In Kansas, Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who wrote the National Review cover story on Arizona last year, has started his Topeka tenure with a bang, battling voter fraud and pushing the state legislature to pass tough photo ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements. Earlier this week, Kobach emerged victorious from the debate, as the state house passed his measure, 111-11, after passing in the state senate last week, 36-3.
Some details of the legislation via the Kansas City Star:
•Voters would be required to provide an ID when they cast ballots starting Jan. 1, 2012. The ID could include a driver’s license, a state ID card, a passport, a military ID, or a license for carrying a concealed handgun. Exemptions could include people with permanent physical disabilities or active-duty military personnel and their spouses.
•A free state ID would be available to anyone 18 or older, as long they sign an affidavit stating they plan to vote and don’t have any other form of ID acceptable under the bill.
•Voters casting advance ballots by mail must provide a current driver’s license number, state ID card number or a copy of an acceptable ID form.
•Would-be voters must prove their citizenship when they register to vote beginning Jan. 1, 2013. Acceptable documents for proving citizenship include a birth certificate, a passport or a driver’s license from another state as long as the license shows they have proved their citizenship.
Gov. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) has indicated that he will sign the bill into law.
Make no mistake; Obama's minions will do everything they can to win in 2012. And the voter fraud will be their prinamry tactic everywhere. Memo to all potential GOP candidates; be ready to play hardball or lose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll seems quite sensible to me. The only reason I see anyone objecting to this is because it will interfere with illegal votes.
Of course, I expect a whole lot of righteous indignation real soon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are typically two standard arguments from the left on these:
1) It will be an undue burden on/disenfranchise the poor, the old, the foreigners, the dead, etc.
2) There isn't enough evidence that this is really a problem that needs to be addressed.
The first argument is ridiculous of course, and the second is laughable seeing it comes from the party that loves to rule based on anecdotes: An insurance company screws one person, so let's write 100 pages of laws and regulations to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a recent case in So. Texas. A candidate for a local office (D) gave a worker the names/addresses of those who had applied for absentee ballots and told the worker when they would be mailed out. That campaign worker (who also worked for Ciro Rodriquez and Bill White) hit the nursing homes the day the ballots arrived and got them, filling them out, for the seniors. She mined over 100 ballots. The candidate she worked for won by less than 50 votes. The loser protested the election, and when the vote mining was discovered the court ordered a new election, and the loser won by over 300 votes. The Texas Rangers turned over to the DA of Hildalgo 10 cases of voter fraud. The DA, who says that some of those cases probably worked for his campaign, refused to prosecute.
When the punishment for voter fraud is less than $1,000 and 90 days community service, who cares? It will continue. Or when DAs refuse to prosecute "for lack of evidence" because they owe their election to those vote miners, it will continue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course the Democrats will fight this tooth and nail. BK in TX is has covered the usual arguments well and, like other posters, I don't buy their arguments at all. There is only one argument that makes sense: "I oppose showing ID before voting becuase not showing it allows to commit fraud" -- which is the truth and which is why they oppose it. This is not to imply that the Republicans are Boy Scouts with regard to voting -- they clearly are not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThankfully, BK in TX, I have canned rebuttals that we can use when Leftists echo these arguments:
"1) It will be an undue burden on/disenfranchise the poor, the old, the foreigners, the dead, etc."
The US Passport Card costs only $10 and is a valid form of photo ID and proof of citizenship. And I find it hard to believe that we can force the poor to pay higher cigarette taxes and buy (heavily subsidized) health insurance but we can't ask all citizens to cough up $10 if they don't have a passport already.
"2) There isn't enough evidence that this is really a problem that needs to be addressed."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd how many times have racist, gun-loving tea party patriots shot up a school to protest racial integration? And would your answer change if it was the state of Texas that was engaging in voter fraud?
Democrats always benefit by having as many voters as possible (whether or not they are citizens, felons or otherwise) casting illegal ballots.
Why? Because their basic appeal to voters are centered on superficial, emotional, pleas. The more one understands the broader implications of such ideas as the minimum wage, higher taxes and spending the better the prospects for conservative candidates. By facilitating not only the most marginal voters who can barely be moved to register in a reasonable fashion, they insure the highest number of voters using the lowest amount of reasoning possible. Voters who are also the easiest to sway with last minute media "surprises" that are either outright lies or grossly misleading stories.
Were I a Democrat, I'd do everything I could to make voting as whimsical and document free as possible. That so many Republicans ignore the fundamental danger to them that vote fraud and low voter documentation rules represents is a pretty fascinating statement of their ignorance about this issue as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCorrection to my previous post: the fees for a passport card are here:
External Link
The actual cost of issuing a passport card is $30 (execution fee is what you pay to get the book/card issued the first time). But $30 for a wallet-sized proof of citizenship is not bad, and a lot cheaper than whatever identity card scheme the Senate is cooking up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActive duty military have military ID's so why are they exempt? Their spouses have an ID card as well so why are they exempt? And to prove you're a spouse would need some proof no? So this exemption is stupid.
