Third Party & Independents Archives

Voter Identification Laws

The Supreme Court has recently decided that they will hear a case challenging an Indiana state law that requires potential voters to show proof of identification before being able to cast their votes. I am not sure how I feel about this.

Participation in our democratic system of government by way of voting for our representatives in government is widely considered to be one of the most fundamental, if not the most fundamental, of our rights as Americans. With this in mind, it is my first inkling to disagree with the law and agree that it should be struck down... after all, if we have the right to vote, why should we have to show government issued I.D. to exercise that right? Do we have to show I.D. before freely speaking our mind? Or deciding which religion to settle upon? Or buying a firearm? Uh... maybe that last one isn't a good example... but you get my point.

On the other hand, Florida 2000 was a mess with less than 600 votes deciding the presidency among allegations of voter fraud and intimidation. With that in mind, what is the harm in requiring citizens to brandish identification before casting their vote? This law will help to reassure the people of Indiana that their outcomes are fair and decided by those who are eligible to vote. Seems fair enough...

Two valid points.

There are a few bits in the attached article I would like to address...

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee responded cautiously to the court's announcement. "This is another step to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote will have that right and their vote will count."

Uummm... actually, that is incorrect. It would not ensure that every citizen that is eligible to vote can, but rather, just the opposite. If an eligible citizen does not have proper, approved government identification, their right to vote would not, under this law, be recognized. The quoted statement is absolutely false.

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip and highest ranking black member of Congress, added that "combatting voting fraud is best addressed through measures that modernize our voting technologies and ensure transparency in our election system, not by enacting laws that deter minorities and others from casting their votes."

Mr. Clyburn is probably correct in his statement that there are better ways of combatting voter fraud, but I am very disappointed that he is playing the race card. This law, in and of itself, does not deter minorities, and the fact that so many who are against this law claim it does certainly does not make it so. Nowhere in the text of this law does it say that only minorities without proper I.D. cannot vote. We assume that blacks and hispanics have trouble getting identification, but where is there evidence of this? (And I am not just talking about Rev. Sharpton claiming as much.) I have never seen proof that monorities in the population of registered voters have a greater likelihood of not possessing proper identification. If someone does have this proof, please provide it.

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who heads the DNC Voting Rights Institute, likened voter ID requirements to a "modern-day poll tax" designed to disenfranchise black and poor voters.

Again... disappointed that Ms. Brazile is playing the race/class card. I am fairly positive that this law was not "designed" to disenfranchise anyone and that it really was designed simply to ensure that those who vote are eligible to do so. It is when we play politics like this to stir emotions that people lose track of the real issue being discussed. She does make a good point on one count, though...

I agree that this law is akin to a "modern day poll tax" to a point. I do not believe it was designed to be, but I do agree that the outcome of this law will be similar. The 24th ammendment to our constitution reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

An Indiana state identification card costs 13 bucks. This may not seem like much, and I am not about to make the claim that, within the population of registered voters, it is an undue hardship. But, by requiring eligible citizens to prove their identity in such a manner they are, in effect, requiring them to pay $13 to vote ($19.50 if their proof of I.D. is a driver's license). It may be upstream from the polling station, but it is there nonetheless. I cannot accept this.

If the state of Indiana (or any other state for that matter) wants to go down the road of requiring identification for eligible citizens to vote, they need to provide that identification free of charge. Anything less makes exercising our right to vote cost money, something the Constitution clearly forbids.

Posted by Doug Langworthy at September 26, 2007 3:45 PM
Comments
Comment #234455

Doug,

Thanks for addressing this topic but being an Indiana citizen I must point out one flaw.

Senate Enrolled Act No. 483 provides that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles will provide a state identification card without cost.

So there is no cost in getting the ID card required to vote. The argument has been to get that card you have to show proof of citizenship, etc. The cost of getting THOSE documents are there, but those are documents anyone should have access to or be able to obtain for a nominal fee.

Personally, I think it makes common sense that American citizens are the only ones we allow to vote in American elections, Indiana citizens in Indiana elections, etc. Perhaps I’m just missing something…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #234457

Rhinehold… interesting. I got the $13 bit directly from the Indiana DMV site (the link was provided in my post). Must not be updated?

Given that bit of information, you are probably correct.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 26, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #234458

Great post Doug…

I have absolutely no problem with having to show I.D. to vote, although I do agree with your assesment that those I.D.s should then be free (Although most “poor” people I know seem to have extra $ for cell phones and such…..just an observation).

