these laws have done the math and figured that they stand to gain more than they lose, in terms of support. This is a law passed through naked political calculation, not any desire for either fairness or accuracy.
Boy, this posting sure brought the bigots out of the woods. Did not know that many were even reading Huffington! "Too Lazy to . . ." Indeed, tell the nuns that.
It also brought out those who think they have a clue, but really don't. The Bush Administration has made Voter Fraud a major focus at the Justice Department, as has the GOP in a number of states. The results? Extraordinarily little evidence of voter fraud. But in order to stop this non-existent problem, they've passed photo ID laws that have, and will, create financial and other burdens on hundreds of thousands of eligible voters. Then nuns are one great example, as are the other examples Robin Carnahan listed. The elderly in nursing homes, disabled Americans of all ages, people in urban areas who don't have cars... they have a harder time getting the required picture IDs. That they can get them is beside the point; the laws impose a burden on their voting rights that others don't have. (Thankfully this was found unconstitutional in my state-- thanks for your efforts Robin-- but not by the most reactionary, corporatist U.S. Supreme Court since the 1930s.) And to restate the key point, it tries to fix a problem THAT DOESN"T EXIST. You have a greater chance in the U.S. of being hit by lightning than of someone impersonating you at the ballot box. Contrary to a couple of comments below, it's not hard at all to stop voter fraud or catch the culprits; few get caught because bother to try.
In Missouri, no sooner had the USSC found Indiana's voter ID law constitutional, then our beloved Republican dominated state legislature starts working up a law to write a voter ID law of their very own. Our State Supreme Court had found a similiar law unconstitutional last year. We hope, with Robin's help and the testimony of the nuns, this is a very catholic state, we can stop it. But, with all the homophobic, medieval catholic priests and bishops and laity fixated on abortion, we can hardly count on it. The nuns will probably be excommunicated for even talking to a Robin, a Democrat.
I've written my state reps; one is probably workingon the bill, but the other is actually open-minded and might even listen to voices of reason. If it passes, we can hope our State Supreme Court will strike down the new law under the State Constitution. In the meantime we'll have to console ourselves with the state going for Obama and hopefully getting rid of a couple of unbalanced GOP House members to boot.
If the People actually prosecute members of the junta in '09, what considerations, if any, could we give to those justices appointed by it? As appointees of America's First Dictatorship, they've not only ignored the Founder's intent but lowered the bar of civilization to the fascist level. Rights down and profits up.
What can the People do to remedy the problem? We know such appointees characteristically lack a conscience, so the likelihood of guilt-based resignation is out. We know they are uniformly programmed against the Constitution, their mortal enemy, and dying to reverse Roe v Wade and as many gains in Civil Rights as possible, gutting humanity's greatest achievements. There's no controversy there. Their ideology seems not to mix well in a democracy, where there is freedom of choice and fairness and real law. So, do we have legal redress here?
http://www.light-to-dark.com/supremes_06.html
Will our system of Justice still work after the junta is gone? Will junta appointees Alito and Roberts be compelled to step down? Will either one ever grow a conscience? Or respect women? Or all races?
I am just as concerned about Voter Fraud occurring today -
Bill Clinton is asking Oregon voters to "bring their ballots" today May 11th here in Oregon. Evidently so voters can cast their ballot in this primary under his watchful eye. At FIVE separate speaking events in the state.
Web Link
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_051008_news_bill_clinton_oregon.e854402b.html
PORTLAND, Ore.-- Former President Bill Clinton will again campaign for his wife Hillary in Oregon on Sunday. After stops in Pendleton, Baker City and Redmond, he'll visit Portland and Gresham.
Bill Clinton's appearances are billed as "bring your ballots" events so backers can vote on the spot.
The former President is scheduled to visit Helen McCune Recreation Center in Pendleton at 9 a.m., the Baker County Courthouse in Baker City at noon and Obsidian Middle School in Redmond at 3:15 p.m. He'll then stop at the IBEW Local Union 48 headquarters in Portland at 6:15 p.m., followed by Gresham High School at 7:30 p.m.
What percentage of people don't own a photo ID? How do these people function in today's society? How do they get money from the bank? How do they cash a check. How do they fly? How do they open a bank account?
There are very few people that don't own an photo ID. This is a farce by the left to allow illegal votes. There is no way a person can function in today's society without a photo ID and if they don't own a photo ID and are too lazy to get a photo ID, then they CAN'T VOTE, PERIOD!
This is a ridiculous issue. America is in many a ways a very backward place. Only 20% have passports for example. In uber liberal Holland you must carry government ID with you at all times. Voter fraud is a much bigger problem than the few people who can't get it together to get ID. Don't you need to identify yourself to get food stamps, Medicaid, etc?
