Third Party & Independents Archives

Arizona Voter-ID Law Stands

The Supreme Court issued its first significant ruling of the term last Friday, deciding unanimously that Arizona could put its new voter-ID rules into effect for the Nov. 7 election. The law states that voters must present proof of citizenship when registering to vote and identification when they cast their ballots, despite claims that Proposition 200 — approved by Arizonian voters in 2004 — is unfair to minorities.

A similar law was struck down in Georgia by a lower court not too long ago, one that bought the claim that requiring proof of citizenship is burdensome to minorities.

Friday's ruling however is unlikely to affect nation-wide election law, as the decision was not based on the legality of such a law but instead on the time-restrictions Arizona faces before heading to the polls.

"Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without any injunction suspending the voter identification rules," the court said in its unsigned opinion.

If the Supreme Court ever does decide on the merits of such laws that restrict voters from casting a ballot without proof of identification, I am confident that the Roberts-led group with Samuel Alito in his first full term will rightfully uphold them as constitutional.

Democrats argue that requiring a photo-ID is tantamount to racial discrimination because poor minorities supposedly have a hard time acquiring the needed identification. Never mind that you can get one at no cost if you lack the financial means, and in some cases the district in which you reside will provide free transportation to get you that ID.

There may be some truth to the notion that these initiatives to restrict voting (almost exclusively by Republicans) is done to keep Democratic-voting minorities away from the polls, but to say it's unfair to require everyone to possess a photo-ID because black people don't have the resources to get one is insulting.

The real reason why these laws must be in place nationwide is simply to prevent voter fraud. As the nation awaits an upcoming election that can significantly alter the makeup of Congress, it is imperative that the results are as legitimate as possible lest we repeat the 2000 hangover.

In Arizona's case, Proposition 200 was designed to prevent illegal aliens from voting. Considering that illegal aliens shouldn't even be in this country in the first place, keeping them away from the polls is the logical conclusion to this scenario.

Voting in a federal election is a privilege bestowed upon American citizens who wish to exercise the greatest freedom afforded to them. It should not be cheapened by political activists who are afraid people won't show up to vote because they don't have a measly ID card.

Posted by Scottie at October 21, 2006 4:15 PM
Comments
Comment #189468
Never mind that you can get one at no cost if you lack the financial means, and in some cases the district in which you reside will provide free transportation to get you that ID.

Is that just in Arizona? I suspect that these things differ from state to state.

Why would you be insulted by anyone or any organization wanting to make sure that all eligible voters can vote? And although it applies to poor people regardless of color, surely it has and may now affect black people more than other ethnicities?

I agree that some form of voter ID should be required, I don’t want non-citizens voting. But lets make it available to everyone across the board. ID should be freely available to everyone.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 21, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #189469

“The real reason why these laws must be in place nationwide is simply to prevent voter fraud. As the nation awaits an upcoming election that can significantly alter the makeup of Congress, it is imperative that the results are as legitimate as possible lest we repeat the 2000 hangover.”

These laws are unmitigated bullsh*t. Instead of making voting as easy as possible for as many people as possible, state governments are acting on problems that are miniscule or non-existant.
There are no indications of large-scale voter fraud going on—it is a canard to assail minority voters. Period.


And now alot of the country is voting on electronic machinery made by partisan computer companies that have been demonstrably susceptable to hacking and manipulation.

This is unmitigated nonsense. Not to mention the dumping of thousands of voters off the rolls before election day for reasons both illegal and partisan.

Instead of erroring on the side of caution regarding a citizen’s most sacred duty, there is continued drag on the voting process. And some people need to be in jail—and it’s not the people trying to vote!!

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #189472

Tim:

I didn’t mention the machines so I wouldn’t have my post deleted for not complying with Watchblog rules :)

The machines are a travesty and there will be many problems in this next election is my prediction, unless the machines are “fixed” to hide the problems.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 21, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #189474

Womanmarine:

Yes, I think there will be problems as well. There always is. But some problems are ‘built in’ by people who’s only mission this election is to make sure certain people’s votes don’t count.

If they can crystalize it in an unconstitutional law, so much the better.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #189476

It boils down to this. You cannot run a democracy with wide open borders to the world’s populations and NOT demand proof of citizenship for voting.

