Comments about ‘Kansas, Arizona sue to change voting forms to require proof of citizenship’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Christopher B
Ogden, UT

Why should you have to be an American to vote?

All elections worldwide should be open to anyone who wants to vote.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

Changing voter forms to prove you actually have the RIGHT to vote?

That makes perfect sense.

Which is why liberals will never allow it.

How long, Lord, how long?.....

dale richards
Green River, Utah

Christopher B.
Your joking right!!

Mcallen, TX

Many don't agree with me, but here it goes.

Only those with a high school degree or higher, and not on the dole,--can vote.

Oh how different our leadership would be different.

spring street


Right because feudalistic societies have worked so well througout t history and why we still have so many. I also wonder how you define on the dole? Do bankers the Walton's and other large corpriate owners not get to vote? Do you utilize our streets and other public infrastructures? Does that mean you do not get to vote?

Taylorsville, UT

Since the federal government is not allowed to regulated voting laws in federal or state elections they cannot abridge the laws that are the right of the states to maintain and operate. The closest voting right that federal government has is in the electoral college that each state reports to presidential elections.

Federal government has no controls on elections and cannot mandate or control election laws. The Supreme Court has once again shown its prejudice and partisan loyalty to outside influences, and it invalidates any opinions based on criminal association or personal loyalty.

The states should ignore the federal impudence and do as they wish in defining and establishing voting rights of all voters regardless of race, wealth, or sex. The worst thing that could happen is nullify the supreme court who are not independent of citizens government. Proving citizenship is not a hardship on any american for any reason.

Americans still have the right to discredit and nullify the Supreme court because they only exist with their powers by the will and choice of the people. We can challenge every thing that governement and its branches do. We can revoke all government decisions at any time, its our right.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

spring street,
you forget that originally in this country, hardly known as a feudal society, only property-owning males could vote?

I am not advocating anything other than a one-man one-vote system, but your reference to a feudalistic society is out of place when applied to the US.

One could argue, however, that with BO's "big brother" idea of government, he is trying to establish some type of feudal system here, then your argument would make sense.

Mcallen, TX

spring street--let's change dole to government given welfare. This way politicians can't buy votes with outrages promises

HS degree of higher--so people with some proven cognitive abilities, will decide the important participants of leadership.

A national debt equal to $560,000 for every second in year, is absolute proof of passed leaders being weak, and corrupt, placed in office by deceived low knowledge voters.

Sorry Charlie!

@lost in DC

Worf stated "Only those with a high school degree or higher, and not on the dole,--can vote." to which spring street made reference to feudalism. So unless your other sign is worf I dno't see were spring street was addressing your. If you are not worf then your post is existent on this thread. if you are also worf then you made claims well beyond one man one vote. again reading comprehension is a good thing.



Calling government given welfare really does not change much since bankers and owners of large corporations receive great monitory benefits based on who they vote into office. I also wonder how exactly your would define welfare is it strictly in terms of money given, again we all benefit from our form government.

As to education I could argue that since I have Masters degree, I think maybe we should set the bar at an advanced degree so only the best and brightest are voting. I could argue that anyone with a lesser education not even bother arguing with me because i have a "higher proven cognitive ability>" I of course really do not believe that should be the case but you get the point

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments