I don’t see the big deal. We have to show a TDL where I vote. How does it disenfranchise people?

Same reason Republicans ignore/oppose voter -verifiable paper records and audit trails.
.

All I ever had to show was my voter registration card and frequently not even that.

The one link says that poor people would be less likely to go get a voter ID, and that does seem somewhat logical since the poor have a higher proportion of hourly employees who would have to not be paid to go to a governmental office which is only open at the convenience of the government (i.e., from after work starts until just before it’s over).

The other study says that requiring IDs doesn’t hinder the number of people who go vote. Considering that damn few actually go vote, that’s not a big duh either.

But I’m opposed to a national id or a voter id because the government can’t be trusted to keep my personal data safe (go google howard school).

But I’m opposed to a national id or a voter id because the government can’t be trusted to keep my personal data safe (go google howard school).

I agree completely. No National ID.

News flash, OddInterger, you DON’T have to show a TN DL to vote. Because, you know, not everyone drives. And nowhere does it state that a person must be able to drive a car, or have a job, or even have a home to be able to vote.

BTW, IIRC we actually HAVE a Voter ID law. It just doesn’t need to be a picture ID. As I recall you could bring your water bill as proof of residency. Perhaps that’s just a Davidson County thing.

Anyway, I saw Hobbs’ post last week when it first appeared. It’s terribly dishonest to claim his version of a Voter ID law would solve anything related to those stolen laptops.

It’s pretty obvious that the GOP wants to keep poor people from voting because they tend to vote Democratic (gee, I wonder why!).

I don’t think anybody opposes requiring a would-be voter to identify themselves. Are you aware of anywhere in the country where they allow anonymous voting?? I’m not.

What alot of us are opposed to is adding a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork to the process of becoming eligible to vote. I think this is especially important when the country is so polarized because if you make it complex enough, the moderates are more likely to just figure it’s not worth the trouble and then you’ll be left with only the more radical voters going to the polls.

I’ve actually long been surprised the GOP wants to make the voting process so complicated. Sure it’d disenfranchise poor voters who tend to vote Democratic, but what I think they are forgetting is that it would also likely disenfranchise many elderly voters who tend to vote GOP.

I’m in favor of anything that keeps the stupid from voting.
Literacy test? You betcha!
Hell, add a civics section. If you don’t know how the government works, get back in the romper room.
While we’re at it, add a math section. If you can’t find the angle in the triangle, go back to your cave, troglodyte.

It’s pretty obvious that the GOP wants to keep poor people from voting because they tend to vote Democratic (gee, I wonder why!).

I went to public schools and teacher said I was smart, but I don’t get it. How is it obvious that the evil ones want to keep poor people from voting? The bank requires ID to cash a check. What is the difference?

I am completely lost. Doesn’t everyone have some form of ID. Even Kevin?

I’m still waiting to see actual proof that there are people capable of getting a voter registration card who are not also capable of getting a driver’s license/state-issued photo ID.

Gasp, what if we put photos on the voter card??

I think this is a dumb issue for D’s to go to the mat on. Go ahead, let’s have photo IDs to vote. Then it at least APPEARS that Ds would like fraud-free elections. Then, R’s will have to agree to a paper trail, no??

I just can’t wait to hear the local Gestapo say,”Your papers,please”.

It is insane not to have a paper trail for voting. And it is also probably unconstitutional. I don’t see why anyone would be opposed to a paper trail.

I’m with you on the paper trail. Hi-tech voting machines with no paper trail make absolutely no sense.

Luckily, TruVote appears to be back in business. Google up some info on this company, HAVA, and the company’s founder, and be sure to have a tinfoil haberdasher on standby.
.

“I think this is a dumb issue for D’s to go to the mat on.”

lcreekmo –

You’re exactly right on that. It really is.

“I think this is a dumb issue for D’s to go to the mat on.”

Too late. They are already gone.

by SB…

It’s pretty obvious that the GOP wants to keep poor people from voting because they tend to vote Democratic (gee, I wonder why!).

Dunno, maybe because the GOP just hates poor people, brown people, the Joooooooos, gays, women, clean air, clean water, and voters who are paid for by promises of more AND MORE entitlements?

Not to mention the ones Democrats dig up on election day…just check with the Ford family machine in Memphis.

Zombies for DEMOCRATS!

What possible good can come from Republicans? Until they can be outlawed they should be shunned.

I don’t care about the ID specifically, but unless IDs are free…isn’t this just a poll tax?

(if in fact IDs ARE free, I retract my statement)

What about the fact that the poll worker knows me. In fact as long as I have voted in different locations and different states, the poll workers have usually been my neighbors and the election lines have been filled with people from my neighborhood. I still show them my DL instead of my VRC and move right on, no big deal. Hello, they even write down what form of ID I use to vote. I have had to thumbprint on the roll as well in another state.

Like someone said earlier, you need ID to even cash a check in this world. Where is the issue here?

seems to me to be a solution to a problem that does not exist. the majority of voting fraud occurs via absentee ballots, not when someone actually goes to a polling place.

every state already has laws in place, crafted by each state, detailing what type of IDs are needed in order to vote. why push for more IDs?

the problem is not voter fraud - it’s getting people to vote.

Like someone said earlier, you need ID to even cash a check in this world. Where is the issue here?

I was not aware the US Constitution guaranteed the right to cash a check…

Dolphin, the US Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to vote either.

Dolphin, the US Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to vote either.

The Mr. Magoo of Nashville blogoblather goes out on another limb and falls, to wit: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment XIX.

Always good to have Andy drop by. Nice drive by.

How’s TennViews coming along? I think I saw a comment there last week.

Andy, the constitution prohibits voter discrimination on the basis of race (15th), sex (19th), and the 26th mentions age. However, there is no explicit guarantee of the right to vote in the US constitution. States do disenfranchise voters for a number of other reasons. As long as there is no discrimination on the basis of race or sex, there is no constitutional right.

How’s TennViews coming along? I think I saw a comment there last week.

How’s your blog? Oh, wait… there isn’t one.

