Quantcast
Opinion

Voter ID laws mirror what is required for many things in society

Comments

Return To Article
  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Aug. 19, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    The difference between voting and the "many things of society" is that voting is a right. There are people who live as so-called second-class citizens; they still have a right to their voice in our government. Isn't it interesting that the testimony of a witness can condemn a person to death yet is no longer sufficient to allow someone to exercise their right to vote?

    Our rights are disappearing, but that power grab is not coming from the left, but the right, while they wave the flag and protest otherwise.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Aug. 16, 2012 3:17 p.m.

    Joe Mansky!? He could only be considered “non-partisan” by a fellow liberal. His county was one of the three worst for voter fraud in the ’08 election. And when the election was decided by 312 votes, 341 illegal felon votes may seem like “isolated cases” to him and you, but in reality they obviously elected Franken. Mansky was infamous for casually dismissing the Minnesota Majority’s concerns, which later were admitted by the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office as serious and credible, and led to over a hundred convictions so far with more pending.
    Read that last sentence again: over a hundred actual convictions for voter fraud in Ramsey County alone…out of the entire state. Voter fraud clearly, undebatably gave the election to the guy with less votes, Franken.
    And just about everybody right & left has made the assertion that illegals break left, so the burden is on you to prove otherwise. Go ahead…I’ll get the popcorn!

    Elections 101: Actually stopping someone from voting is “disenfranchising”. Making someone prove they have the legal right to vote is not, by any sane legal standard.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    Aug. 16, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    @Tolstoy

    The TSA website isn't pretty clear, it is explicit. If you think a TSA agent is going to risk his or her job by allowing someone they can't identify on an airliner you are sadly mistaken.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 16, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    @flyingfinn

    indefensible? did you read the TSA website it is pretty clear.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    Aug. 16, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    @Tolstoy

    When you take an indefensible position on a clearly known issue you paint yourself into a corner you can't work your way out of. In today's world the TSA is not going to let you fly unless they know who you are, and the only way they can positively identify you is with ID that includes a photo of your face.

    When casting your vote we the people have the right to insure that you are eligible to participate.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 10:44 p.m.

    Let's take a look at what happens when a valid photo I.D. is not used (as quoted by USA Today):

    "Traveling Without ID

    If your ID is lost or stolen, traveling is possible but can be extremely difficult. According to the TSA, airline passengers traveling without proper identification will be required to provide the TSA officers at the checkpoints with identity-verifying information. This process will add additional time to the screening process. If the passenger’s identity cannot be verified through this process, passengers will not be allowed to board the aircraft."

    Did I read this correctly? Did it state that passengers would NOT be allowed to board the aircraft if their identity could NOT be verified?

    I couldn't even meet a grandson at the gate at the airport without proper photo I.D. I had to go through security, while sitting in a wheelchair. I had to remove my shoes and my belt. I had to produce a valid photo I.D. to prove that I had the "right" to meet my grandson at the gate, a grandson who was underage and flying alone.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 10:29 p.m.

    When people take voting as seriously as they take driving a car, or buying liquor, or buying cigarettes, or voting in a union election, or meeting a "high-ranking" politician, or boarding an airplane, or applying for Social Security, or applying for MediCare, or being allowed to enter the White House, they will provide the proper I.D. before attempting to vote.

    Obama keeps the "unwashed" from entering the White House by requiring "photo I.D.". Candidates keep the "unwashed" from attending their political rallies by requiring "photo I.D.". Government keep the "unwashed" from receiving government benefits by requiring "photo I.D.". Bankds keep the "unwashed" from accessing funds unless they can produce "photo I.D.".

    Only in Obama's world, where illegal aliens are only illegal if they vote Republican, is "photo I.D." an issue.

    When Obama lets the public enter the White House without showing "photo I.D."; when the TSA agent lets you board an airplane without "photo I.D."; when you're allowed to cash a check without "photo I.D."' when you're allowed to vote in a union election without "photo I.D.", then, perhaps the Democrats will have an argument.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 10:18 p.m.