With Hezbollah crossing our Mexican border and Lebanese in Detroit raising large illegal funds, do we really want to give them our vote, as well.

Get real! It is time for a national ID to be used for public transportation, voting, school enrollment, employment. BUT, we absolutely must insure the checks and balances be levied in our laws to insure crooked government officials DO NOT abuse our national ID system. And those checks and balances MUST accompany the ID system, meaning it is wrong and should demand citizen’s revolt if our government attempts to tag us like cattle without the safeguards and checks in place FIRST!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 21, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #189479

David:

BUT, we absolutely must insure the checks and balances be levied in our laws to insure crooked government officials DO NOT abuse our national ID system.

Oh, you mean like the checks and balances that are not being observed by Congress and our Lawbreaker-in-chief? We put another layer of bureaucratic horse manure on the voting process and we’ll be down to %35 voter participation.

The onus is no longer on the voter to prove anything, as far as I’m concerned. The government and it’s agents are trying to undermine democracy, not the people. The burden of proof is on the government to prove they can run a voting system that works.


With the shambles they made out of HAVA, the uncounted provisional ballots, the dumping of voters illegally off of voter rolls, voters don’t need to prove anything. The government needs to prove that this is still a democracy.

If it isn’t, then voting is theater—just like the government itself.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #189481

David:

“It boils down to this. You cannot run a democracy with wide open borders to the world’s populations and NOT demand proof of citizenship for voting.”

With the way elections have been run (or scammed) the last three elections, it is debatable if what we are witnessing is a democracy.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree with your statement. After the crap that was pulled in 2000, 2002, and 2004, I think it’s up to government to pass a right-to-vote ammendment to the Constitution and take away voting entirely from the states—Kenneth Blackwell and Katherine Harris makes a mockery of the entire enterprise. Make it a felony to do anything to deter, obstruct or impede anyone’s right to vote, with severe penalties for doing so. We’re either serious about protecting the right to vote or we aren’t. And get rid of those damn electonic Republican machines.

Then we can talk about a national ID. Anything else is the cart-befoe-the-horse. I am sick and tired of the authoritarian Right constantly blaming the victims of their hysteria. We have gone 200 years without a voter ID—that all of the sudden it’s imperative smacks of another elaborate shell-game to disenfranchise the people.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #189485
Get real! It is time for a national ID to be used for public transportation, voting, school enrollment, employment. BUT, we absolutely must insure the checks and balances be levied in our laws to insure crooked government officials DO NOT abuse our national ID system. And those checks and balances MUST accompany the ID system, meaning it is wrong and should demand citizen’s revolt if our government attempts to tag us like cattle without the safeguards and checks in place FIRST!

Accurate IDentification is important for a lot of things, including voting.

All those excuses against identification are lame, lame, lame.

We all know Democrats and Republicans want votes and cheap labor.

For example, a Polling Station poll asked:

President Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you agree with the President?

N = 9,174 Margin of Error +/- 1.0%
________ Yes ______ No _______ Undecided
Dem ____ 27.6% ____ 60.1% ____ 12.3%
Ind ____ 16.5% ____ 72.5% ____ 11.0%
Rep ____ 10.9% ____ 81.3% ____ 7.8%
Overall Percentages:
18.4% believe amnesty is a good idea.
71.2% do not believe amnesty is a good idea.
10.4% were undecided.

So, the voters are clearly united against the idea of giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

If most voters are against amnesty, do you think any of them want illegal aliens also voting in our elections?

Still, Congress ignores the people, because Democrats and Republicans want votes and cheap labor (an underpaid, underlcass to exploit). Corporations want cheap labor and politicians are in the pockets of the corporations. There is a clear disconnect between the politicians and the voters. That poll has been asked many times in many different ways and, and the answer is still the same.

So, which party engages in the MOST voter fraud? Why wasn’t Rep. John Conyers more interested in getting to the bottom of the wide-spread voter fraud in Ohio and some other states? Is it because Rep. John Conyers, himself, has the 3rd from the worst record for even showing up to vote himself, and voting isn’t really very important to him, or is it because Democrats were behind most of the voter fraud?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #189490

d.a.n.:

This argument that illegal aliens are lining up at voting booths is horsesh*t. What illegal alien in their right mind is going to be anywhere near a bunch of white folks with suits on election day? A person “on the run” doesn’t want anything to do with large groups of officials of any sort. It defies logic.