What bothers me most, and I find offensive, are the race cards.
Especially what Ms.Brazile says when she feels the need to list both blacks and poor people????? What exactly is she saying here? I mean doesn’t poor people cover all of those with meager means? Is she insinuating that all blacks fall into this category???? That would be ludicris, I think simply stating “poor people” covers ALL ethnics groups that may run into financial trouble with this law…….

Posted by: Traci at September 26, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #234459

BTW, The exact wording from the law:

It is the intent of the general assembly that no fee or charge be imposed for the issuance of:
(1) an original;
(2) a renewal of an; or
(3) a duplicate;
identification card to an individual described in subsection (b).
(b) An identification card must be issued without the payment of a fee or charge to an individual who:
(1) does not have a valid Indiana driver’s license; and
(2) will be at least eighteen (18) years of age at the next general, municipal, or special election.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #234461

Doug,

The fees you see listed are for those who do not meet the requirements listed. SO, if you have a driver’s license but also want an ID card, or if you are under 18 and will be before the general election, you will be required to pay the fee. There are many who are getting those id cards for their children to carry around in middle or high school.

Also, all license branches offer voter registration services, in fact you are asked if you want to register to vote during every transaction at the license branch (a little annoying for those of us who are already registered but worth the annoyance to ensure everyone has a chance to get registered) so getting that ID while there is easy as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #234462

Traci… thanks for you comments… and you bring up an interesting point of view that I had not thought of. Statements like that are a disservice to minorites.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 26, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #234464

Rhinehold… thanks for the reference and clarification. Given the fact that ID issuance in Indiana to potential voters is free, I see no problem with this law… I mean, I certainly wouldn’t want someone using my name to vote Rep or Dem! ;-)

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 26, 2007 4:43 PM
Comment #234465

No problem…

This is actually something that has bothered me for quite some time and happens more times than not. Look for it on the news and in the paper, it is actually common practice. I think blacks should be more upset that they are always listed seperately like some kind of sub-human species. Just about every situation that comes up they make a blanket statement and then include “blacks”.

Just an observation…….

Posted by: Traci at September 26, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #234466

And the bad part is it is usually those professing to help the particular group of people who are throwing out the worst possible visions of how they are seen. Is it the price they pay for the appearance of gaining something out of the dialog? It’s kind of how I feel about any group-oriented program or law, and why I am a devout individualist (meaning that people should be treated only based on what they do and don’t have control over, not something as meaningless as the color of their skin or where they or their grandparents were born).

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #234472

This ID Law is completely unconstitutional because it basically amounts to a poll tax. Even if the ID card are given out for free (which it certainly is not at the moment) and the documents required to obtain one are given out for free, there is still a tax imposed because it forces everyone to have to travel to the RMV or wherever the ID’s are distributed in order to get the said ID. It also means a person who inadvertently loses their ID right before an election cannot vote. One should not be able to lose a fundamental right merely because a piece of plastic was misplaced. The only way this could work is if ID’s were issued at polling centers on Election Day or through the Mail if one votes absentee.

Posted by: Warren P at September 26, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #234473

Warren P… you make some good points.

Question… what are your thoughts on voter registration? Does that also amount to a poll tax? By your logic here, it does, because the would-be voter has to travel to wherever to become registered to vote and they have to do so by a certain time before the election… Why should citizens have to register to exercise their fundamental right?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 26, 2007 5:34 PM
Comment #234475

Rhinehold,

You took the words right out of my mouth…lol…funny how that works :o)

Posted by: Traci at September 26, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #234480

All taxpayers pay for the bureaucracy required to promote and maintain efficacious voting. Whether it is the printing of ballots or buying and maintaining e-voting machines, voters pay for their right to vote if they pay taxes.

That said, I agree with Doug, voter ID must be provided by the state at no additional fee if implementation of a voter ID is to be Constitutional and necessary.

Voter ID IS necessary. If there were not up to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country, the need for voter ID might not be as great. But, given the history in this country of voter fraud by dead people and single voters creating dozens and even hundreds of ballot votes, and the advent of politically active millions of illegal immigrants demonstrating and lobbying for legislation, verifying the identities of voters is long overdue, and now absolutely necessary for efficacious voting to take place.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2007 6:27 PM
Comment #234486

Here is one very big reason why Voter ID is needed:


Comment #232977
where i live in southern cal. there is no checking of ID at the polls. they ask for your name and look it up on a list, then give you a ballot. i’ve been voting absentee recently and all i did was fill out a form sign it, and they mail them to me. i live just south of the city of santa ana, and it is @ by my estimates 80 ot 90% non english speakers. make no mistake about it they are voting in numbers that would boggle you r mind. all you have to do is look at the make up of the state legislature, and the local city gov’ts, and it becomes quite evident. it’s to easy to vote illegaly.