    @mike richards

    as stated above mike check the TSA website second paragraph down on ID requirements.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 10:09 p.m.

    #1 If an 80 yr old woman shows up to vote with a 2 yr old expired driver's license should she be allowed to vote?

    If a veteran shows his govt. issued ID should he be allowed to vote?

    If a student with a college ID shows up to vote at an on-campus polling place should he be allowed to vote?

    These 3 people would be denied the opportunity to vote for the following reasons:

    #1 expired drivers's license not an acceptable form of ID

    #2 Veteran's picture ID doesn't have an address listed on it.

    #3 Student ID doesn't have an address or expiration date on it.

    Is the goal to make sure people are who they say they are or is the goal to disenfranchise voters?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    Photo I.D.s not required to board a commercial flight? Who told us that rubbish?

    Quoted from USA ToDay:

    "Acceptable IDs

    Passengers over 17 are required to present a valid state- or federally-issued ID that displays a photo, name, date of birth, expiration date and gender. Each ID also must possess a tamper-resistant feature like a hologram or state seal. US passports, US passport cards, border crossing cards, driver's licenses, state-issued IDs and foreign government-issued passports are acceptable. Library cards and school IDs are not acceptable documents. A full list of acceptable documents is available on the TSA’s website."

    In another story, photos of voting in a Union election required all voters to present photo I.D.s. If it's good enough for unions, why shouldn't it be good enough for the rest of us? Isn't Obama a strong union sympathyser?

    Three minutes ago the New York Times reported that Judge Judge Robert Simpson of Pennsylvania, said: "the photo ID requirement of Act 18 is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory, nonsevere burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life,”

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:04 p.m.

    I say just tatoo numbers on our foreheads and get it over with.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 8:50 p.m.

    When the President of the United States refuses to deport illegal aliens, after swearing an oath to uphold the laws of the the United States; when the President of the United States publicly orders the Justice Department to not allow fradulent names to be removed from voting rolls in Florida; when the President of the United States refuses to enforce DOM, just who believes that he is interested in doing anything legal or required by law?

    He has shown total disdain for our laws. He has thumbed his nose at those who simply ask that he do his duty; the duty that he swore he would do when he accepted the responsibility to be the President of the United States.

    He can't be trusted to do his job. Why would anyone think that he can be trusted to oversee and enforce voting laws? How many times do we have to be burned by the Obama White House before we learn that he cannot be trusted and that those who serve with him cannot be trusted?

    We can secure the polls. As citizens, we have the right to know that NO FRAUDULENT VOTING occurs.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 7:38 p.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2.

    Actually No. It is the transfer of party votes, by gerrymandering, to effect elections that I object to. Since the politicians won’t give up gerrymandering the solution is to make it irrelevant. We can do that by having all state and federal candidates run as state wide elections. It wouldn’t matter where the voter lives, or where he votes and on his ballot he could even do his own redistricting, perhaps according to political philosophy rather that the irrelevant accident of his residence.

    A couple of things, some way to prevent interstate swapping and of course not allowing a person to vote more than once in the same election. Perhaps a purple finger system or a hand print or even a retina scan

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 7:06 p.m.

    Re: Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    "Who do you think we should believe?"

    Just exactly what kind of ID do you imagine the TSA would accept if they were searching their data banks for your identification? Best way to find out if George is correct is to leave your ID at home next time you decide to fly. You'll be doing someone flying standby a big favor.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 5:48 p.m.

    @rifleman

    No where on the TSA website does it say the TSA will "see if they could find your ID (WITH PHOTOGRAPH) in their data base...." George's post on the other hand is an exact quote from the website. Who do you think we should believe?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 5:10 p.m.

    @joecapitalist
    the problem is there is zero evidence that has or would happen. If you have some source to support to claims that people are casting votes in mass to negatively influence elections then please provide that information and its source because at this point all we are getting is the same kind of wild conspiracy theories like your last post.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    So Ultra Bob would be just fine with thousands of Utah Republicans showing up in Jim Matheson's district to vote without ID even if they don't live in it. Right?