Ya know, if the Democrats were really worried about disenfranchised voters, they should aggressively make state Voter ID card registration drives their main focus. Obtaining a state ID card or birth cert., is not quantum mechanics. In most states, it costs less than dinner at McD's.
They should concentrate on swing states and blue states. These millions of new voters should be schooled into sending in mail-in ballots, thus avoiding(hopefully) unproven electronic voting machines. There's about six months, plenty of time to get everybody on board.
That is, if they're truly concerned or want to win.
I'm sorry but there is no excuse to have I.D. unless the problem has happened within the last several months. The woman who lost her birth certificate? The state has the records. You make it sound like the government doesn't think she exists anymore. I've written to get mine replaced twice over the years.
No big deal.
So this nonsense about disenfranchising voters is just baloney. There is nothing to keep them from getting one. OR conversely getting a mail-in ballot.
So excuse me while I don't buy any of this. I'm not too worried about millions of illegals voting or terrorists voting for McBush in order to keep up their recruiting numbers but to say they have NO OPTIONS once they've lost their I.D. is pure poppycock.
Democrats believe a significant number of their voters will not take the time, will not make the effort, are mentally unable to obtain a photo id and or might be irrationally scared from voting if a photo id is required. To but it in other words Democrats depend on the lazy, the irresponsible and the stupid voters who aren't going to bother with getting a photo id. The lazier, the more irresponsible and the dumber you are the more likely you don't already have a photo id. And apparently Democrats think if there is cheating, the cheating benefits Democrats.
You have to submit a social security number of driver's license at time of registration. Citizenship and identity verification are done at that time. Read the article for examples. You had nuns in Indiana who were prevented from voting. It's unnecessary.
My problem with the uproar over requiring people to produce photo IDs in order to vote is that there is no equal uproar over the fact that most states require you to have photo ID even if you are just walking the street. In this so-called "land of the free", a policeman can hold you in jail if you cannot prove who you are at any time. Until people start to show the same outrage for this ID requirement, any outrage over requiring an ID to vote is nothing more than spurious grandstanding.
I believe voting is at least as important as cashing a check, seeing a doctor or renting a hotel room. As an ID is required for all of these activities to reduce fraud I don't see how showing an ID at the polls is that big of a burden. ID's are inexpensive and easy to get. I have no doubt if those Nuns neaded a government ID to fly or cash a check they would have had one. They only had decades to obtain an ID. Oh the horror, the burden our system puts on people.
Our voting system is riddled with fraud. Everyone knows it and the Huffpost would loose a large number of it's columns if they stopped talking about it. For some reason though Liberals think it's an undue burden to require the same proof that is required when you open a savings account or buy a beer.
Basically those that fear showing a gov. ID when voting are making excuses for illegal aliens, the deceased or felons to be able to vote. That's their agenda.
Period.
There have been a HANDFUL of fraudulent voting attempts in the past few decades - NONE of which materially affected election results.
In CONTRAST there have been routine and regular efforts at VOTER SUPPRESSION - physical intimidation of minority voters, wholesale purging of minority voters from voting rolls (even servicemen serving abroad) and efforts to restrict voting by limiting machines or locating polls in hard to find and inaccessible locations. These efforts are all well documented and ALL have served to suppress Democratic voting in favor of Republicans
FRAUD in VOTE COUNTING has been a regular occurrence in recent elections as well - with some of the most blatant being the complete ABSENCE of any Presidential voting in certain Native American precincts in New Mexico (NO Presidential votes being recorded whatsoever despite votes in all other races). The issues with Diebold and the mismatch of results in Ohio compared to exit polls has never been addressed (despite the President of Diebold being a major Republican contributor who made some interesting comments about guaranteeing election results.....)... Truth is Bush stole 2000 and 2004 but nobody wants to even admit the possibility - to do so would be to admit that our Democracy is a fraud.
HOW ABOUT WE MAKE SURE EVERYONE GETS TO VOTE AND THEIR VOTES ARE COUNTED ACCURATELY?!?!?!?!
As Stalin said - it doesn't matter WHO is voting as long as you control who COUNTS the votes.
Neither precludes the other. Thanks for playing.
Duh....ALL Americans have Social Security Numbers. How hard is it to have a photo ID? You DO know that drivers licenses are photo IDs? If you're disabled, no longer have a drivers licenses, whatever - you can get a photo ID and it's FREE in the state of Indiana if you can't afford one, and there are ways of assisting people getting to the place where the IDs are made, or they make arrangements to come to your house. There is NO excuse for not having a picture ID.