How’s your blog? Oh, wait… there isn’t one.

And ironically I get more readers. Seems counter intuitive doesn’t it?

It would, but then I am aware of your untreated megalomania.

Glen, Andy’s only problem is he quoted too much. All he needed to quote was “The right of citizens of the United States to vote[.]”

If there is no right of citizens of the United States to vote then the 15th, 19th, 24th, and the 26th are invalid and make no sense. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and the 26th wording implicitly establish a right to vote.

the constitution prohibits voter discrimination

Actually this is (sorta) wrong. They don’t (simply) prohibit voter discrimination, they prohibit denial of the right to vote.

If you think that you have an explicit right to vote, then try to vote without having registered to vote.

You do not have an absolute, unequivocal, unqualified, categorical, right to vote.

You have to have residency, you have to register, and you have to have ID.

Now some people would like it if illegal aliens could vote, but what kind of people are they?

Thanks for the trip down literal liberal lane. It was very semantic. Just like old times Andy.

You do not have an absolute, unequivocal, unqualified, categorical, right

You do not have an absolute, unequivocal, unqualified, categorical right to free speech. So what? That doesn’t change the fact that free speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Now some people would like it if illegal aliens could vote

Regardless of what some people would like the Constitution only guarantees the right for “citizens of the United States.”

I think we should require photo ID.

And fingerprints.

And retina scans.

And DNA testing.

And papers proving no slave blood in your ancestry, and extra bonus votes if your ancestors walked off the Mayflower.

Purity of Essence, Peace on Earth, and all that, etc.

Here is a commentary on the subject written by a Democratic Congressman from Illinois. The Supreme Court is the law of the land, is it not?

If I could get 20 registered TN Republicans to write to Corker, Alexander and their rep (and cc: me) expressing concern for the e-voting get-ups currently in use, and urging support for systems such as TruVote, I’d write in support of photo ID verification of voters. In fact, I’d set up a site to help people get their photo IDs.
.

Here is a commentary on the subject written by a Democratic Congressman from Illinois.

Glen did say explicit. This was like an ACT test question. You have to read them carefully.

I can’t wait until we start talking about Federalism.

I think everyone agrees that legitimate voters are more than welcome. We should try harder to disenfranchise the cheats, because the process of cheating disenfranchises everyone.

By standing in the way of simple voter ID requirements, it seems to me Democrats (mostly) are empowering the cheaters.

Because of their overwhelming desire to win at any cost?

By standing in the way of simple voter ID requirements, it seems to me Democrats (mostly) are empowering the cheaters.

The very same can be said of Republicans and their opposition to voter-verifiable paper ballot records.
.

Glen did say explicit.

Responding to my comment which said nothing of “explicit.”

You can’t simply add in qualifiers til you finally get the result you’re after.

Dolphin, the US Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to vote either.

Looks clear to me.

With the secrecy guaranteed in voting, there is no real way to link an actual vote to, say, a SSN. Most people wouldn’t want their vote kept that way. I like the privacy of a curtain.

Don’t start that nonsense of ‘voting machine fraud cost AlGore-Kerry-whoever the election’. I would bet that’s just sour grapes. Hanging sour chad grapes.

Personally, since voting is so important to this country, I would support draconian laws that would punish cheaters with, say, life sentences.

Stakes in the heart for the zombies…

With the secrecy guaranteed in voting, there is no real way to link an actual vote to, say, a SSN. Most people wouldn’t want their vote kept that way. I like the privacy of a curtain.

So you didn’t bother to look into TruVote, just certain, you were, that it was a commie plot to sap your precious bodily fluids?

Personally, since voting is so important to this country, I would support draconian laws that would punish cheaters with, say, life sentences.

I would, too.
.

Looks clear to me.

Well, I suppose for someone interested in depriving people of their votes it does.

I on the other hand think the Constitution is quite clear in it’s NUMEROUS implicit guarantees of the right to vote.

Perhaps that’s just because it’s not in my best interest to suppress voters though.

One thing should be clear to everyone though. This thread has made ya’ll bear your true colors.

If there is no right of citizens of the United States to vote then the 15th, 19th, 24th, and the 26th are invalid and make no sense. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and the 26th wording implicitly establish a right to vote.

Looks clear to me.

That is pitiful dolphin. Glenn provided a slam dunk link. I can’t help you. But you do have a right to not understand.

What next, Bush stole the election?

Dolphin, come on. “This thread has made ya’ll bear your true colors.”

You know better.

And we know what happened to the last guy that tried to live with bears.

Dolphin, for one who is so hard to pin down on any issue, your ‘true colors’ are pretty transparent.

Speaking of moving a ball down a field, you should have responded to me @ 7:59. Instead, you stick a steak knife in the ball, trying to keep it away from dolphin.
.

No, JP, I had to check out the latest theory on who/what killed Benazair Bhutto. Not a steak knife, a laser…

Edgy, I just don’t know what else to say.
.

Tom Tomorrow? He’s yesterday’s news. You must read too much Nashville Scene.

Political comics are tailored to certain people in niche markets. What I think is funny and satirical, you probably won’t.

How about some nice Blondie instead?

After reading all of the interesting banter, I am asking myself, “Just what exactly is the problem that we’re trying to solve via photo ID’s?”

If one looks at the low voter turnouts of recent elections, the LACK of a voter Photo ID doesn’t seem to have helped. Is there enough voter fraud going on to warrant all this hubbub?

Is there enough voter fraud going on to warrant all this hubbub?

The ID question is looking down the wrong end of the telescope. First, take care of the voter-verifiable paper ballot. Then, the ID question can be addressed.

It’s the difference between retail fraud, and wholesale fraud.
.

OMG, my head hurts. I googled “TruVote” to get more info (youdon’t get the whole picture from company websites).

I ended up getting inside the head of someone who has seen too many Oliver Stone movies:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20041105&articleId=116

Anyway, once I take a shower to wash off the paranoia, I’ll look into it further. I’m not a big fan of open source - it’s not as unhackable as its proponents let on, and it’sgreat for small, closed systems, but has huge problems on a large scale.