    While voting is a fundamental right of every citizen over 18, the stakes are high and there are a thousand ways to "game" the system. From Gerrymandering, to complicated rules about how to get on the ballot, to polling locations, to a whole host of voter intimidation techniques, to outright voter fraud, both parties have been guilty in the past of bending or breaking the existing rules or by simply making up new rules in order to win an election.

    This fight is just one of hundreds regarding voting practices.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    Re: George Bronx, NY
    "you conveniently skipped over the second paragraph which reads ...."

    The paragraph you mention says The TSA will pull you out of line, see if they could find your ID (WITH PHOTOGRAPH) in their data base, and if the documentation they find satisfied them would thereafter let you proceed. If you think the TSA would let you board an aircraft simply because they find you name in a phone book you're sadly mistaken.

    The good folks in Salt Lake City are smart enough to bring their required ID with them when they head for the airport because they don't want to miss their flight.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 2:54 p.m.

    Why don't republicans mind that the new electronic voting machines can be made to flip votes in less than 30 seconds?

  • George Bronx, NY
    Aug. 15, 2012 2:40 p.m.

    !@rifleman
    you conveniently skipped over the second paragraph which reads "We understand passengers occasionally arrive at the airport without an ID, due to lost items or inadvertently leaving them at home. Not having an ID, does not necessarily mean a passenger won’t be allowed to fly. If passengers are willing to provide additional information, we have other means of substantiating someone’s identity, like using publicly available database." people from the bronx use the airport but apparently some people from Salt Lake see no value in honesty.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 2:16 p.m.

    Re: George Bronx, NY
    "You are actually not required by law to have an ID to board a plane."

    Huh, obviously you haven't flown recently. From the TSA: "Adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight." They then list 13 acceptable forms of ID.

    Note to Lost in DC: That was a good observation. I don't believe some of the good folks in the Bronx, NY may have ever visited the airport.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 2:00 p.m.

    George,
    interesting
    26,000 miles so far; a couple more long trips to go. I wish Amtrak was a viable option, but it's not - one train east at 4:30 am and one train west at 11:00 pm. BO's interest in expanded and improved train service is one of the few areas where I do not totally disagree with him

    I take it you don't check bags, since the airlines require ID to check bags.

    atl134,
    thanks for not answering the question, but rather making an accusation instead. That is an answer in and of itself, that you WOULD rather have fraud before we do something about it, that you WOULD rather have an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff than a guardrail at the top. You're OK with more registered voters than residents in 160 counties across the country? Whatever it takes to re-elect BO is OK with you, the end justifies the means. Wasn't that one of the mantras of the soviet union?

    And I guess you missed the other article about how young people are swinging towards Romney now, since they have lost hope in "smoke and chains" BO

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2012 1:57 p.m.

    @StephenKentEhat
    you do realize that current and proposed voter ID laws only effect those that vote in person and would not prevent fraud by mail in voters anyway right? your comment is the very definition of and off topic red haring.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    Re: ". . . Ohio keeping longer polling hours for republican [sic] districts than democrat [sic] ones. How does one justify that?"

    One doesn't need to.

    The opening and closing of Ohio polling places is decided [and paid for] at county, not state-level. Any county in Ohio is free to open or close its polls at any time it likes.

    This is not about Republican control. It's about Democrats in Columbus wanting to control and suppress Republican voting in counties many miles away.

    Rather than disingenuously blaming Republicans, and attempting to interfere with voter turnout in distant rural counties, urban Democrats should concentrate on measures to permit polls in their bankrupt urban counties to stay open longer.

    Instead of trying to cheat and control Republican voters.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Aug. 15, 2012 12:44 p.m.