Also, there is far too much voter fraud by U.S. citizens too.
So, who commits the most voter fraud? Democrats, or Republicans?

Perhaps that question can be answered by considering the fact that the majority of Democrat politicians (look at the F’s and D’s at the bottom of the list; a whopping 98% are Democrats) that are trying to get amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens.
Democrat politicians might be wise to consider how many of the 200 million eligible voters they they might lose by trying to get amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens.
Also, to be fair, most Republican politicians are voting on all sorts of ways to get more cheap labor, H1B Visas, and green cards.
So, to be honest, most politicians in BOTH parties are despicable for sellin’ out and piting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

Curious about your politicians voting record on amnesties, H1B visas, green cards, and importing cheap labor?
Just go to:

  • ontheissues.org/Senate/CONGRESS_PERSON.htm#Immigration

  • (e.g. substitute CONGRESS_PERSON with the appropraite name with underscore(s): Hillary_Clinton, or Luis_Gutierrez, or Nanci_Pelosi, etc.)

    Posted by: d.a.n at September 26, 2007 7:35 PM
    Comment #234487
    Even if the ID card are given out for free (which it certainly is not at the moment)

    Did you happen to read what I wrote, Warren P? The ID card is given out for free if:

    The person is over 18 (or will be during the next election) and does not have a Driver’s License.

    What part of that makes it ‘not free’?

    Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2007 7:47 PM
    Comment #234488

    BTW, Indiana is having statewide elections THIS year (we are off of the general election cycle for state, county and municiple elections) which is why this is being looked at now. And if you want to solve election problems, the voter ID issue is the least of Indiana’s worries.

    The problems with our primaries this year was worse than horrible, some polling places did not open at all, others not until after 3pm (the polls close at 6pm). It was a travesty. But, they went ahead and certified them!

    It is not a poll tax and my hope it will be found constitutional. Identifying who you are is an important protection of everyone else’s right to have their vote counted fairly. Before this laws was passed, all you had to do was go to a poll worker, say you are ‘joe schmoe’ and sign the form. Then they let you walk right in, possibly posing as someone else, without the least question whether you were the person you just said you were, and vote.

    This is the only fair way to ensure that each person’s vote (or non-vote) is counted in a fair and even manner.

    Posted by: Rhinehold at September 26, 2007 7:52 PM
    Comment #234490

    Rhinehold said: “Identifying who you are is an important protection of everyone else’s right to have their vote counted fairly. “

    Absolutely correct. One illegitimate vote will cancel one legitimate vote. That should not be allowed to happen if reasonable means are available to prevent it.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2007 8:45 PM
    Comment #234494
    Question… what are your thoughts on voter registration? Does that also amount to a poll tax? By your logic here, it does, because the would-be voter has to travel to wherever to become registered to vote

    For that matter, people also have to travel somewhere in order to vote on election day. Is that another poll tax? There shouldn’t be any unreasonable obstacles put up to voting, but neither should be NO obstacles. Getting a free voter id in order to prevent voter fraud doesn’t seem unreasonable at all.

    Posted by: Liam at September 26, 2007 9:45 PM
    Comment #234496
    For that matter, people also have to travel somewhere in order to vote on election day.

    In Arizona all we had to do was request the ballot thru the county office via the internet or written request…stuck in the mailbox…we only had to go as far as our mailbox in front of our house for the entire transaction!

    The cost of getting THOSE documents are there, but those are documents anyone should have access to or be able to obtain for a nominal fee.

    Many older people don’t have drivers’ licenses…nor do they have birth certificates, many having been born at home and no certificate as such has ever been available to them…there are many situations in which one cannot obtain a birth certificate…

    Besides, someone could request your or my birth certificate and present it…they’re so easy to obtain if one is available!

    Actually, naturalized citizens probably have the best ID available…how can you “prove” you’re a citizen if made to present proof just on the street…you can’t unless you regularly carry your passport with you! A driver’s license is proof that you passed a driving exam, nothing more…

    Posted by: Rachel at September 26, 2007 10:31 PM
    Comment #234499

    Who needs an ID card when YOU can be your be ID your card?