But, I could be convinced - voting is a (kind of) closed system.

Tom Tomorrow? He’s yesterday’s news.

The humans in that particular strip argue much in the same style as a couple of folks, here, though. It’s almost reached the point of self-parody.

And I note that not a single professed Republican has committed to writing our lawmakin’ folks regarding voter-verifiable paper ballots.
.

Here is a commentary on the subject written by a Democratic Congressman from Illinois. The Supreme Court is the law of the land, is it not?

Glen, your link goes to a website where the congressman believes that Congress actually works - he’s even got a main link for it. Since he’s that far out of touch with reality, should we believe him?

Instead, you stick a steak knife in the ball, trying to keep it away from dolphin.

Actually I was really impressed with Serr8d’s comment. He actually made a comment directed at me that wasn’t a gay-bashing comment (in fact even most of his comments not directed at me as of late have been gay-bashing comments). So I’m just glad he found some new material. Not that his gay-bashing really bothers me in the least (really, if there’s a gay man out there who has been out for even 5 years or more who still so much as blinks at that kind of moronic bigotry, I’ve not met him).

Though JP, you are right that his comment certainly wasn’t intended to “move the ball down the field” and in fact was just an irrelevant utterring that didn’t even make any sense. But still, it was new material.

JP, I support the paper trail for voting ststems. I don’t write to representatives about anything, because I’m not yet enough of an old crank. Give me time.

I’m still not sold on the particular system you linked to before, but my objections are based more from a technical point of view than philosophical.

I don’t bash gays. In my family we have…never mind. I do wonder at what “feeds the roots” when I see religion-bashing, however.

But who, I ask you, brings it up all the time? If a subject is brought to the table, it’s fit to carve.

Actually, there is no right to vote in the Constitution, just the guarantee of a republican form of government. Voting is an implied right of that guarantee.

I don’t bash gays.

No need to respond, that assertion is completely laughable on its face to anybody who has been reading here for any period of time.

Actually, there is no right to vote in the Constitution, just the guarantee of a republican form of government. Voting is an implied right of that guarantee.

Precisely!

A post with a simple question brings out the victims brigade. It’s is a simple question. Why not have ID to vote?

From that simple question I have learned dolphin is gay and unhappy, JP thinks Republicans want to steal elections, and several commenters are incapable of understanding the definition of the word explicit.

So I guess this will go on for another 50 comments as we learn more about what is painfully clear already.

[…] City Bloggers seriously arguing in comments that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to vote. OK, […]

Why not have ID to vote?
What does that fix??

It’s is a simple question. Why not have ID to vote?

And you got a simple answer before you guys started arguing that people should have their right to vote revoked.

Simple answer since you missed it first time around. You already are required to identify yourself when you vote. Establishing some “special” national ID to have to vote with just creates another layer of expensive bureaucratic red tape that will make it more difficult for an already largely apathetic population to vote. it’s simply not the way to encourage participation of the populace and without participation what good is a republic?

From that simple question I have learned dolphin is gay and unhappy

Well you got it half right I guess, that’s something anyways.

And you got a simple answer before you guys started arguing that people should have their right to vote revoked.

Where? Where did anyone make the argument that people should have their right to vote revoked?

That is a false statement. Why are you acting like a child?

This is some of the most disingenuous commenting ever at MCB.

Where did anyone make the argument that people should have their right to vote revoked?

You and Glen are both arguing that there is no right to vote. Do I need to quote EVERY single time you’ve said it, or will one or two suffice?

Why are you acting like a child?

Believing people have the right to choose the politicians who represent them is child-like to you?

This is some of the most disingenuous commenting ever at MCB.

If you’re referring to your assertion that I am “unhappy” based solely on the fact I think people have the right to vote, then I agree.

You and Glen are both arguing that there is no right to vote.

So is SayUncle. And Neal Boortz. And so is everyone who can read.

That does not mean that Glen or I want peoples right to vote revoke.

Why do you think there is a proposed Constitutional amendment to include the right to vote? If that right were in the Constitution, why would an amendment be needed?

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html

Carry on dolphin. You are doing a great job showing why our next President should be a Federalist.

You and JP have show your colors. And I am happy about that.

Whoa Dolphin, I am definitely not calling for a national ID for voting. I only support this at the state and local level. National ID would be a violation of federalism, as well as Bigbrotherish.

Paul, I appreciate you trying to make this a civil conversation and to show my appreciation, I am going to answer your question.

“What does that fix?”
I believe it helps prevent voter fraud, illegals voting, dead people voting, Ophelia Ford type voting. It is so easy for anybody to get a picture ID made, that the disenfranchisement argument is silly and looks really disingenuous. The only people it really disenfranchises are people trying to commit voter fraud. That’s why most people realize it is a bad issue for Dems to latch onto.

So is SayUncle. And Neal Boortz. And so is everyone who can read.

I can read quite well thank you (why is it that people like yourself HAVE to throw in insults even if you’re trying to make a valid point, you have asked before why I think of you as a troll, that’s why).

I just believe an honest reading shows that, because we are guaranteed a republican form of government, and guaranteed that our “right to vote” (that one you say we don’t have) cannot be taken away for any number of reasons, the right to vote is absolutely implicit in the Constitution. If it is not, then large parts of the governing document of our country are meaningless goobly-gook that don’t make any sense, and I’m not prepared to accept that. I think the intention that we have the right to vote for our elected officals are overwhelmingly clear.

Why do you think there is a proposed Constitutional amendment to include the right to vote?

This is the first I’ve heard of such a thing. Perhaps you should ask those proposing such a thing but my guess would be that some people don’t have the critical thinking skills to understand that you can’t prohibit the denail of the right to vote, if the right to vote does not exist.

If that right were in the Constitution, why would an amendment be needed?

While I’d not oppose it, I don’t think it is needed.

Carry on dolphin. You are doing a great job showing why our next President should be a Federalist.

