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.
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.
@TolstoyThe 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.
@flyingfinnindefensible? did you read the TSA website it is pretty
@TolstoyWhen 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.
Let's take a look at what happens when a valid photo I.D. is not used (as
quoted by USA Today):"Traveling Without IDIf 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.
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.
@mike richards as stated above mike check the TSA website second
paragraph down on ID requirements.
#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?
Photo I.D.s not required to board a commercial flight? Who told us that
rubbish?Quoted from USA ToDay:"Acceptable IDsPassengers 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
I say just tatoo numbers on our foreheads and get it over with.
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.
@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
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.
@riflemanNo 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?
@joecapitalistthe 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.
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
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.
Why don't republicans mind that the new electronic voting machines can be
made to flip votes in less than 30 seconds?
!@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.
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
George,interesting26,000 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 himI 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
@StephenKentEhatyou 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
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.
@VORI 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.
@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).
@Lost in DCI 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?
@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?
George,when was the last time you boarded a commercial flight?how can you get through TSA WITHOUT ID?
@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?@procuradorfiscalI 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
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.
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
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."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?
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."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.
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. @procuradorfiscaleven 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.
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.
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
@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
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.
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.
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?
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.
it's telling how it's easier to buy guns than to vote. Amazing.
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.
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
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.
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
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.