    Posted by: d.a.n at September 26, 2007 10:55 PM
    Comment #234500
    Many older people don’t have drivers’ licenses…nor do they have birth certificates, many having been born at home and no certificate as such has ever been available to them…there are many situations in which one cannot obtain a birth certificate…

    Not true.

    It’s not a difficult matter at all to get a birth certificate if you’re born at home, and for the few people that would affect, there are tons of reasons to have that little matter cleared up besides voting. It’s not just a driver’s license or other ID that you’d want—it’s all the things that go along with it. Getting a Social Security number and getting that money that older Americans are eligible for is enough reason on its own. There’s also owning property, getting a marriage certificate, traveling, having health insurance, having a bank account, buying an alcoholic beverage or a pack of cigarettes—all kinds of reasons. If somebody doesn’t care about any of that, it would be downright strange if the only part of having a normal existence they were interested in was voting.

    I just don’t buy that there are “many” older people who are eligible to vote but were never issued birth certificates and/or never had driver’s licenses or other ID. What’s more, if they’ve totally hidden out their whole lives in this fashion—evading taxes, evading selective service, etc—then they shouldn’t have the right to vote anyway.

    Posted by: Liam at September 26, 2007 11:08 PM
    Comment #234507

    There’s absolutely nothing wrong with requiring a person to show ID before voting. The reason behind requiring ID before voting is to insure that the person receiving the ballot is who they say they are and aint using someone else’s name to vote.
    If an ID wasn’t required then anyone can vote using anyone’s name. Then what happens when that person shows up to vote and they’re already listed as having already voted?

    Warren P
    Just how is a free ID the same as a poll tax? All someone has to do is go to the drivers license office and get one. No money is involved.
    I’ve also heard that the law is unfair because poor folks can’t get to a drivers license office to get an ID card. I find it interesting that they can get to the welfare office, free medical clinics, soup kitchens, and food lockers easy enough. Why can’t they get to the drivers license office for a free ID card?
    Also most poor folks I know have a drivers license (something they have to pay for). So what’s the problem with showing ID before voting?

    Posted by: Ron Brown at September 27, 2007 12:00 AM
    Comment #234508

    The problem with these laws can be boiled down to this one truth: they enforce the laws on voter fraud by taking away people’s votes.

    It’s a lot easier for a person to lose their vote than it is for them to get it back.

    Are we so paranoid about the system, that we’d disenfranchise people to make sure our votes counted? It’s a dangerous road to go down, especially when there are those who would make it more difficult for people to vote for… lets say… competitive reasons. It’s not coinicidence that this was a favorite topic for the dearly departed Karl Rove.

    Far more people were denied their votes for BS reasons than got votes on BS grounds. Our problem is the powerful interefering with the right to vote for their own gain.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 27, 2007 12:22 AM
    Comment #234511

    Well said, Stephen. My thoughts exactly.

    Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2007 1:08 AM
    Comment #234512
    Stephen Daugherty wrote:Far more people were denied their votes for BS reasons than got votes on BS grounds.
    That completely ignores reality:
    Comment #232977 where i live in southern cal. there is no checking of ID at the polls. they ask for your name and look it up on a list, then give you a ballot. i’ve been voting absentee recently and all i did was fill out a form sign it, and they mail them to me. i live just south of the city of santa ana, and it is @ by my estimates 80 ot 90% non english speakers. make no mistake about it they are voting in numbers that would boggle you r mind. all you have to do is look at the make up of the state legislature, and the local city gov’ts, and it becomes quite evident. it’s to easy to vote illegaly. Posted by: dbs
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Are we so paranoid about the system, that we’d disenfranchise people to make sure our votes counted? It’s a dangerous road to go down, especially when there are those who would make it more difficult for people to vote for… lets say… competitive reasons. It’s not coinicidence that this was a favorite topic for the dearly departed Karl Rove.
    What does that have to do with paranoia?

    It’s not about paranoia.
    It’s about the illegal alien vote.
    The lame excuses being provided don’t disguise the real motive.

    So why have a drivers’ license?
    Why have a library card?
    Why have a passport?
    Why have a membership card?
    Want to get on a airline? Then you’d better have an ID, eh?
    And how can a citizen of the U.S. have a Social Security Number, receive Social Security, and not have any form of ID?