Photo ID is also about NATIONAL SECURITY. Don't you people realize how many illegal aliens fraudulently vote in this country? Where are your brains????
I don't believe you can register to vote without a social security number or a driver's license number, so citizenship and identity verification is done at the time of registration. Requiring a photo at time of voting is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. People simple don't go to the polls to find that someone else has voted in their place.
It's voter suppression. Now sanctioned by our friendly neighborhood Extreme Court.
Who cares if you have to write in your social security number? You don't have to produce the card only the number. What's your point? You have to have a social security number now from the moment you are born. Every AMERICAN has one so how is this a hardship?
Excuses, Excuses, Excuses.
The more you talk about why we shouldn't have an id law the more the ground your argument stands on collapses.
No, I don't know - how many illegal aliens fraudulently vote in this country?
I was born in Florida, and needed a copy of my birth certificate to take a cruise, charged $18 on my card and boom, had my birth certificate in about 2 weeks. Not that difficult. Yes it takes time, but I think everyone knows that November are the next elections for most of us, and most of us knew when our primary elections were months ahead of time.
I have lived in 3 different states in the past 2 1/2 years, and I have a voters registration for all 3, so I could theoretically vote in Pittsburgh, PA at 7am, drive to Arlington, VA by noon, and up to Atlantic City, NJ by 4 pm, vote at all 3 and be home before the polls close in California to see the results. Would I do that? No, but each state wouldn't know.
The reason nobody is ever caught is becasue it is nearly impossible to catch people. If someone dies and someone else shows up, who would know? If 100,000 people voted illegally in each election that is less than 1/10th of 1% of the national presidential election. Just because 10 people are caught doesn't mean it doesn't happen more often. It is just hard to prove
What's maddening about this is that the Supreme Court is perfectly willing to require ID as if it's addressing some election integrity issue—as if—but it is perfectly willing to stop counting votes in the state of Florida. Nothing is done about caging, purging, intimidation, throwing out valid registrations, DRE hacking. Nothing. It's hard to take this "effort" seriously when it's clear that Republicans have no interest in protecting the integrity of our elections.
BINGO!
I heard that same argument being made on NPR and thought, "You look at the date on the death certificate, duh!". In these days of computers how difficult is that? Voting in the name of dead people would have to be the most expensive, time consuming, most likely to get caught way of committing voter fraud. In order to cast 20 fraudulent votes you'd have to have multiple people, and each vote is a opportunity to get busted. Hardly seems worth it. In your example, who'd want to drive 500 miles to cast 2 fraudulent votes?
Now fraudulent absentee ballots, that seem more doable. Or the republican way of 'accidentally' purging valid voters and hoping they don't make the effort to contest them,.
Unless the state is being run by stupid Republicans, it is very easy to check the voter rolls against the recently deceased and remove those names. The whole dead people voting is an urban myth.
I've got to call bullshit on this one.
Louisiana is known for it's deceased voters and it's hardly a Republican state.
Reference please. How many people in the state of LA have been prosecuted for deceased voters? Extra points if it happened in the last 20 years.
It sounds like MO's got a few messed up laws. Are these examples the exceptions or the rule? What is the estimated percentage of LEGAL voters being denied voting rights?
Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com
i totally support having IDs - the right to vote is not being taken away - if anything, because it decreases the opportunity for people to defraud polling places by having a proper ID, it can amplify our rights as citizens to cast a vote.
i feel for the people who will have difficulty and inconvenience getting their paperwork together to obtain the proper government-issued ID - but come on, it's not like people are getting ambushed by insurgents on their way to City Hall to obtain their paperwork.
freedom is a privilege and a right that must be exercised, and the gov't. must assist those who have special needs or circumstances, but i still wholeheartedly agree with the gov't. ID requirement.
i am thoroughly pissed however, that certain ex-convicts lose their right to vote, period. what's up with THAT?
My state, Oregon, allows people to obtain photo IDs at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles solely for the purpose of providing them with a photo ID, not just for driver's licenses. I think one has to provide proof of one's residency rather than proof of one's citizenship so this gets around some of the situations Secretary Carnahan mentions. I don't how many other states provide this service.
This was an absolutely excellent post on a serious problem. Even before November more states besides Indiana will try to put the SCOTUS ruling into effect. I have e-mailed the DNC that this should be a top priority of the summer, providing all of our Democrats who have heretofore been accepted as legal voters with photo IDs.
Oh wait, that's also how you get registered to vote in Oregon, i.e., you show proof of residency, not citizenship.
Posted May 9, 2008 | 02:59 PM (EST)