Why does a permanent disability get you off the hook as well? You would need ID to do just about anything else in your life if you left your house. So this exemption is stupid too.
However, the law is good and makes sense. Finally, there's an issue where Kansas has nothing the matter with them. (Lame I know.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm so happy Kris was elected here in Kansas. He is keeping the promises he made when he was campaigning, even with a horribly RINO-led State Senate (which is going to change over the next couple of elections, believe me!).
BTW, I have trouble seeing the image verification you all have switched to, and am often unable to post because you don't have an option to see a different image.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@bandmom: I noticed that disparity, as well. One of the acceptable forms of ID is a military ID... but active duty military are exempt. Scratching my head over that one.
@Beth: If you get it wrong, it offers you another opportunity on the preview page. Is that not working for you, either?
(I'm only having trouble about 10% of the time.)
(And, evidently I had trouble that time, since it made me do the captcha over.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe three most loyal Democrat constituencies are sure being singled out for some pretty ill treatment from Mr. Kobach, boy I tell ya.
So, it is only a matter of time before some David Boies-ish figurine pirouettes onto this scene to tap-dance a tune of political discrimination against dead people, convicts and illegal immigrants, each of whom votes Democrat at a 100% clip.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeth, just make your best guess. If you are wrong, the system will give a new pattern.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuoting membraind:
"And I find it hard to believe that we can force the poor to pay higher cigarette taxes ... "
if they're buying cigarettes they're being asked for ID anyway, right?
likewise if they're buying alcohol, spray paint or nasal decongestants.
As described, that law sounds perfectly reasonable (except for possible exemptions for military personnel -- like others said, military IDs were listed as acceptable, military personnel have them, so HUH?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvery time I see Kris Kobach as a guest on FOX , he becomes even more impressive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's telegenic, well spoken , extremely smart and has strong conservative bona fides.
His academic biography is exemplary , his pro life credentials are superb and he helped write
the Arizona immigration law.
He's also blessed with Reaganesque charm.
Kobach should seriously be considered for the VP slot in 2012 .
Of course the lame excuses for not passing Voter ID laws will consist of a) people will be disenfranchised because they have no way of going to get a free state I.D. and b) if they have to pay for an I.D. they can't afford it.
Yet, the point has been made that those very same people can afford higher cigarette taxes, and have found their way to the local quick-shop to buy those cigarettes (unless the Dems are now providing transportation for cigarette purchases).
The concept is that not everyone is "documented". Yet, a quick trip to Trader's Village in Houston will give you the means (if you are an illegal) to buy a Social Security card, a out-of-state driver's licence, and in some cases, a fake birth certificate. All for about 150 bucks.
Texas recently passed its Voter I.D. law and it is now in committee before it goes to Governor Perry for signature. And why was it needed? Because voter fraud runs rampant in South Texas (all Democratic strong holds). But not ONE Democrat complained that it is MINORITIES in South Texas that are having their votes stolen.
Who cares if we disenfrancise minorities because of voter fraud? The goal is to have Democrats win elections, civil rights be damned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe military exception is for troops (and, where applicable, their spouses) who can't appear in person due to their service. That makes sense. Kansas voters stationed at Riley, Leavenworth, and McConnell can presumably show up in person; those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. would get the exception.
See pp 25-26 at: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ronan: "He's telegenic, well spoken, extremely smart..."
For a moment I thought you were describing another Obama, then I read further to actual qualifications....
@centexpat: "(unless the Dems are now providing transportation for cigarette purchases)."
Around voting time they do.
@BK: Thank you for that clarification. That makes much more sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Of course the lame excuses for not passing Voter ID laws will consist of a) people will be disenfranchised because they have no way of going to get a free state I.D. and b) if they have to pay for an I.D. they can't afford it."
As a public service for the commentators, I figured I'd correct this.
The arguments against the voter identification laws are:
If voter fraud is going to occur, it will occur by using a false address. People aren't registered by their likeness, they are registered by their address. That is why current acceptable identification includes utility bills and mortgage stubs.
Requiring a photo i.d. is addressing a problem that doesn't exist.
The burden argument is not that the poor cannot afford identification, it is that they are overwhelmingly more likely to frequently change addresses.
But, at least in my state's recent passage of a new voter i.d. law, money is allocated to provide free identification cards to the poor. Money my state doesn't have.
Lastly, the signature match is a very effective measure against voter fraud. How is a photo i.d. more effective? The poll worker has your signature on file. The poll worker does not have your photo on file.
That is why these new laws seem stupid at best (a blatant attempt to make voting a hassle for traditionally democratic voters at worst).They are using very dear resources for a very dubious solution. If a state really wants to address voter fraud, tighten up mail in voting and faulty ballot machines.
I'm not posting this to start a shouting match with you guys. I just wanted to let you know the arguments against voter i.d. laws that you might actually hear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse