Posted by Frank James at 4:55 pm CDT
The House passed today by a largely partisan vote of 228 to 196 the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 which would require anyone wanting to vote in a federal election to present polling place officials with a government-issued photo ID.
But according to the legislation, it can’t be any old government-issued photo ID. It must be one that proves its holder is a U.S. citizen.
That rules out driver’s licenses since a legal, non-citizen U.S. resident can get those. And in many states illegal immigrants can still get drivers licenses though that is set to change in a couple of years when the federal REAL ID Act is scheduled to take effect.
So under the legislation whose sponsor is Illinois' own Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, a lot of people may wind up needing to take their U.S. passports with them to vote on future election days if the FEIA is passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Bush.
That’s a big if, however, since there doesn’t appear to be a lot of support for the legislation in the other chamber.
Supporters of the legislation pointed to reported episodes of election fraud in which dead people voted, and not just in Chicago. Or in which voters who showed up at the polls were told they had already voted; the implication being someone else had impersonated them.
And for Republicans there was a handy nexus between the voter ID and illegal immigration, an issue that revs up many of their voters. Republicans repeatedly talked of non-citizens voting in U.S. elections.
Opponents, however, said there’s little proof of an epidemic of voter fraud. The legislation is a solution in search of a problem, they say.
The legislation is also an example of a cure that is worse than the disease, critics say. They warn that large numbers of voters will be disenfranchised because older and poor voters, among others, won’t easily be able to obtain an unimpeachable government-issued ID.
It costs $85 to get a passport, not counting the cost of photographs. And a passport isn’t something that a lot of Americans have. Indeed, the State Department says only 27 percent of Americans possess one.
State issued IDs would be allowed. But states with voter ID laws like Georgia and Missouri are requiring voters to show proof of citizenship like birth certificates before issuing the documents and, hard as it is for many to believe, some Americans don’t have birth certificates. A Kansas City woman the opponents use as Exhibit A, Maria Frencher, can’t get a birth certificate because she was adopted and doesn’t know her actual father’s details.
Opponents consider the photo ID requirement as a new poll tax, the descendant of the insidious poll taxes that were common in the South and meant to disenfranchise black voters after the Constitution's 15th Amendment gave them the right to vote following the Civil War.
Critics of the legislation have come right out and accused its supporters of slyly wanting to depress the votes of voters more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans.
State judges in Georgia and Missouri have recently enjoined officials in both statse from enforcing voter ID laws they've enacted on the grounds that they are unconstitutional.
The press statements are flowing in from both sides after the vote. Here’s a sampling.
Speaker's Press Office
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 20, 2006
Hastert Praises Passage of Voter ID Act
(Washington, D.C.) Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) today issued the following statement regarding the passage of the H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. The bill passed 228-196.
"Every election cycle we hear stories of voter fraud and stories of non-citizens voting in our elections. That is why the Voter ID Act is the common sense step towards bringing integrity to our elections. This bill builds on the REAL ID Act, and it follows the recommendation of the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform. The Voter ID Act will require voters to present a photo ID in the 2008 federal elections. Effective 2010, voters will be required to provide a photo ID that could not have been obtained without proof of U.S. citizenship.
"The foundation of democracy is sealed in the promise of fair voting for the American people. I am disappointed that Leader Pelosi and 191 Democrats voted against the Voter ID Act and do not support a fair election process that our nation expects."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 20, 2006
Boehner: Large Majority of Americans Support Photo ID for Voting
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today praised House passage of the Federal Election Integrity Act (H.R. 4844), legislation introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) to require the use of photo ID in voting to help preserve the integrity of federal elections and prevent voter fraud:
"A large majority of Americans support using a photo ID at the polls because it is a common sense idea whose time has come. This important safeguard will give the American people confidence that the fundamental integrity of their votes is being protected. This bill also takes important steps to ensure that individuals who cannot afford to pay states are provided the necessary photo ID free of charge. Rep. Hyde and Chairman Ehlers deserve great credit for working to ensure that the rights of legal voters are preserved, and that the integrity of America's voting system is protected."
A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll demonstrated that 81 percent of the people surveyed expressed support for requiring a photo ID at the polls. In addition, using a photo ID for voting was a central recommendation of the bipartisan commission headed on federal election reform headed by Former President Jimmy Carter and Former Secretary of State James Baker. Likewise, prominent Civil Rights Leader Andrew Young has also endorsed using photo ID.
The office of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.,) the House Minority Leader, opted for sending out the speech she made on the House floor this afternoon before the vote instead of a brief statement.
News From House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
H-204, The Capitol, Washington D.C. 20515
http://democraticleader.house.gov
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Pelosi: Voter ID Bill Is an Attempt to Suppress the Votes of Millions of American Citizens
Washington, D.C. - House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor this afternoon in opposition to H.R. 4844, the Republican voter suppression bill. Below are Pelosi's remarks:
"'This cannot be.' With those words, Judge Jackson Bedford yesterday struck down the infamous Georgia voter photo ID law. Let me repeat: 'This cannot be.' Let these words guide us here, because right here in this House of Representatives, we take an oath to up hold the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution guarantees all America citizens the right to vote and the right for their vote to be counted.