    @VOR
    I find it amazing that you seem to have access to your own set of facts that even GOP lawyers do not have. Do you care to site the sources for your claims about franken? Conspiracy theories are fun but maybe we should stick to the facts when passing laws that restrict peoples right to vote.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    "Would you rather we have a fraudulent election BEFORE we do something about it?"

    The only fraud here is systemic purging of valid voters by Republicans because they disproportionately happen to be in demographics that are more likely to vote for Democrats (like blacks, hispanics, and young people).

  • George Bronx, NY
    Aug. 15, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    @Lost in DC
    I have been on a commercial flight many times since TSA took over, but thanks for asking. How do you board a plane without ID. you go through an extra security screening. look it up its all there on any airport website.

    living on the east coast I have also rode Amtrak and other train systems many times. I have been asked for my ticket a few times in random on board checks but never actually asked for ID.

    How about you how much time do you spend on planes and trains out there in Utah?

  • john mclane Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 12:30 p.m.

    @Voice of Reason:
    "If a lawful, fairly applied voter ID law had been in place..."
    "So don't try and tell anyone who's well-informed that voter ID laws are 'unnecessary'."

    According to a 2011 Minnesota Public Radio interview, Ramsey County (MN) Elections Manager Joe Mansky, who sits on the governor's special committee and is widely considered to be a state expert on voting said, referring specifically to felons voting in 2008, "these are isolated cases that could not be solved by implementing a voter identification law."

    Read that last sentence again, a state expert on Minnesota's voting said that voter ID laws would not have solved the issue with ineligible felons voting in 2008.

    If it is so widely accepted that "illegal voters are far more likely to vote Democrat" then it should be trivial for you to support your claim. You made the assertion, the burden is on you to support it with facts.

    A further question: How much voter suppression is acceptable before conservatives until it's "enough"? How many legitimate voters need to be disenfranchised for you to be satisfied?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    George,

    when was the last time you boarded a commercial flight?

    how can you get through TSA WITHOUT ID?

  • ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA
    Aug. 15, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    @Voice of Reason
    "How much voter fraud is acceptable for liberals until it's "enough" to do something about it?"

    Would you be willing to sacrifice the votes of thousands of legal voters without state issued ID in order to prevent 100 fraudulent votes?

    @procuradorfiscal
    I notice you ignored the other part of my previous post in relation to Ohio keeping longer polling hours for republican districts than democrat ones. How does one justify that?

    "Voter ID laws make it harder to vote if one is not a lawful voter."

    There are reasons a registered voter would not have a state issued ID. Once someone loses the ability to drive, they don't need an ID very often. Forcing someone with limited mobility to go sit at the dmv for hours to get an ID is an excessive burden. With such incredibly small numbers of confirmed voter fraud, it seems this type of legislation is unnecessary and only serves to prevent valid voters from casting their vote.

    The benefit simply does not outweigh the cost.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 11:46 a.m.

    2009: Al Franken finally "wins" the 2008 Minnesota Senate race by 312 votes. Later it was found that 1,099 felons - ineligible to vote - voted illegally. It's widely established that felons overwlhelmingly go Democrat by 86-97% on average. Over 240 people have been convicted or are awaiting trail for voter fraud...just in that single Minnesota race. In some precincts, more votes were cast than there were registered voters. If a lawful, fairly applied voter ID law had been in place, it's a virtual certainty that the person who actually won in reality, Norm Coleman, would be sitting in the Senate right now instead of Franken.

    Later, Franken's single vote pushed ObamaCare over the top of a GOP filibuster, effectively making it law. So don't try and tell anyone who's well-informed that voter ID laws are "unnecessary". Their absence put the man with less votes in the Senate, and literally allowed ObamaCare to happen.

    And it's so widely accepted by both sides that minorities, Latinos and illegal immigrants vote overwhelmingly Democrat that your challenge to "support (my) assertion" (seriously!?) really doesn't merit a response.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    Re: "The truth is that these laws are not about eliminating fraud but are about discrimination - some better disguised than others."