And why praytell is that? And futher, do you honestly think a Federalist would be keen on your national id idea?

You and JP have show your colors.

Great, what are they? From here yours appears to be that you don’t think peopel should be allowed to vote. If mine are simply that I believe people absolutely have that right, then I’m proud to where them. If you haven’t noticed they are red, white, and blue.

And I am happy about that.

I am too.

And why praytell is that? And futher, do you honestly think a Federalist would be keen on your national id idea?

I clearly stated above I am against a National ID.

From here yours appears to be that you don’t think peopel should be allowed to vote.

No. I wrote very clearly. That is not accurate.

[…] Neal is out of sorts about a discussion about whether voting is a constitutional right. He is adamant that it is. Say Uncle clears it up for him: Then, err, […]

Glen, thanks for a great post.

Federalism is an important topic in this Presidential election.

One viewpoint:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=izy79xQL4sw

I clearly stated above I am against a National ID.

I fail to see a huge difference between a National ID and a “State ID.” It’s still one more (and completely unnecessary) step people have to go through to vote and still one more finger of big brother wrapping around the neck of americans.

That’s what I don’t get about federalists who claim to be for “small government.” My experience has shown that they invariably want MASSIVE government, they just want it at the state level.

Great video. Gosh I hope that guys sticks with it all the way to the convention, regardless of early outcomes.

How the heck did this conversation get stuck in a “stupid” loop? Let me insert a little if/else/break code:

To those going round and round with dolphin:

What does it matter if there is no explicit declaration of the right to vote? Is your argument that restrictions on the franchise are allowed by the constitution? And, that ANY restriction, minus the ones explicitly prohibited by amendments, is fair game?

I think you had a point, I just want you to get to it. how doesn you argument affect the actual subject of this post, in a practical way?

Since I’m the one that brought up the voter photo ID topic in the Tennessee blogosphere a few days ago, I have a few comments to make.

1. I never suggested a national voter ID. I suggested that local election commissions issue photo voter ID cards, using the same technology that the state uses to make driver licenses on-the-spot.

2. I also suggested that such a program must also have a component to ensure that it is easy for all voters - even poor/elderly/minority voters - to get a photo voter ID card.

3. If Nashville had issued all 337,000 voters a photo voter ID card, there would have been no need to have their social security numbers and other identifying info on a laptop for use at a polling place. And if the info wasn’t on the laptop, then the theft of the laptop would not have put 337,000 people at risk of identity theft.

4. I believe that a photo voter ID card, locally issued, could make it EASIER to vote if it was combined with technology such as a barcode or magnetic stripe, a PIN number, and could be used to cast a vote at any polling station. (You would enter the card, it would pull up all the races and ballot questions for your specific precinct, and you would vote. If you could vote at any polling place within your county, more people might vote simply because it would be more convenient to do so.

5. Instead of reflexively accusing Republicans of wanting to suppress Dem voter turnout by requiring a photo ID, why not work with Republicans to develop a fraud-proof voter ID system that enhances rather than depresses turnout?

I have no idea where dolphin is coming from or going. What I do know is he has repeatedly misrepresented what other commenters have written. This thread is stuck in the second grade.

dolphin makes a false charge, people defend themselves. Rinse and repeat.

This is simple. Without voter ID there is voter fraud. Without voter residency requirements there is voter fraud. Without voter registration there is voter fraud.

I support voter ID, residency requirements, and voter registration just like almost everyone on this forum.

We have to have rules because some people cheat. Just like some people lie.

Slarti, Dolphin smarted off with “I was not aware the US Constitution guaranteed the right to cash a check.” All I did was remind him that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant the right to vote either, and yes I did use the word explicitly.

Then it was off to the races, as it always is with Dolphin.

“What does it matter if there is no explicit declaration of the right to vote?”
It matters a great deal in regards to federalism. The right to vote is an unenumerated right, one that is left to the state and local governments. The federal constitution has disallowed disenfranchisement on the basis of gender and race, but thats it. Voting is therefore a state right, not a federal one.

“Is your argument that restrictions on the franchise are allowed by the constitution?”
Yes it is, unless those restrictions have to do with race or sex. Therefore if a state wants to deny the franchise to someone with no ID, then they have a right to do so. If they want to deny it to felons who have already served their time and are free, then they have a right to do so. If there was a flat-out constitutional right to vote, they could not.

“And, that ANY restriction, minus the ones explicitly prohibited by amendments, is fair game?”
Absolutely, and there are many restrictions.

“How does you argument affect the actual subject of this post, in a practical way?”
If there is an explicit constitutional right to vote, then voting ID requirements would be unconstitutional. But there isn’t.

Btw, see the arguments by the majority in Bush v. Gore.

Btw, see the arguments by the majority in Bush v. Gore.

Link:

http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingAmendment.shtml

5. Instead of reflexively accusing Republicans of wanting to suppress Dem voter turnout by requiring a photo ID, why not work with Republicans to develop a fraud-proof voter ID system that enhances rather than depresses turnout?

I believe I’ve expressed a desire to do just that. However, I can’t get Republicans to work with me on what is clearly a bigger issue to close vote fraud loopholes: Support of the voter-verifiable paper ballot. Slarti said he’s for it, but so far, he’s the only one… and he really can’t be bothered to write our lawmakers about it.

So… who’s reflexin’ whom?
.

How many times do Glen and I have to say we support a paper trail on electronic voting machines? This is about the fifth time.

Is that enough?

Yeah JP, 9 and I both have said we agree with you on that.

Yeah JP, 9 and I both have said we agree with you on that.

So, y’all gonna write Corker, Alexander and your rep (Cooper, if you’re in my neck of) to wit?
.

Sure. How about an email though?

I have no idea where the “conservatives are against a voting machine paper trail” idea came from; I don’t know of ANY (unless they own a company that creates paperless voting machines - certainly not representative of conservatives as a whole).

As far as the ID problem goes, I’m going to guess that the attempt is to fix two perceived problems: illegal immigrants voting, and the fraud from Ford Family Machine in Memphis.

