Kobach’s voter focus

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s voter fraud drive first started by requiring a picture identification and now will require a birth certificate as well. I believe his motives are voter suppression.

To rob a line from Rush Limbaugh, “Where are they going to draw the line?” Are we going to have to carry some type of form that shows we are indeed citizens just to enjoy the most basic right of living in a democracy?

Will Gov. Sam Brownback’s office begin issuing special cards that we will be required to carry, and just where will all of this lead?

I’ve listened to those supporters who compare voter ID to that of being required to show a photo ID when checking into a hotel, or going to the casinos in Reno, Nev., or Las Vegas. How ludicrous.

It is one thing for businesses to require a photo ID and quite another thing for government to do so, particularly when a constitutional right hangs in the balance.

Michal Betz

Wichita

 

 

Comments

[Smarter Than You]

I appreciate your concerns, Dora.

May I suggest you review the Seventh Circuit Courts ruling on the Indiana ID law. The court specifically noted that the lack of prosecutions for voter fraud is not proof of a lack of voter fraud but indicative of a non-id system that makes those types of prosecutions almost impossible.

It also dealt with the talking point of the anti-secure elections crowd of it being a poll tax.

Just this year there was documentation of an individual walking into multiple polling places utilizing the names of recently deceased voters and being given ballots because there was no ID requirement.

I’m sorry that you feel that protecting the sanctity of your vote is “hooey.”

[DoraLea]

While I certainly remember studying about voter fraud in HS Civics, & recall the issues about Daley's machine in Chicago, and other big-city machine politics, & Jim Crow in the south, I've not seen any documentation of large scale, serious voter fraud since I began voting in 1972. I've asked proponents of voter IDs to share their data about illegal aliens/dead people voting, etc., but have never received anything beyond "he said--she said." Where are the criminal convictions...or even prosecutions? As far as dead people voting, my mother died 3-17-11. Yes it was in the local paper, but I didn't contact the County Clerk to remove her from the rolls. When I voted in the April election last year, I checked at the polling place--we voted in the same precinct--& she was indeed off the rolls. Perhaps those screaming about voter fraud should put more effort into working as efficiently as our county clerk.

I don't really have a problem with the notion of IDs, though I do have a problem with putting the burden on the voter, when it is the government wanting to implement this. There has been some discussion of the government providing IDs free of charge to low-income folks (I had to pay for a non-driving ID before I got a driver's license)--one of my questions might be why must an individual disclose financial status in order to obtain a government ID for voting, and what sort of private documentation must they provide to determine that they are low-income? This certainly fits with Mr. Limbaugh's notion that only those "with skin in the game" are entitled to a voice in the electoral process. Additionally, one must go to a government office to obtain the ID, rather than the services being provided where the voter lives. I have one elderly friend who's not driven for years, and so has only an expired driver's license for ID, but regularly votes absentee in his home (apparently our rural county has a bipartisan team that goes to shut-ins for absentee voting)...he votes differently than I do, but I'm glad he's still exercising his right to vote. While many elderly in nursing homes are not competent to vote due to dementia, I do have some elderly acquaintances who are simply there due to declining physical health & safety needs. The nursing home won't take them to the License Office to get an ID, and the License Office won't go to the nursing homes, etc. The burden is placed upon these elderly to find someone to get them from point A to B, which some of their physical frailties preclude--therefore, they would excluded from voting without a photo ID.

Unfortunately too many people already feel alienated from government (from the local level--school board, township board, city council or county commission and moving on up to state/federal government). There is indeed a sense that their votes don't count...from the small-town elites to the superpacs & big boys in Jeff City & DC--the rooms may not be smoke-filled, but those with money pull the strings. While I feel that way, too, I still go through the motions of voting out of a sense of duty/obligation (some people do that with church, too). All this hooey expended on voter IDs combines with the unending negativity of the election process to suppress voter turnout...none of these proponents, sitting in their legislative ivory towers, really care about "the folks" (as Bill O'Reilly refers to us). Oh, well...