"I thank the distinguished the gentlelady from California, Ms. Millender-McDonald, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, for her leadership on this issue. She has been an important force in protecting the integrity of elections. And that is why it is so sad to see this bill come here to the floor today, especially named the Federal Election Integrity Act. Integrity, it's not about integrity. It's about a tawdry attempt by Republicans to suppress the votes of millions of American citizens. That is not integrity.
"America is a beacon of democracy to the world. We must continue to send a message to the world that we honor the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the Constitution. Every eligible American citizen must be able to exercise their right to vote, and have their vote counted.
"Only a short month and a half ago, many of us here stood proudly on the White House lawn as the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization was signed into law. We overcame many obstacles, even for the reauthorization of that legislation, to affirm the most precious right in our democracy - the right to vote.
"Today, however, we are undermining that right to vote, and the reauthorization of the VRA. And in doing so, we are undermining our democracy. Though the right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, the bill we debate today would in effect disenfranchise millions of American voters: the elderly, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, people with disabilities; and the list goes on. As the NAACP has said, this bill 'would disenfranchise many of the very citizens that the VRA is designed to protect.' And the Republicans call that integrity. I don't think so.
"A few weeks ago, President Bush spoke before the NAACP for the first time in his presidency. He quoted President Lyndon Johnson in saying that voting rights are the lifeblood of democracy. And here today, after making that great statement, quoting that great civil rights and voting rights President, President Bush's party is here today in a transparent attempt to suppress the votes of millions of American citizens, cutting of the lifeblood of democracy. Is that integrity? I don't think so.
"Supporters of this Republican voter suppression bill will claim this bill is about preventing non-citizens from voting. It's just the opposite. It's a bill designed to prevent citizens from voting. Non-citizens are strictly prohibited under law from voting and face tough penalties for breaking these laws, and that's right.
No one condones fraud; there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters, as our distinguished Ranking Member pointed out. If you want to make a case, document it. Just don't claim it and then come through with a clear and transparent attempt to cut off the votes of those who don't share your political point of view. You didn't take an oath of office to do that.
"As we know from experience, Republican promises to authorize funds for identification are meaningless. We were supposed to have had $800 million allocated to remove obstacles to participation and facilitate voting. But because that would expand the universe of people who have access to the right to vote, the Republicans have rejected it for fear of the result of that turnout. Republicans have a history of underfunding election reform - they have underfunded the Help America Vote Act by $800 million. How they can explain that, I don't know. I know one thing: it's not about integrity.
"Problems with voting that were apparent in the elections of 2000 and 2004 are well-known and of grave concern to the American people. Those elections had uncomfortable echoes to a past that should have been long left behind. In the 2004 elections, voters in predominantly minority districts reported higher rates of inactive voter registrations, a greater percentage of inadequately staffed and equipped polling places, inconsistent treatment of provisional ballots - many of which never were counted - and sometimes even a lack of an adequate number of ballots. Even with the best intentions, it's challenging, as we saw in the state of Maryland last week. But if the design is to thwart voter participation, how much at a disadvantage is the average voter?
"Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, in one of our nation's finest hours, our country came together as a nation to overcome bigotry and injustice and to secure the fundamental right to vote. With the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we said that we would no longer tolerate the many nefarious methods - poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and as our colleague John Lewis can attest, brutal violence - that had been used to deny African Americans and other minority citizens the right to vote. Today this legislation seeks to turn back the clock. And they call it integrity.
"Those of us who take an oath of office - I go back to that oath over and over again - promise to uphold the Constitution. We commit to ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote, and that every vote is counted. Any diminishment of American citizens' voting is a diminishment of our democracy. This cannot be."
The liberal Leadership Conference for Civil Rights also issued a statement from Wade Henderson, its executive director.
For IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 20, 2006
It’s Up To Senate to Stop Ill-conceived Voter ID Bill
Statement of Wade Henderson, Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
“Congress and President Bush earlier this year reaffirmed the nation’s commitment to providing access to the ballot box for all Americans. What the House did today with its Voter ID proposal flies in the face of that recommitment.
The American electoral system is far from perfect but voter impersonation isn’t the problem that proponents of this bill would have the public believe. If passed, this bill won’t combat voter fraud. Instead it will stifle the franchise, eliminating the votes of millions of American citizens.
We’re confident that the Senate’s measured consideration of this bill will put an end to attempts like this to disenfranchise American voters.”
# # #
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Its about time something was done to stop illegals from voting and donl't hand me that crap people can't afford an ID.
Posted by: Lee Liley | September 20, 2006 6:04 PM
This bill is crazy! How long have we been doing it the right way? A mere 42 years and now someone thinks they have found a way around the voting rights ammendment passed in the sixties. Maybe they have figured out a way to reduce the deficit. Paying for all those passports?
Tommy Mayfield
Posted by: Tommy Mayfield | September 20, 2006 6:29 PM
I wonder how many people like myself do not have a passport and will have to send for a copy of a birth certificate in order to vote. This is nothing but a partisan attempt to discourage voting by most middle and lower class Americans who, surprisingly, tend to vote Democrat. This all republican, all the time government has got to be stopped. I hope the Senate has the common sense (a phrase rarely used in conjunction with Senate) to kill this. This is outrageous.