    This talk of disenfrachisement and the so, so awful hardships caused by requiring an ID is very lame and the real motive behind it is the illegal alien vote.
    Especially with 12 million (or more) illegal aliens (and some of them already voting in our elections).
    Democrat politicians very badly want the illegal alien vote.
    Illegal aliens know that Democrat politicians are trying to pass an amnesty.
    Want to talk about voter fraud?
    That effectively is pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.
    That’s despicable at worst, and severely misplaced compassion at best.

    Our problem is the powerful interefering with the right to vote for their own gain.
    True. And a perfect example of it is Congress trying to get the right to vote for millions of illegal aliens.

    Can’t get enough votes?
    Then bribe illegal aliens.
    This is going to backfire on Democrat politicians (as it should).
    It is all too obvious that the motivation here is that some people (i.e. almost all Democrat politicians; see bottom of list; all Democrat politicians; Nancy Pelosi has a F- ; the worst grade possible) want those illegal alien votes and that is why they are working hard to get an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens to get millions of more Democrat votes.

    Democrat politicans had better be worried about the millions of votes they might lose from U.S. citizens by taking this position on illegal immigration and a Voter ID.
    In fact, it may explain why Do-Nothing Congress’ approval rating is now down to the lowest approval rating ever: 11%

    Posted by: d.a.n at September 27, 2007 1:33 AM
    Comment #234514

    d.a.n.:
    “Stephen Daugherty wrote:Far more people were denied their votes for BS reasons than got votes on BS grounds.

    That completely ignores reality:”

    No it doesn’t. In the years from 1998-2000 over thirty thousand people who were non-felons but who were misidentified as felons, or actual felons whose rights had been restored were purged from the voter roles by Katherine Harris in the state of Florida ALONE. There are many more people who have been added to that list in Florida since then. These are people who should be allowed to vote, but who cannot.
    This kind of thing is happening in many other places as well. Stephen is not in any way ignoring the reality.
    And voter roles are just one example. Here are some others.

    Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2007 1:58 AM
    Comment #234519

    Adrienne,

    I don’t have the numbers of illegal aliens voting in our elections, but since some states don’t even check ID, who can know for certian? I suspect that some very strong Democrat strong holds are also areas with large numbers of illegal aliens, and many are voting in our elections. Probably more than ever before.

    And with the message from Democrat politicians to illegal aliens that Democrats want to give them amnesty, don’t you think it provides a motivation to vote? Espeicially since many states don’t even require Voter ID?

    With some elections so close, any amount of voting fraud is serious.

    The numbers of illegal aliens voting versus the numbers of other types of voting fraud is not really the issue.

    The issue is that none of should happen.
    And with 12 million illegal aliens and no requirements in some states for Voter ID, it is a valid concern.

    So I would think you would be FOR a Voter ID. No?

    Also, what’s up with almost all Democrat politicians trying to get an amnesty BILL passed?
    Don’t you think it has something to do with votes?
    This is also why Republicans, who ignored illegal immigration until the very last moment (in 2006) are now against an amnesty.
    Doesn’t the claim that a Voter ID is too onerous sound weak?
    And why?

    Why when we have to show ID to drive, get on an airplane, write checks, make purchases, check out a book at the library, rent a car, etc., etc., etc.?

    If eliminating voter fraud is the TRUE goal, why not require identification?

    Why is it that Democrats mostly are those opposed to Voter ID ?

    Posted by: d.a.n at September 27, 2007 2:35 AM
    Comment #234535

    Adrienne,

    There was certainly no doubt that Florida 2000 was fishy… rotten-tuna-left-out-in-the-sun-for-days kinda fishy… but that only supports that it is probably a good idea to require proper identification before voting.

    Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 27, 2007 10:22 AM
    Comment #234540

    So, employers should fix their process of hiring and be punished if they hire illegal aliens but the govt shouldn’t worry about ensuring the integrity our election process?

    Stop hiring them and they will quit coming is ok but start ID’ing them and they will quit voting is wrong?

    IF Americans care about voting, they can and will get what they need to vote. Old, young, rich or poor.
    This is only a problem because it makes sweeping for votes harder.

    Posted by: kctim at September 27, 2007 10:40 AM
    Comment #234542

    Liam outlines a very important and historical reference to this issue when he says:

    I just don’t buy that there are “many” older people who are eligible to vote but were never issued birth certificates and/or never had driver’s licenses or other ID. What’s more, if they’ve totally hidden out their whole lives in this fashion—evading taxes, evading selective service, etc—then they shouldn’t have the right to vote anyway.