Read more here: http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2012/03/kobachs-voter-focus-.html#storylink=cpy

[Smarter Than You]

Speaking of silly and dishonest Steve, you’ve been provided with the documentation that Democrat voting was actually up once a voter ID law was put into place. That runs counter to your insistence that it somehow suppresses Democratic votes. So if voter suppression isn’t really the issue, what does that leave us with as a basis for the Democratic protestations?

You’ve been provided the case names and where to find the legal rulings on voter ID laws.

You’ve really been off your game since you found out the Supreme Court has a better grasp of the legal issues involved with voter ID than you do (6-3, non partisan vote). At least you’ve got your legal basis argument that the Supreme Court would never rule Obama’s individual mandate unconstitutional to fall back on.

I often wonder how you don’t suffer an internal decapitation since cervical vertebrae were not designed to support the weight of a head as obviously swollen with self importance as yours.

[steven klein]

STY - why the unending series of silly, dishonest comments. There are legitimate issues to discuss, differences of opinion to state and different takes on data to argue without resorting to these adolescent remarks.

Neither Democrats nor anyone else has any serious desire to obtain illegal votes. My concern and that of many people with conservative efforts to restrict voter turnout is that many people with a perfectly legal right to vote will fail to present or obtain documentation necessary to cast a ballot. No reasonable person who value our democracy would want to place any impediments in front of legitimate voters. The argument for years has been that our democracy suffers because of turnout which is too low. Conservative efforts will only increase that problem which, by the way, I have asserted is the real objective, not concerns about illegal voting. I think you are bright enough to understand that even if not honest enough to acknowledge it. I admit I'm more certain of the latter than the former.

[Smarter Than You]

We've eliminated the constitutional argument and now the liberals are forced to bemoan the perceived loss of illegal votes they depend on.

[LawyerInTraining]

Repub's are all about eliminating regulations, when it is their precious corporations that are being regulated. Regulate the proles, however, and it's game on!

[steven klein]

Gary, the tricky part of this issue which divides many people lies in the question - In order to ensure that your right to vote is not nullified by an offsetting illegal or noncitizen vote, how many citizens who also have a vote will not be able to exercise their right because of some new legal or administrative impediment? No one really knows the answer to this. Democrats are focused on this part of the issue. Republicans seem largely indifferent, apparently willing to gamble that this will be to their benefit.

[Gary]

The constitutional right that hangs in the balance is my right that my vote should count and not be cancelled out by someone who votes illegally.

[Smarter Than You]

"a constitutional right hangs in the balance."

And the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality has ruled, with a non-partisan 6-3 vote, that the Indiana voter ID law IS constitutional.

[PhantomShadow]

We have to present a birth certificate to renew a driver's license. Why not a birth certificate to vote?

[AlexHamilton]

I wonder how Mr. Betz would have felt if someone had gone to his polling place before him on election day and used his name to cast a ballot. Without a photo ID requirement, it would have been a breeze to do so.

As for proof of citizenship to register...since voting is a RIGHT of CITIZENS, it is just common sense to be certain that only CITIZENS are registering for that RIGHT.

[Marielle Dolan]

I became a US citizen and (unlike Obama) have no problem either showing my birth certificate, photo ID or passport when asked. You need photo ID to get a library card. A person on the up-and-up and with nothing to hide has no problem verifying who they are.
I am PROUD to verify my nationality in order to vote. When you are vetted to become a citizen; you appreciate the honor of citizenship that is bestowed upon you.
It has nothing to do with profiling or anything else; it is a matter of national security. Anyone who thinks otherwise is asleep at the wheel. These are dangerous times.
Maybe the government should run like a business ... they might be more efficient and profitable.

[whispering_to_kc]

"... I believe his motives are voter suppression. ..."

Indeed they are. Jim Crow, reborn.

Rush Limbaugh was on a kick a few years ago that only people of some wealth (property owners) should be able to vote as they were the only Americans with "skin in the game".

[Groenhagen]

If you don't like the law, go to D.C. and take it up with the Justice Department. Of curse, you'll need a photo ID to enter the building.