(In the old days, there was the joke, “Why does it take so long for Ford districts to report? They have to first find out how many votes they need…”)

However, the latter seems to have just about played itself out. The Fords hold a mere shadow of the power they used to wield. I think we’ve seen their last hurrah.

As far as the illegal immigrant vote, I’m not going there…

As far as the illegal immigrant vote, I’m not going there…

Slarti, wait until November 5th of this year. All you will hear is how the election was stolen by the votes of illegal aliens.

If there are 30 million illegals, or even 20 million, it is clear why there must be voter ID.

How can anyone argue against voter ID?

I don’t bash gays. In my family we have…never mind. I do wonder at what “feeds the roots” when I see religion-bashing, however.

I would address that, but I’d get banned for commenting off-topic.

Ror, I wouldn’t worry too much about staying on topic, as far as this thread is concerned.

Dolphin smarted off with “I was not aware the US Constitution guaranteed the right to cash a check.”

My point was simply that voting and cashing a check are not the same thing. There’s no “right” to cash a check. I believe, based on my reading of the Constitution, that there is a right to vote. Until this thread I never even knew that there were people who disagreed, and I STILL don’t see how a republican form of government can even exist without voting being a necessary part of it. It’s kind of part of the definition.

Then it was off to the races, as it always is with Dolphin.

Well, I don’t want to get my comment deleted so i won’t return fire. I know it’s ok to attack me though, so no biggie.

The right to vote is an unenumerated right, one that is left to the state and local governments.

Other than the fact that I don’t think state and local government have the right to cancel elections, I don’t disagree with this. I, like Slarti, don’t see the relevenace with regard to the conversation at hand.

Yes it is, unless those restrictions have to do with race or sex.

Or age, or ability to pay a poll tax (hmm… perhaps like having to take time off work and pay gas money to drive all over creation to get some special “state id” card just to be able to vote), but that’s beside the point.

Therefore if a state wants to deny the franchise to someone with no ID, then they have a right to do so. If they want to deny it to felons who have already served their time and are free, then they have a right to do so.

I don’t disagree. Still not seeing the relevance. Unless you’re argument is that because a state CAN do something, it MUST. I have never made the argument once that the state CAN’T mandate some special state ID for voting. I’m arguing that it’s not such a good idea to do so.

If there was a flat-out constitutional right to vote, they could not.

Bull. Name one constitutional right that isn’t subject to at least some kind of regulation or condition.

I have no idea where the “conservatives are against a voting machine paper trail” idea came from; I don’t know of ANY

Slarti, what JP is referring to is the lead up to the 2004 election in which conservatives fought tooth and nail to avoid having a paper trail instituted in the wake of the CEO of DieBold promising that he’d do everything in his power as the CEO of the company that makes the voting machines to ensure that George Bush took the presidency.

Dolphin, I really don’t want to argue with you. I regret the off to the races comment.

Back to the topic, you have a good point. States get away with restricting lots of rights.

Slarti, what JP is referring to is the lead up to the 2004 election in which conservatives fought tooth and nail to avoid having a paper trail instituted in the wake of the CEO of DieBold promising that he’d do everything in his power as the CEO of the company that makes the voting machines to ensure that George Bush took the presidency.

On the 94th comment the payload is delivered.

dolphin, you have given one of the most disingenuous performances I have ever read in over five years of blogging.

I know of no conservative anywhere who opposes a paper trail. I would like to see the sourcing for that statement. Can you find a non-Daily Kos source?

You have taken the Daily Kos playbook and shown how little regard you have for this forum or the comments of other people. You deserve the democommie award for trolling.

Excelsior.

a poll tax (hmm… perhaps like having to take time off work and pay gas money to drive all over creation to get some special “state id” card just to be able to vote)

And don’t forget having (in Tennessee, at least) to pay for the state ID. That, for me, is the real sticking point. The rest can all be dealt with, eased in according to local circumstances. But having to pay to vote? I say “Nooooooo.”

If religion had its way it would prohibit “religion bashing”. That leads to bad things. Take a look at Islam.

I know a lot of Christians think their religion is “better” than Islam, and arguably it is; largely because it has been tamed by secularists. Unfortunately, our work is never done.

Sure. How about an email though?

Perfect, awesome; thanks! Please copy me, or post it here or on your blog — I’d be interested in what you have to say to them about this.

I have no idea where the “conservatives are against a voting machine paper trail” idea came from; I don’t know of ANY (unless they own a company that creates paperless voting machines - certainly not representative of conservatives as a whole).

You could start by looking at who has been roadblocking Rush Holt’s HAVA amendments since about 2003-04.
.

I know of no conservative anywhere who opposes a paper trail. I would like to see the sourcing for that statement. Can you find a non-Daily Kos source?

Well I’ve never actually read the Daily Kos (actually I make it a point not to read any of the “big” blogs) but are you guys not claiming Trent Lott these days (though I don’t blame you if you’re not)?

“I’m leery of attaching [a printer] on the side,” he said. “It seems we’re adding a level of complexity.”
-Trent Lott

Look, bravo for you if you support a paper trail. I’ve always thought the paper trail plans that have been put forth so far are pretty moronic, because they only involve counting the paper votes in a close election. I, myself can write a computer program that records one option while printing out another so if the paper copies aren’t counted, I don’t really see the point.

You have taken the Daily Kos playbook and shown how little regard you have for this forum or the comments of other people. You deserve the democommie award for trolling.

When a troll calls you a troll, and a person who so badly intentionally misrepresented another’s words that it meant an entire post had to be removed tell you you’re misrepresenting their words, then you know you must be doing something right.

If I’ve misunderstood something you’ve said, you’re always free to clarify. I’ll always listen if you’re reasonable, but while name-calling may be an effective technique for arguing with prekindergartener, it won’t get you far with me.

nm, the proposal Bill Hobbs spoke of would not require that the person pay for the voter ID.