    No, the truth is that Democrats -- unknown to have EVER taken on a cause that won't benefit them, politically -- believe that requiring people that cast votes to be lawful voters will hurt them in the upcoming election.

    Voter ID laws make it harder to vote if one is not a lawful voter.

    No other reason would justify them spending the sums they're spending on this issue.

  • john mclane Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    Voice of Reason:
    "If the only liberal argument against voter ID laws is that it 'doesn't happen that often'..."

    The argument isn't "it doesn't happen that often," the argument is "it doesn't happen."

    "illegal voters are far more likely to vote Democrat."
    [citation needed]

    Again, if an exhaustive search (referenced in my previous post) turned up only 10 cases voter impersonation in the past 12 years, how could you possibly support this assertion? The answer, of course, is you can't. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant against liberals, right?

  • john mclane Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 11:00 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal:
    "And, that would really inconvenience the A.C.O.R.N. tactic of hauling busloads of unregistered voters from poll to poll to influence close races in battleground states."

    [citation needed]

    Seriously, I'd love to see a reputable source for this information, and I don't mean unsourced or anonymous claims on someone's blog. If it's happening as frequently as Republicans claim it is, there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of documented cases by now.

    According to a study released 12 August 2012:
    "A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.
    "Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the US..., those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters."

    Organized efforts to perpetrate voter fraud simply don't happen, and, according to the available data, neither do individual efforts for voter fraud.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Aug. 15, 2012 10:41 a.m.

    So two sentences in to the piece and they have already used false information to support their claims. You are actually not required by law to have an ID to board a plane. When you start with a false premise in your first two sentences I stop reading but thanks.

    @procuradorfiscal
    even the GOP lawyers could only find about 300 cases of voter fraud out of more then 250 million of votes cast in the past ten years hardly the wide spread conspiracy that you make it out to be.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 10:28 a.m.

    If the only liberal argument against voter ID laws is that it "doesn't happen that often", then we've already won. How much voter fraud is acceptable for liberals until it's "enough" to do something about it? The reality is, you don't always need "a lot" of voter fraud to be the difference in an election...Florida 2000 is Exhibit A. We need to know that the people voting in our elections have the legal right to do so. Period.

    SO who's the more politically motivated - those who want a law that increases fairness, or those who fight against that law? The left is far more politically motivated here than the right is, since they know very well that illegal voters are far more likely to vote Democrat. The big dirty secret is that the left doesn't want to dial down that beneficial illegal voting, if not outright encourage it.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    Re: ". . . only a very basic proof of id should be required to actually vote."

    Yeah -- otherwise it would be too hard to fake.

    And, that would really inconvenience the A.C.O.R.N. tactic of hauling busloads of unregistered voters from poll to poll to influence close races in battleground states.

  • ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal

    "And, by the amount of time, effort, money, and political capital Democrats are investing to enable cheating, it's clear they have embraced it as an important 2012 campaign strategy."

    The Democrats are the ones cheating by wanting to make sure it's easy to vote. What do you call when Ohio is only keeping polls open late in Republican districts, but not Democrat ones?

    Why is it suddenly becoming a big deal to have an ID to vote? Shouldn't the required ID be part of the registration process instead? Other than that, only a very basic proof of id should be required to actually vote. Utility bill, bank statement, birth certificate, etc.

  • Alliance for a Better UTAH MIDVALE, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    The authors throw up the usual red herrings - non-existent voter fraud and the simplistic argument "what's wrong with presenting an ID". The answer, as usual, is in the details. There is a large population - generally elderly and minorities - that doesn't have the ID that many states require (Utah is fairly reasonable in its ID laws and Salt Lake County is particularly flexible). Despite the authors' suggestion that "you need it to fly, why not to vote," this simply isn't true. The TSA itself says that in the absence of ID, "If passengers are willing to provide additional information, we have other means of substantiating someone’s identity, like using publicly available databases." This is the equivalent of a meaningful provisional ballot. Another bizarre result of these laws can be found in Georgia, simply as an example, where a state university issued ID counts but a private university issued ID does not. For a non-driving college student, why should that be the case even if it doesn't specifically target Democrats or Republicans? The truth is that these laws are not about eliminating fraud but are about discrimination - some better disguised than others.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    All adult people subject to the laws of a specific government should have a say, a vote, in the operation of that government. This includes Americans, immigrants, permanent and long time visitors, and even illegal immigrants.