You know one of the reasons why I know this is a made-up issue by the Right? With their big media megaphone they would be trumpeting any proof of large-scale (or even medium-scale) fraud at the top of their lungs. They don’t have any proof, so they prevaricate, concoct, and lie.

We have real problemswith our clap-trap, horse-and-buggy voting system in this country. To focus on a non-problem when we’re staring at voting machines that don’t work properly and can disinfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters with a computer stroke is totally ludicrous.

This is a cart before the horse argument. Get a voting system that works, by non-partisan officials. Voter ID with a corrupted system is like a bridge to nowhere—with similar results.

It also smacks of Orwellian miasma. I’m not willing to give this polluted government any more information, thank you. It’s run by thugs, miscreants, and Right-wing gestapo types with no consideration of or intention to abide by the Constitution or due process. They’ve proved it over and over again. Halliburton isn’t building secret detention centers for it’s financial health. Habeaus corpus is gone, the NSA is spying without warrants, the government is now torturing within the law. It’s government by and for the plutocrats, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit still for it. F*ck ID cards!

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #189492

Tim Crow,

So you don’t think illegal aliens are voting?
I never said the numbers were large (yet).
But it is happening.
Chicago protects large nubmers of illegal aliens.
With some elections as close as some we have seen, it is no laughing matter.

An ID system is a bad idea if government is corrupt.

And it is … now.

We first, have to clean it up.

Then, IDentification will make sense.

We use IDentification for many things.
For it to be accurate and reliable is important.

But, first things first.
Make government responsible and accountable, first.

Then, we should look at biometrics.
Why?
Because that will be the most reliable method.
ID Cards are easy to falisfy.
Biometrics are not.
Think it’s far fetched?
Banks will provide it first (as a service).
It will help reduce the fastest growing crime in America … IDentity theft.

IDentification and security is important and biometrics will become increasingly important.

But, if government is SO corrupt (as now), I wouldn’t trust it either. We, first, have to get this corrupt government under control. Voters can do that anytime they are ready. Just stop re-electing irresponsible, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #189493
Tim Crow wrote: This argument that illegal aliens are lining up at voting booths is horsesh*t.
Where did I EVER say that? Illegal aliens are voting in our elections.

BTW, the right (Republicans) want cheap labor.

I’m not sure what it is that set you off, but I simply stating the facts. Illegal aliens ARE voting in our elections. I’m don’t know the magnitude, but check out these numbers … 29% of all prisoners (nation-wide) are illegal aliens.
32% to 46% of all illegal aliens recieve welfare.
Why? Because lots of states do NOT even require ANY identifcation.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #189496

“But, if government is SO corrupt (as now), I wouldn’t trust it either. We, first, have to get this corrupt government under control. “

Yeah. Well… guess which will come first, a non-corrupt government, or a national ID card?

And once it’s established, try getting it changed or rescinded. You seem to think getting habeas corpus back will be a snap, once the Dems are in power. Don’t you believe it. SCOTUS can declare it unconstitutional—yet there’s always some bureaucrat in some basement somewhere who hasn’t gotten the word: like Dick Cheney.

The government jealously guards what it has taken—and that is why this country is in serious trouble. We have dabbled with eliminating habeas corpus, the foundation of our freedoms; how much easier will it be to do it again when there’s another terrorist incident and, say, 10,000 are dead? It seems we can’t jettison our freedoms quickly enough in this day and age for some bogus safety. Guess what, folks? There is no safety. Life’s a gamble. We can be prudent, plan for difficulties, and count on each other when things get rough. That’s it.

This topic has struck a nerve, and I’m surprised I am being this emphatic. I’m starting to sound like some paranoid survivalist in his bunker in northern Idaho. But it took a fascist Bush administration and a rubberstamp Congress to get me to this point.

I now trust the government for just about… nothing.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #189497

d.a.n.:

“Illegal aliens ARE voting in our elections. “

Do they offset the number of votes dumped by partisan Republican election officials in Florida, Ohio and New Mexico? The number of votes voided by a corrupted electronic system touted by Republican-friendly vote machine companies?

I am willing to be corrected on this—where’s this overwhelming proof that illegal aliens are voting in large numbers around the country?