I don’t think either party has much room to criticize when it comes to the dead voting whether it’s here (Crump, Ford, etc.) or elsewhere (Daley, Tammany Hall, etc.) stretching back over the last 200 years. However, I do recall a great deal of discussion over the no paper trail issue for electronic voting. Given that both republicans and democrats hold office everywhere paperless voting has been implemented, I’d be more likely to suspect incumbency (ok, instantly suspect) as a motivator for preferring no paper trail than I would a party.

If I’ve misunderstood something you’ve said, you’re always free to clarify.

You have misrepresented many statements in this thread. In a serial manner. I have corrected you each time in this thread. But that is the point isn’t it? The democommie tactic from NiT.

You seem to think that Conservative=Republican. That is far from the truth.

Lott is not a Conservative nor is President Bush. They may claim they are but there actions prove they are not.

You could have made your claim by saying Republicans opposed paper trails. But you didn’t. Your sophistry is unbounded. You make absolute statements and parse literal words while making statements that are completely untrue about what others have written.

The technique is simple, misrepresent, ignore, misrepresent again. That is trolling.

Glen, that would be a good change. The current non-license state ID does have to be paid for, and there’s a renewal charge as well. So long as that’s the case, I personally will be opposed to requiring its use.

And don’t forget having (in Tennessee, at least) to pay for the state ID. That, for me, is the real sticking point. The rest can all be dealt with, eased in according to local circumstances. But having to pay to vote? I say “Nooooooo.”

On what grounds?

You seem to think that people have no responsibility in the voting process. I think inferring that the charge for a photo voter ID a poll tax is a big stretch.

So is the state supposed to pay for the transportation cost to bring people to the polls?

People have to pay for their drivers license. They have to pay for a Post Office Box.

When did the State become responsibly for each and every need of the people?

I am fascinated with this idea. What grounds do you base this on?

inferring that the charge for a photo voter ID a poll tax is a big stretch

should be:

inferring that the charge for a photo voter ID is a poll tax is a big stretch

nm, just checking. Did you mean to say “So long as that’s the case, I personally will not be opposed to requiring its use.”?

Hobbs’ argument is actually pretty good, when you consider what happened in Davidson County. This issue, just like the paper trail issue really should be a bipartisan thing.

You seem to think that Conservative=Republican.

Oh dear god, is that what this is about? I “misrepresented” you because I use the terminology accepted by the vast majority of the American public? If you’re gonna throw this big of a fit over that then there’s not much use in talking to you.

For future reference, when Average Joe America says “conservative” they mean someone who typically votes Republican. When Average Joe American says “liberal” they mean someone who typically votes Democratic.

I’m in shock you’re stooping as low as you are, just to try and discredit little old me. Geez I must be hitting one hell of a nerve. “Republicans aren’t conservatives” Sheesh.

I think inferring that the charge for a photo voter ID a poll tax is a big stretch.

Hardly. A voter ID differs from a driver’s license rather simply. The sole use of a voter ID is to vote. If you have to pay for a voter id to vote, then you have to pay to vote. When you pay for a driver’s license you pay for being able to drive. Not to start us down this road again, but there is no right to drive.

Look, bravo for you if you support a paper trail. I’ve always thought the paper trail plans that have been put forth so far are pretty moronic, because they only involve counting the paper votes in a close election. I, myself can write a computer program that records one option while printing out another so if the paper copies aren’t counted, I don’t really see the point.

I’m hoping you and Slarti will point up the weaknesses in TruVote; it’s probably not perfect, but it seems a damn sight better than what’s in place from ES&S, Sequoia and Diebold, today.
.

When Average Joe American says “liberal” they mean someone who typically votes Democratic.

Ronald Reagan?

I’m in shock you’re stooping as low as you are, just to try and discredit little old me.

No one has to discredit you. That would be redundant.

“Republicans aren’t conservatives”

Perhaps it is dyslexia and I should be more compassionate.

I did not write that, again.

I wrote, “You seem to think that Conservative=Republican.”

Which has a complete different meaning.

Don’t tell anyone, some Republicans are moderates, some are even liberals.

I appreciate your eighth attempt to change what I wrote. Nice.

JP, I spoke too soon. On second thought, I will gladly write to my state representative and my governor. Asking the federal legislature to get involved would violate my principles. States and local governments conduct elections, not the feds. Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, so there is really not national elections. I apologize for speaking too soon. I do support the idea though. I just don’t support federal involvement.

JP, I spoke too soon. On second thought, I will gladly write to my state representative and my governor. Asking the federal legislature to get involved would violate my principles. States and local governments conduct elections, not the feds. Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, so there is really not national elections. I apologize for speaking too soon. I do support the idea though. I just don’t support federal involvement.

I appreciate the sentiment, but realize that HAVA dictates the technical details to the state election comissions, so… either way, your expressing your concern for and support of a voter-verifiable paper ballot is appreciated.
.

States and local governments conduct elections, not the feds.

Exactly.

Even with the diversions this has been an excellent thread. A good day for a civics refresher course.

@9: I think inferring that the charge for a photo voter ID a poll tax is a big stretch.

We disagree. Dolphin has pretty much already explained the reasons behind my interpretation. Since you’ve made your reasons for your own interpretation clear (though not, to me, convincing), please let’s not get into the name-calling part, which is where I leave.

@Glen: I meant to write what I wrote: so long as there is a fee for a voter ID, I am opposed to requiring it’s use.

Gaaah! Its use. Its. Not it’s. So sorry.

nm, but if there is not a fee, then you are okay with it. Right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901382.html

“A state judge yesterday rejected a Georgia law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, writing in his decision, “This cannot be.”

Fulton County Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford Jr. said the law, pushed by Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) to fight voter fraud, violates the state constitution because it disenfranchises citizens who are otherwise qualified to vote.”

The push is on to allow illegal aliens to vote. Typical, but wrong.

Glen, if there is no fee, if the cards are made available in neighborhoods (at schools, libraries, churches, etc. — the same local sites where voting takes place) before and after work hours (and not only in DMV-type places not easily accessible to public transportation — remember, we are talking about non-drivers here — open only during work hours), and requiring the same documentation as is now required to get a voter registration card, that would deal with most of my objections.