    Our Constitution seems to say that “people” have the right to control their government and does not limit the notion to specific people.

    Government should take responsibility and exercise the authority to make sure that each and every eligible voter, who wishes to do so, has the opportunity, the means, and the facility to vote.

    If anything is necessary that the voter must possess, the government should be proactive in satisfying that need. Even to the extent of going out to the prospective voter to take care of his need.

    There should be no fees, unusual restrictions, or qualifications other than being an adult in the venue.

  • Noodlekaboodle Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    What about absentee ballots? Why aren't we worried about voter ID for those? Oh, it's because republicans utilize absentee ballots more than democrats? Even though, according to former WSJ columnist John Fund(not a liberal) admits it is a much more serious problem than voter fraud at the polls. What about Mike Turzai's declaration that voter ID laws will give Mitt Romney a victory in PA? Oh it has nothing to do with politics right?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    Re: ". . . spin it how you want . . . the GOP wants to restrict those who vote DEM and the DEMS want to get them to the polls."

    Yeah -- Republicans want to restrict those that vote to those legally entitled to vote.

    Democrats, on the other hand, want to get people to the polls to "vote early, vote often" for Democrats -- even if they're not lawfully entitled to vote.

    It's called cheating.

    And, by the amount of time, effort, money, and political capital Democrats are investing to enable cheating, it's clear they have embraced it as an important 2012 campaign strategy.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    it's telling how it's easier to buy guns than to vote. Amazing.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    Blue,
    a dem won the presidency in 1996, 1992, 1964, 1960 and so on back to our 3rd president, Thomas Jefferson. Actually, the push for voter ID laws did not come until after the repubs won the house in 2010.

    There are 160 counties across the country with more registered voters than residents. I guess you see no problem with that?

    Would you rather we have a fraudulent election BEFORE we do something about it?

    I guess if you are traversing a high mountain road, the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff would give you more comfort than a guardrail at the top.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    Deseret News editors,

    Where is the evidence - I mean actual, documented evidence - that fraudulent voting is a statistically significant problem in our elections?

    Doesn't it strike you as more than a little suspicious that the sudden urgency of voter ID laws emerged after a Democrat won the presidency, and the folks demanding that these laws take effect >>before this November's election

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 6:56 a.m.

    Personally I'm tired of these ID laws. For alcohol the spirit of the law has been ruined. I have a full grey bread and I get ID'd for a beer at the PUB in trolley square. I don't have my ID, I get denied, despite the fact I'm clearly late 30s early 40s. So the law isn't be 21, the law is HAVE A ID. I don't like this trend. The trend will end with a RFID chip or a barcode.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    Aug. 15, 2012 6:29 a.m.

    Texas should print 3.0 million absentee ballots, mail 1.5 million to Mexico City for random distribution and 1.5 million to Beijing for random distribution (each accompanied by a self-addressed, postage-pre-paid envelope), and request that the non-American citizen recipients thereof cast their votes thereon, and mail them back in a timely fashion.

    That act alone would focus the issue, one would suppose. Even people who otherwise disdain voter ID laws themselves might even wonder how it is that Texas does not understand the definition of the word "citizen."

    Indeed.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 15, 2012 5:14 a.m.

    I get it. It makes complete logical sense that one should have an ID to vote.

    But,at least we should be honest about why this is now a hot button issue.

    This is about political advantage and has absolutely nothing to do with correcting voter fraud.

    You can spin it how you want to make it look better, but at the end of the day, the GOP wants to restrict those who vote DEM and the DEMS want to get them to the polls.

    Plain and simple.

    This is what makes politics SLEAZY.