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #189498
Then, we should look at biometrics. Why? Because that will be the most reliable method. ID Cards are easy to falisfy. Biometrics are not. Think it’s far fetched? Banks will provide it first (as a service). It will help reduce the fastest growing crime in America … IDentity theft.

Do I think it’s far-fetched? Hell, no—and if the Right has it’s way, we’ll all have barcodes tattooed on our foreheads to keep track of everybody, including the ‘trouble-makers’.

It will be done rationally, step by step— ‘we’re just combating ID theft’, ‘We’re just protecting your safety and rights’, ‘Never fear, you’re government is looking after you—all the time.’

Anybody who doesn’t have a problem with that kind of loss of privacy and invasion of individual liberty probably thinks Fox News is unbiased and truthful. And will willingly give it all up just to make Big Brother happy.

Id theft is a problem—errosion of human liberty and freedom is a much bigger, a more sinister, problem. We are not immune from fascism.

It’s funny what people will be talked into giving up for the flimsiest of reasons. And we’re going to clean up government with capitalism as the state religion? Hah!

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #189503

I think we’re missing something here: you have to register to vote first, and then you have to sign in at your district in order to vote. With a DL and a SSN required, you shouldn’t have any problem weeding out illegal immigrants or false voters.

Let’s be clear on something: Any strategy, Democrat or Republican, that focuses on pre-emptively removing voters from the roll, rather than winning on the merits of the candidates is an affront to Democracy. Competition in real terms is more important that competition in terms of whose ambitions are sought more unscrupulously.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #189504

Stephen:

“Any strategy, Democrat or Republican, that focuses on pre-emptively removing voters from the roll, rather than winning on the merits of the candidates is an affront to Democracy. “

Give the man a cigar!

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #189506

Tim, flip flop much?

You agree with Stephen that an ID should be required but before you were saying we shouldn’t be requiring one?

I think I’m a big confused, do you agree with a photo ID to be presented before someone votes or not?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 21, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #189510

“I think I’m a big confused, do you agree with a photo ID to be presented before someone votes or not?”


There are plenty of ways to ascertain ID now—SS card, Driver’s liscense, a fuel bill, whatever. In other words, a specifically concocted one that is difficult for some people to obtain, I have a problem with—like what they were trying to pull in Georgia, and has been ruled unconstitutional.

A seperate national ID card, I have a problem with.

I flipflop about as much as you do, by the way. And most of the time, you’re very confused, in a Right-wing, libertarian sort of way. Evidently, that can’t be helped.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #189515

How am I a confused libertarian again? Oh yeah, you can never provide any actual points but you’ve floated that line before.

I’m against a national ID card as well, do you even know my position on this issue or are you assuming again?

In Indiana we have a vote ID law that requires only that a state-issued photo ID be presented when someone votes. Most people register to vote these days at the BMV, they give state IDs there, there are a lot of them, etc. If someone doesn’t have them they just can’t vote, they don’t go to jail. IE, it is not a ‘state required’ id.

So tell me, are you for or against that law?

Posted by: rhinehold at October 21, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #189517

BTW, David Remer is what I think we could agree with as being ‘non-right-wing’ and he even agrees to showing a photo-ID when you vote, so to be honest I’m very curious why you are so dead against it, why you see it as a sign of all things evil.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 21, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #189519

The argument that voting should be as easy and as effortless as possible to enable the maximum number of people to vote is valid in theory, but in practice it also allows people to vote multiple times. It allows the dead to vote. It allows pets and houseplants to vote. Who knew that the dead, pets and houseplants were so overwhelmingly Democratic?

The Voter ID card is a good first step, but there ought to also be some very substantial monetary and criminal punishment for those found guilty of perpetuating election fraud.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 21, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #189520

Rhinehold:

Would you agree that having 50 centers to disperse a voter ID in a state with well over 100 counties might cause a hardship for some people? That the capitol of Atlanta has no center to get said ID?

The devil is in the details. I am not sure any ID program can be administered in a fair way by political partisans.

I still think this a non-issue. When I see some concern for compromised voting machines with opaque proprietary software, a concern for partisan hacks overseeing state election returns, a concern for obvious voter suppression in minority precincts, then we can discuss a voter ID card that doesn’t exclude people.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 21, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #189531

Tim, I’m still not sure why you are against a state-issues photo ID card to vote. Is it unreasonable to expect that when you go to vote that you are able to prove you are who you say you are? Isn’t that a requirement to ensure that everyone who votes is why they say they are?