Cool, because what Hobbs is proposing are free cards. Maybe its like the cards we already have, but with a picture.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-tokaji28sep28,0,2367742.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

“A new poll tax?

Election fraud isn’t a problem, but the Supreme Court may OK an ID law that burdens poor and minority voters.

By Daniel P. Tokaji

September 28, 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it would hear a challenge to an Indiana law that requires people to show government-issued photo identification in order to have their votes counted. Two other states have passed such laws in recent years, and others have debated the issue. Promoters of these laws argue that they are needed to prevent fraud. Opponents claim that they will impede eligible citizens from voting — a disproportionate number of them poor, elderly, disabled or racial minorities.”

This is so clear. The Supreme Court will wait to the last second to hear this, staining another Presidential election.

More, “To combat the discrimination argument, some states have agreed to make ID cards free. Yet voters still must pay for the documents needed to get the ID, such as birth certificates. Even more significant is the burden on voters’ time, disproportionately borne by poorer voters who don’t own a car. How many of them will expend the time and money to collect the required documents and then wait in line at the state motor vehicle office, only to face the prospect of yet another line when they go to vote? A few surely will, but many will not.”

So the case is made that the State of Tennessee should pay for the ID’s because the Supreme Court cannot be trusted to act in time.

Now the harping and carping will be who should pay for the poor people getting a copy of their birth certificate. Of course the State should pay for their transportation and their time.

This will never end. It is by design. The goal is simple, to let people vote who are not citizens.

I have to admit, I had no idea this was happening. Thanks nm, my eyes are open now.

Thanks nm, my eyes are open now.

See Tom Tomorrow comic @ 1/2/08, 11:17, this thread.

*sigh*
.

I agree with what nm said over all, but here’s the thing that still gets me with it all. Getting this type of program up and running will cost potentially millions of taxpayer dollars and will still (even with all the niceties in place) put off some legit voters. And for what?

I didn’t hang out with a particularly rough crowd growing up but off the top of my head, I can think of at least 5 high school friends who had fake IDs (I never did though), so clearly they aren’t hard to get. I suspect anybody willing to commit voter fraud won’t be held back by having to get a fake ID printed up. And as mentioned earlier, it’s kind of a moot point because the vast majority of voter fraud happens via absentee ballots.

It’s spending millions of dollars to make everybody “feel” better that I object to.

Well that and people like former political director of the Republican Party of Texas, Royal Masset, who doesn’t think voter fraud is a problem but supports photo IDs anyhow because he believes that “requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.“

Glen, if the proposal doesn’t deal with the other issues I mentioned, I’m still against it. My problem is not with the concept of requiring a voter ID — one is already required, in the form of a registration card. My problem is that so many of the recent proposals for requiring new forms of ID seem (in terms of poorly-thought-out practical results, if not in intention) to make it impossible for poor, carless folks to vote.

I know several companies that make photo ID’s. The cost is very small.

So I go to this place, show my voters card or my TDL or my birth certificate, have a picture taken. I have a new voter ID. The State pays for it.

I don’t see the big deal.

For those who are just registering to vote, they still have to have the birth certificate or some means of ID. Again, what is the difference?

How is this any different than having your water turned on when you move to a new home?

I will admit I see the case that the State should pay for the ID. If for no other reason than to keep the courts out of it.

But this idea that the State should provide transportation vouchers and pay poor people for their time while they get their new photo ID’s doesn’t hold up.

A certain amount of personal responsibility is incumbent with the privilege of voting. You will notice the word privilege.

There is no explicit, implicit, enumerated, unenumerated or inalienable right for the State to hold your hand and provide for every single need you have.

This is a fascinating look into some peoples minds. If this is what is expected of our government we are in serious trouble. This type of nanny state is unattainable. Citizens have responsibilities that can not be fulfilled by the State.

JP,
Please show me evidence of a stolen election based on an absence of a paper trail. (and, sorry, but evidence of henhouse foxes–Democrats, don’t count).

They’re not there. This is your side’s way of moving the goalposts.

I’d also like to see an example of someone’s ballot being not counted because of current law. HAVA accounted for questions on election day keeping a registered voter from voting. (Not that it was a major problem in the first place, but we were at least able to staple that Democratic jello to the wall).

Boy dolphin, you had to dig deep for that story. But “Royal Masset”–former Political director for the TX GOP, doesn’t speak for me and offers no evidence for his assertion . . . mainly that requiring photo IDs would affect “legitimate” Democratic voting.

And re. fake IDs, I’m not sure that’s all that relevant in voter fraud because it is generally very fluid and requires a particular name on a card–not a birthday or some such. The trick is to identify the name of someone who hasn’t voted (or isn’t likely to vote, in which case your claim is more relevant) and then have someone present him/herself as that person.

It would take a bit of time, but the process is pretty straight-forward to get a birth certificate, then an SSN and anything else you need. You first go through a cemetary finding people who died vey young, get a copy of their birth certificate from the state, and go from there. (You need to read more spy novels.)

Please show me evidence of a stolen election based on an absence of a paper trail. (and, sorry, but evidence of henhouse foxes–Democrats, don’t count).

Well, that’s the beauty of unauditable no-trail voting, isn’t it?

Why would you want it to stay that way, is the question.
.

Well, that’s the beauty of unauditable no-trail voting, isn’t it?

How myths are made. Allege but never verify.

But what is clear is the tremendous effort being made to ensure that illegal aliens can vote. I am amazed at the superfluous arguments alleging the disenfranchisement of poor people and those without transportation.

If you are poor and have a voters card this is one trip. Every single voter is being asked to make this trip. How is this disenfranchisement? It is equal.

If you haven’t registered to vote it is a moot point.

This is depressing. I see how naive I can be. I forget the seething partisanship that exists beneath the pleasant demeanor of everyday people. It is times like today I long for a real third party that is viable.

9, I thought you had gone on-record as supporting voter-verifiable paper ballots. Have you reflexed on us?
.