    Our founding fathers never intended that every person be entitled to the vote. Their rationale was that voting should be granted to generally literate landholders with a vested interest in, and ability to stay informed about, government action regarding their property and autonomy. The voter’s vigilance was required to prevent politicians with the power of government from overreaching and taking their property or autonomy away.

    There was great merit to this line of thinking. Giving the vote to the uneducated is foolhardy, for their votes are likely to be ill-informed. Government is complicated and requires an education to even approximately comprehend its purposes, limitations, and potentials.

    Giving the vote to children is also foolhardy for they lack the exposure and cognitive skills to become aware of the actions of government and the consequences of such actions.

    Giving the vote to those with no interest in news and current affairs is foolish if an enlightened self-interest and enlightened national interest is to be the guiding hand of their vote, as originally intended.

    All of which brings into question a heretofore, settled question by the Supreme Court, a literacy test. The Supreme Court rightfully ruled that those who administer such a test can and did rig the tests for pre-ordained election outcomes. But, the reason and logic of extending the vote only to those with a vested interest and educational and maturational abilities to cast informed and enlightened self-interested votes, are as valid today as it was during George Washington’s election.

    Today, it can be argued that the near 50% of eligible voters who don’t vote, is a very good thing, and represents the Americans who self-exclude on the basis of lack of interest or education to recognize vested interests.

    Which increases the importance and responsibility of those who do vote, to cast their vote in an informed and educated fashion taking into account both their own interests and that of the nation into which their progeny will have to survive and live.

    America fails to adequately expend the effort and dollars required to educate and inform young people of the incredible consequences of their decision to vote or not, and how to organize their priorities in a particular election to permit an informed vote that would enhance both their personal and the national interests. Instead, America leaves that responsibility largely to the two major political parties controlling the media with purchased propaganda which of course results in disinformation and sophistry instead of education and enlightened objective assessment.

    I am glad nearly half of Americans don’t vote. That lack of motivation demonstrates a priori that their vote would not likely be an informed and educated vote. Their abstinence makes my vote more potent. What I regret is the two political parties purchasing voter education through the media with massive propaganda expenditures.

    We must have a dramatically better and more objective voter education program in America. One that unites voters in pride in their government and political education and shared experience of voting with both personal, local and national interests weighed in their decision.

    I will never forget the poll taken in 2001 that revealed that the wealthy Americans by a large majority favored having their taxes raised if those taxes would be used to fight back the recession and improve the economy and deficits. The politicians would have none of that. As a result, our national debt grew from 5.65 to 9 trillion dollars in just 6.5 years. It took over 200 years to raise the national debt from 0 to 5.65 trillion.

    Obviously, too many uninformed and uneducated voters went to the polls in 2004 to reelect these same politicians who caused such a dramatic and devastating economic event as our national debt to rise in this precipitous fashion.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2007 11:17 AM
    Comment #234558

    Warren P you stated that everyone has to travel to get a ID so therefore it is a tax, yet to vote you also have to travel to the polling station. So you have to make 2 trips. What is the problem?
    As far as showing you are a US citizen, there are birth records avaiable in every state, yes it will cost to get them but then again to get Social Security you have to show them also to collect your money.

    I am all for a photo ID to vote. It will stop fraud but will not disenfranchise anyone in my opinion.

    Posted by: KT at September 27, 2007 12:22 PM
    Comment #234562

    kctim
    Comment #234540

    Very well said.

    ALL
    First. The Constitution requires citizenship in order to vote. Sense illegal aliens aint even here legally much less citizens they aint eligible to vote.
    Second. Most illegals don’t speak English. How are they going to be able to vote even halfway intelligently? Someone will have to go into the booth with them and tell them what and whose on the ballot. This can and will lead to them being told how to vote. Or are we gonna start printing out ballots in every language on earth?

    Personally I’m more concerned about getting eligible citizens to the polls than I am ineligible illegals that will be told how to vote.

    How many of y’all that claim that requiring ID to vote puts a burden on the poor sense they can’t get to the Drivers License Office easily are willing to take someone there to get a free ID? Or drive them to the polls for that matter? Even if ya know they won’t vote for your candidate?

    Posted by: Ron Brown at September 27, 2007 12:46 PM
    Post a comment