We already know that political parties in the past have used voter ID fraud in order to vote, pretending to be someone else to vote, using hundreds of people to say they are someone who lives in a specific district then sending those same people to another district to say they are other people, etc? This could really throw an election.

In order for people to trust election results, don’t we need to ensure that people are voting once and are who they say they are, it seems such a basic issue, one that should be addressed BEFORE worrying about a company being manipulated by the tri-lateral commission to rig the election results (which is already illegal, I gather), don’t you think?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 21, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #189532
then we can discuss a voter ID card that doesn’t exclude people

Hell, some people probably don’t register to vote either so they can’t vote. They’re being excluded so why do we bother making them register???

That’s unfair! End voter registration!

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 21, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #189541

Tim Crow

There are no indications of large-scale voter fraud going on—

With the way elections have been run (or scammed) the last three elections,

Which is it? Is there wide spread fraud or not?


That the capitol of Atlanta has no center to get said ID?

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There’s a drivers license office at 445 Capitol Ave. SE. And a Google of drivers license offices in Metro Atlanta shows that NOONE in Atlanta is more than 8 miles from a drivers license office. And I’m sure MARTA either goes right by or within a block or two of every one of them.
Also Georgia will issue a free ID card to anyone free of charge. And in Georgia the Drivers License offices issue state ID cards.


The fact is most miniorities allready have either a state issued picture ID card or a drivers license. So where’s the problem with making folks prove they’re who they say they are before they can vote?

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 22, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #189542
Tim Crow wrote: d.a.n.: Do they offset the number of votes dumped by partisan Republican election officials in Florida, Ohio and New Mexico? The number of votes voided by a corrupted electronic system touted by Republican-friendly vote machine companies?
That’s a separate issue. There are many forms of voter fraud. So? How does that diminish the fact that illegal aliens are voting in our elections?
I am willing to be corrected on this—where’s this overwhelming proof that illegal aliens are voting in large numbers around the country?
Tim Crow, First of all, I have never said illegal aliens were voting in large numbers around the country. You said that. Not me. I simply said it is happening, and that is a fact.
Tim Crow wrote: This argument that illegal aliens are lining up at voting booths is horsesh*t. What illegal alien in their right mind is going to be anywhere near a bunch of white folks with suits on election day?
Illegal aliens are voting in our elections. That is simply a fact. The magnitude is unknown, but in close elections, it can be a big problem.
  • The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch (www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15694) reported that an illegal alien, Nuradin Abdi, the suspected shopping mall bomb plotter from Somalia, was registered to vote in the battleground state of Ohio …
  • In the battleground state of Florida, indicted terror suspect Sami Al-Arian illegally cast his ballot in a Tampa referendum in 1994 while his citizenship application was pending.
  • … at least 8 of the 19 11-Sept-2001 hijackers were eligible to vote in Virginia or Florida while they plotted to kill Americans.
  • Democrats at the state and federal levels have aggressively courted the illegal alien swing vote. (I’ve seen that in Dallas, TX).
  • Susan Tully, midwestern field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, became alarmed when she realized that the deputy registrar of voters in Racine, Wisconsin, was an illegal alien.
  • the illegal alien who assassinated the Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio was registered to vote in San Pedro, California (twice).
  • In Clinton’s 1996 re-election and again in Al Gore’s 2000 run for the White House, there were reports of widespread voter fraud led by the DNC. Thousands of dead-man votes, felony votes, duplicate votes, and more than a million illegal aliens rubber stamped and registered to vote weeks before Election Day, and bused to the polls by the DNC. The FBI investigated wide spread irregularities in “get out the vote” efforts led by the Democratic Party. Incidents of multiple voter registration cards being filed using the same address, or addresses that don’t exist at all, or by people apparently unaware that their names have already appeared in the obituaries.
  • In California, former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens.

Part of the problem is that only a fraction of the states (about 17) require voter identification. Without voter IDentification, what’s to keep anyone (including U.S. citizens) from voting more than once?

The year 2000 election was decided in Florida by less than 600 votes. Without any way to detect voter fraud, what are the odds that we can catch most incidents of voter fraud? When elections are so close, it becomes very important that the vote count is accurate as possible.