FWIW, I’d also support verifiable paper ballots. Is that 3 yet?

9, I thought you had gone on-record as supporting voter-verifiable paper ballots. Have you reflexed on us?

The discussion of a voter photo ID has nothing to do with a paper trail for voting machines.

I don’t know what “voter-verifiable paper ballots” are. That sounds like a new topic of discussion.

Have the goal posts been moved again? This has been like Calvin Ball today.

Number9 on 2 January, 2008 at 3:47 pm #

It is insane not to have a paper trail for voting. And it is also probably unconstitutional. I don’t see why anyone would be opposed to a paper trail.

If you can’t go check out the TruVote link I provided 3-4 times… can’t help ya.
.

The discussion of a voter photo ID has nothing to do with a paper trail for voting machines.

Don’t be disingenuous. We’re talking about reducing voter fraud. You’re concentrating on retail fraud — small potatoes. The voter-verifiable paper ballot will close a big, gaping hole in that it will go a long way towards preventing wholesale fraud.

Focusing solely on the ID issue is like locking your car, but leaving the windows down, and leaving the keys in the ignition, and then saying that your car is secure, ’cause you locked the doors.
.

JP, voting machines are decided upon at the local level. You do know that don’t you.

I have studied the TruVote as well as the other systems.

I have agreed multiple times in this thread that an audit trail is crucial. We have had this conversation in Knoxville. We hammered it as hard as it could be hammered. In the end the Director of Elections did what he wanted to do.

Do you want me to send him a strongly worded letter?

Tennessee is controlled by Democrats. you may have better sources than I. If you want a State Law for a paper trail show us where to write to. I would be happy to help.

What is that address? What is the Senate Bill Number? House Bill Number? Who are the sponsors?

If there isn’t a bill, we can write one here on MCB and send it to the Tennessean. You let us know how to help.

JP, voting machines are decided upon at the local level. You do know that don’t you.

I know that HAVA dictates only a limited number of vendors, due to the way it was implemented. So, it’s not as if the states can use any ol’ system they like.

That’s why amending HAVA is critical (and why the GOP has blocked Russ Holt’s every attempt to do so).
.

I know that HAVA dictates only a limited number of vendors, due to the way it was implemented. So, it’s not as if the states can use any ol’ system they like.

Links? You are acting we know what you are talking about. Spend a little time and make a case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act

Auditing

HAVA requires all voting systems be auditable and produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity available as an official record for any recount conducted.[8]

HAVA has a paper trail? What amendments are necessary?

Let’s back up.

I don’t think anybody opposes requiring a would-be voter to identify themselves. Are you aware of anywhere in the country where they allow anonymous voting?? I’m not.
What alot of us are opposed to is adding a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork to the process of becoming eligible to vote.

This was Dolphin’s original statement.

What is the evidence that requiring the photo ID will achieve the desired effect of cutting down on fraud and thus justify the added bureaucracy?

Interestingly, the argument seems to have spawned from an Indiana law. I am willing to bet even money that Indiana will be the first state projected to go Republican when the presidential election returns start coming in. Any takers? 50 to 1 ain’t bad.

Well IN already is Republican, isn’t it, if this poll tax was allowed to become law?

I’ll take your word for it.

Jay,
Count me in. That’s four Republicans who’ll write asking for (no, demanding!!) voter verifiable paper ballots.

One thing that I know about election fraud is that the best tactic is to overwhelm a precinct with tons of “special case” voters demanding to vote. That’s how corners get cut, oversight is diminished, and ballots make it into the general ballot box without being properly vetted. And the beauty of it all is that you then get to complain for any number of reasons . . . people had to wait too long . . . they were “intimidated” by having to sign their ID or verify their place of residence or fill out an affidavit saying they really, truly ought to be allowed to vote. Actually, this is the main problem (aside from the cost of purchasing equipment again so soon after HAVA) with adding printers into the mix–the potential for problems that would shut down the process at a given poll.

I have been an election precinct officer in Davidson county, and I remember a 60s holdover/wannabe who started hassling my ALL-BUT-ONE-DEMOCRATIC team of workers for asking him to put his signature on the back of his voter card, per the statute, prior to being allowed to vote. He even managed to use the phrases “jack booted thugs” and “Georgia Poll Tax” in the brief incident.

Our current system is undoubtedly complex especially for the (generally) elderly folks who are expected to administer it, but the bulk of the complexity is all the backflips etc. we have to go through to accommodate people who go to the incorrect precinct and demand to be allowed to vote or show up without ANY form of identification or never registered or . . . or . . .

JP,
I can show you numerous examples (indeed, every single election has them) of people casting ballots who shouldn’t be casting ballots. But Liberals insist on moving the goalposts, it seems, now speculating–after we bought all the electronic voting equipment you demanded after 2000, that “wholesale” fraud is a problem) as some sort of negotiating technique, I guess.

I know that HAVA dictates only a limited number of vendors, due to the way it was implemented. So, it’s not as if the states can use any ol’ system they like.

I’m going to have to challenge that assertion . . . I’m guessing it is an element of the Diebold conspiracy argument . . .

I’m going to have to challenge that assertion . . .

So, I should just do like that knife guy, and not produce any evidence?

Seriously… I’ll gather it up this weekend, when I have some time. Tonight, got other thangs, happenin’.
.

Long day at work.

Did I miss anything?

OK, a twist of the knife…why do Democrats need to worry about “disenfranchised” voters who, for whatever reason, can’t or won’t produce an ID at the ballot? Why shouldn’t even Democrats want to know if a voter isn’t a cheater?

Better, answer me this: why should we force the states to compensate for the Democrats’ failures in winning the votes of properly identified and upright Americans over those who can’t even do for themselves long enough to get or even want proper identification?

Most states still limit the voting rights of felons. Is that “disenfranchising” the Democratic vote, given most felons are Democrats?

[…] City Oracle has posted a very nice entry into the debate that started here about whether or not the United States Constitution explicitly contains the right to vote. In his […]