Tim Crow,
Nobody knows the magnitude of the problem, but it exists and there are definitely illegal aliens voting in our state and federal elections.

If government could be trusted, biometrics could solve a lot of these problems. However, I’m not too sure our current, corrupt, elitist, increasingly tyrannical government can be trusted. However, IDentity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in America, because we have no good IDentification system. A good biometric system would use three (or more) biometrics (e.g. iris, finger-print, and hand-geometry) and a password. Then, people don’t need ID cards. People are their ID card.

Neocon Pilsner wrote: The argument that voting should be as easy and as effortless as possible to enable the maximum number of people to vote is valid in theory, but in practice it also allows people to vote multiple times. It allows the dead to vote. It allows pets and houseplants to vote. Who knew that the dead, pets and houseplants were so overwhelmingly Democratic?
Funny! So, is most of the voter fraud by the Democrats or Republicans?
Neocon Pilsner wrote: The Voter ID card is a good first step, but there ought to also be some very substantial monetary and criminal punishment for those found guilty of perpetuating election fraud.
Something is needed. Currently, most states don’t require voter IDentification. Unless the election is a landslide, it’s not hard to throw an election. The 2000 Presidential election was decided by only a few hundred votes in Florida. Was that an accurate count? How many voters were fraudulent? I’d bet there were some. We’ll probably never get voter fraud to 0% , but there’s a lot of room for improvement, and the problem is bad in some states. Many people in Ohio no longer think they can get an accurate vote-count after what happened in 2004.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2006 12:52 AM
    Comment #189545

    Fallacy: everyone in America is entitled to vote.

    From the draft of the Constitution to this day, it has never been true that everyone in America is entitled to vote.

    True Fact: Voters in America have always been required to meet minimum criteria to exercise their qualified right to vote. Such as being a citizen, or over 21, or over 18 years of age.

    For those who meet legal requirements, voting is a right. For those who don’t meet those requirements, voting has never even been a privilege prior to meeting the requirements.

    So, given the fact that it has never been true that everyone in America SHOULD be allowed to vote, logic dictates that some method of accurately assessing whether those who show up to vote are QUALIFIED and NOT QUALIFIED to vote, is consistent with our history, our Constitution, and even our current requirements in most, if not all states, to establish one’s identity before being permitted to vote.

    A voter ID is nothing more than certification that one has met the minimum requirements for voting in their state.

    What I find inordinately wasteful and inefficient is the idea that 50 states all have their own individual standards and methods for deciding who is allowed to vote and who is not, where they vote and where they can’t, and how and when the register and vote. In these matters, it appears to me a national standard should be adopted that insures maximum efficiency, minimal cost, and maximum accountability for All American voters and taxpayers.

    However, the Constitution stands in the way of the federal government mandating such a national standard regarding these issues as it relegates choice over these matters to the individual states.

    Therefore, the route to take is for the federal government to establish a national standard that will appeal to a majority of states and which most will sign on to, voluntarily for the sake of efficiency, cost effectiveness, and fairness. Over time, the other states will volunteer to join the standard as well, for the same reasons, as their citizens learn of its benefits enjoyed by citizens of other states.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at October 22, 2006 1:12 AM
    Comment #189580

    Tim Crow — fantastic posts!!! I couldn’t possibly agree more with every single thing you’ve written in this thread.
    You too, womanmarine.

    “I am willing to be corrected on this—where’s this overwhelming proof that illegal aliens are voting in large numbers around the country?”

    There is no overwhelming proof of voter fraud, although there is a mountain of proof of election systems fraud.
    Report refutes fraud at poll sites
    Here is the pdf link to the report.

    Quote from the article:

    The bipartisan report by two consultants to the election commission casts doubt on the problem those laws are intended to address. “There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, ‘dead’ voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters,” the report says.

    “With the shambles they made out of HAVA”

    HAVA’s purpose was never to Help America Vote. It’s only purpose was to force the states to mandatorily switch to electronic voting machines with all their many egregious problems, suspicious features and software, unreliabiliy, and unaccountability on behalf of the Republican owners of those voting machine companies.
    “Help America Vote Act” is a title just like “Patriot Act” or “Energy Task Force” or “Clear Skies Initiative” or “Healthy Forests Initiative.”

    Posted by: Adrienne at October 22, 2006 12:07 PM
    Comment #189602

    This is exactly why nothing (good) gets done anymore. Here we have an easy fix to possible abuse by making a simple requirement that a person show a photo ID when they vote. It’s easy, it’s simple and it makes sense. But those against it say ‘we shouldn’t do it because it’s not being abused that much’… Huh? If it’s abused once and it’s an easy fix doesn’t that make sense to fix it?

    What I want to know is how this is suppose to be unfair to minorities. Can someone please explain this moronic and nonsensical argument in a way that doesn’t make mince-meat of logical thought PLEASE?

    Posted by: Rhinehold at October 22, 2006 2:54 PM
    Comment #189623

    Rhinehold,

    Even if you get a reason (i.e. a CON) against requiring IDentificaiton of some kind, the PROs far outweight the CONs.

    I haven’t heard any convincing excuses against some sort of voter IDentification, and the excuse that ID disenfranchises the poor is not convincing either. There is ample time before any election to register or get some ID.

    Voter IDentification:

    PROs:
    (1) It prevents (or reduces) voter fraud and the ability for one person to vote more than once.
    (2) It prevents (or reduces) voting by illegal aliens.
    (3) A Voter Registration provides more time in advance of the election to verify IDentificiton. In Texas, it speeds up the voting process. Without it, other forms of IDentification are required.
    (4) Voter ID would, at the least, restore some minimal level of confidence in the system and correct most bureaucratic bumbling before a lot of invalid ballots are counted.
    (5) Helps avoid expensive and time consuming re-counts and disputes.
    (6) Confidence in an accurate vote can increase voter turn-out.
    (7) Perhaps, for voters that can not provide a valid form of IDentification, their name, address, a photo, and/or figerprint can be obtained?

    CONs:
    (1) It poses an inconvenience or potential disenfranchisement of the poor? (that’s sort of a lame excuse to begin with).

    What is more important?
    (a) being inconvenienced by getting some ID before voting?
    (b) or opening the doors wide-open to voter fraud due to no form of voter IDentificaiton?

    Those that are too inconvenienced to get a Voter ID or take the time to register have opted out by choice. It’s a very minimal requirement.

    P.S. Which party is usually more guilty of voter fraud? Democrats or Republicans?

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2006 5:56 PM
    Comment #189637

    I am not sure why people think that the voter ID wouldn’t simply be obtained illegally.

    Considering that people enter this nation illegally, obtain other documents illegally, collect government services and the current forms of ID illegally, I just don’t see that one more card will stop them.

    Posted by: Wulf at October 22, 2006 8:42 PM
    Comment #189645

    Wulf,
    You are absolutely correct.
    Biometrics could make IDentification more reliable, but government is so incompetent and corrupt, it seems unlikely any time soon.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2006 10:16 PM
    Comment #189655

    Wulf and d.a.n, the number of fake ID’s required to insure an election outcome, would be no easy thing to hide overtime. And if the penalties for fabricating fake ID’s were made extreme, the costs associated with them would more likely become traceable, raising the risk of making them, even greater.

    Hell, our own money is not counterfeit proof, but, there aren’t counterfeit cottage industries today like there were back in the 30’s and 40’s either.

    Biometrics is likely where we need to go. Showing up with someone else’s eyeball or finger is a bit conspicuous, and would carry a huge liability. But, the cost of issuance needs to be free to any who qualify for the ID at the time of issuance. Otherwise, you just recreate the unconstitutional poll tax.

    I see the cost of of such an ID system is being amongst the most worthy items to be included in our national budget. Our fair and free elections and democracy are worth that investment, don’t you think?

    Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2006 3:20 AM
    Comment #189663

    Papers please!

    With a government that is already headed down the path towards totalitarianism, national identity papers are another step down that road.

    At a time when the citizens have already lost control of their government, many citizens seem determined to help the government along the path.

    What comes after a national I.D.? Travel restrictions to protect us from terrorists running amok throughout the countrty?

    Regain control of your government first!

    Posted by: jlw at October 23, 2006 9:42 AM
    Comment #189674


    One tainted voting machine or one crooked politician like Ken Blackwell, in Ohio, can produce more voter fraud than all the fraudulent individual voters in the nation.

    Posted by: jlw at October 23, 2006 10:32 AM
    Comment #189686

    For those of you espousing biometrics because they are hard to falsify; it has been known for years that fingerprint and retinal scans can both be confused/falsified.

    Posted by: SirisC at October 23, 2006 11:40 AM
    Comment #189688

    that should be iris scans, I haven’t heard much in the way of defeating retinal scans.

    Posted by: SirisC at October 23, 2006 11:56 AM
    Comment #189706

    “At a time when the citizens have already lost control of their government, many citizens seem determined to help the government along the path”

    Your right, we have lost control of our govt and its time to fight back.
    To arms! To arms! Oh wait, we have to have “papers” to exercise that right now.
    Nevermind.

    I guess, if you need “papers” to prove your not a criminal, then having “papers” to prove your an American isn’t so bad either.

    Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2006 3:23 PM
    Comment #189711


    All good, law abiding citizens should think of the government as their Big Brother who only wants to protect them from the evils of the World.

    Posted by: jlw at October 23, 2006 4:00 PM
    Comment #189778

    With no form of ID, how do you keep anyone from voting more than once?
    With no form of ID, how do you keep illegal aliens from voting?
    Voter fraud exists. How do you propose to eliminate it without some form of IDentification?
    No doubt government is corrupt, but if we can’t get an accurate vote count soon, it’s going to get much worse. All the more reason for voters to make it a landslide anti-incumbent vote?
    : )

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2006 7:50 PM
    Comment #189816

    Still hearing the same old fearmongering, no one is suggesting a national ID card (though we do have one now and I am not happy about it) and no one is suggesting that you have your ID on you at any time other than to vote. Papers please? You do a disservice to the people who actually had to live through that kind of oppression.

    All that is being discussed with this article and in these laws are making sure that a person present a picture ID WHEN THEY VOTE so we know they are who they say they are.

    And no one has yet to provide a single cogent example of how and why this is considered ‘unfair’ to anyone or even a bad thing to do.

    Posted by: Rhinehold at October 23, 2006 11:23 PM
    Comment #189823


    Rhinehold: Before you accuse me of doing a disservice to those who had to actually live under those conditions, perhaps we should ask some of them if they thought it could happen in their country before it actually did.

    Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 12:08 AM
    Comment #189825

    jlw, I’m not saying that it’s not something to be concerned about and fight against. But *THIS* case is not it. It has nothing to do with thinking or not thinking it can happen here, it has to do with fighting the fight when it is needed, not fighting against sensible legislation when it has nothing to do with the concern.

    Posted by: Rhinehold at October 24, 2006 12:25 AM
    Comment #189861


    I will acquiesce on the national I.D. because that is not where the problem lies.

    My concern is that soon technology will allow the corporations and their subsidiary, the federal government, the ability to monitor every American citizen 24 hours a day. Once this technology is perfected into a working system, there will be no revolution even if the People decided to do so. You can’t have a revolution without leaders.

    Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 9:20 AM
    Comment #190065
    With no form of ID, how do you keep anyone from voting more than once?

    Why d.a.n don’t ya know that everyone is honest and no one would think of stuffing the ballot box.
    And the Pope is Jewish.

    With no form of ID, how do you keep illegal aliens from voting?

    Ya mean that illegals would actually vote in our elections? I’m shocked! NOT!

    Voter fraud exists. How do you propose to eliminate it without some form of IDentification?

    We can’t. How do ya think the Democrats are gonna get control of Congress without voter fraud? And how do ya expect the Republican to keep control of Congress without it?

    I won’t stand in the way of anyone that has the right to vote. But they better be able to prove they’re who they say they are.
    In fact I’ll even drive them to the polls. And have, knowing they ain’t going to vote the way I’m going to. That’s their right and I respect that.
    How many of y’all that oppose ID to vote would drive someone to the polls that you know ain’t going vote the way your gonna?

    Posted by: Ron Brown at October 25, 2006 12:01 AM
    Comment #191409
    Under normal circumstances, I would agree with your statement. After the crap that was pulled in 2000, 2002, and 2004, I think it’s up to government to pass a right-to-vote ammendment to the Constitution

    Tim,

    I agree with you 100%. Considering Gore only wanted to recount portions of the votes in the most liberal parts of Florida and John Kerry tried to block counting of absentee votes cast by our men and women in uniform.

    Posted by: Kirk at October 30, 2006 2:11 AM
    Post a comment