Posted by: Kellie Groves | September 20, 2006 6:36 PM
Voter IDs sound like a great idea. If they included funding to manufacture and distribute passports or IDs to every voting age American, and put the plan into effect only after everyone has their ID, I don't see much of a problem with this.
Posted by: Tom O | September 20, 2006 6:36 PM
I notice that the famous Bill Clinton "slayer", Henry Hyde, is behind this bill,and this is no surprise,the Republicans desperatly want to control the votes during this election.
Karl Rove can only take the GOPers so far.
This is like the Green Party candidates that the Republicans are pushing to be involved in all of the elections,hoping that they will steal some of the vote away from Dems,all the better for the neo-cons in Congress.
If the Republicans are doing so well in the polls now days,then why all the tricks,............we all know the answer...they are Chickenhawks..
The Republicans know that in general people don't approve of the job they have been doing,and they are tired of being lied to by the Republicans......bring out the GOP trick bag Karl,your Republican buddies in Congress are getting nervous.....
Posted by: John E. | September 20, 2006 6:42 PM
While they're tackling the problem of election integrity, maybe they look into the issue of poor security for electronic voting machines. That's the real threat to election integrity.
Posted by: Tom O | September 20, 2006 6:42 PM
The only problem I see with this is that if we are lucky we get a 40% voter turnout now what will happen if we throw this into the mix?
Posted by: bill r. | September 20, 2006 8:39 PM
I'm with the 81%-Get a photo I.D. or you can't vote!Even tho Jimmy Carter(Dem)embarrassed this country,he's right on this one!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | September 20, 2006 10:08 PM
Nice poll tax! If you don't have a raised seal on your birth certificate (as about 40% of Americans don't) try getting a Passport. Plunk down your $97 and then try to vote. About 2 months waiting later and then you can vote. Think about it idiot GOP'ers. Oh, you guys would love to have about 27% elites voting for your old Bush Cheney regime. It's a good idea in theory, but that's the straw that broke the camels back. Impeach these a-holes!
Posted by: Woj | September 20, 2006 11:39 PM
Isn't this like a poll tax? You HAVE to PAY for a passport.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | September 21, 2006 5:59 AM
Awww, poor babies might have to send in a request to get a passport. How sad for them.
Posted by: Bill | September 21, 2006 7:07 AM
Bill..hate to remind you...but there are people that don't know where their next meal will come from. Way to sympathize...oh I forgat..all you republicans have the big bucks$$$$$$
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2006 8:12 AM
Let's see, it's not a burden to require a photo ID to buy beer, drive a car or ride an airplane but it's too much trouble for people who want to vote? Give me a break! When I first registered to vote I had to provide a birth certificate but now the state will register virtually anyone with no proof of citizenship. If people are not interested enough in voting to get the proper credentials then it's a sure bet they haven't made any effort to understand the issues they're voting on. We definitely need to tighten up on who votes.
Posted by: Bart | September 21, 2006 8:21 AM
This Dem. doesn't have a problem with IDs as long as the government pays for it.
Why we're at, after a voter gets their ID, let's allow mail ballots paid for by the government (like Oregon).
All you fair minded Rs don't object do you? I mean you're still not trying to depress the minority like in Florida and Ohio?
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 21, 2006 8:43 AM
This would directly violate the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. It states quite clearly,
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote...shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
It will not pass the Senate for just this reason.
More importantly, this issue is a political ploy to distract from the real threat to Election Integrity. That is the use of electronic voting machines. The Center for IT Policy at Princeton University has shown convincingly that these machines can and will be hacked.
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
Until this issues is dealt with, we can have no faith that our elections have any integrity.
Posted by: Dave Larson | September 21, 2006 8:48 AM
This is a GREAT idea & is exactly what this country needs. The Government has FAILED to keep our country's borders secure at least this is a step in the right direction!
Posted by: Logic | September 21, 2006 9:12 AM
I find this bill very discouraging. Wait, I have an idea. Why dont we dip our find in purple ink like was had the Afghani's did? This would cost about $10 per polling station. If this good enough for the Afghani's, this will be good enough for us.
Posted by: Mike | September 21, 2006 9:21 AM
Unfortunately, not every American Citizen can get a Passport. Anyone who has been accused, not even convicted, of a felony cannot get a passport. So I, nearly a decade ago in school, was accused of lighting a garbage can on fire. Felony charge of Arson, Real Property. Or maybe somebody gets caught in some backwards corner of IRS tax law and happens to get a felony accusation. That person would not be able to get a Passport and therefore not vote. I do believe the bill states that it must be a Government issued PICTURE ID, which would invalidate most birth certificates. Now isn't that nice. Just one more way to prevent true AMERICAN CITIZENS from voting.
Posted by: peelingchrome | September 21, 2006 9:24 AM
Liberal logic: the government can require you to show an ID in order to buy beer, but it can't require an ID for voting.
Posted by: Bruce | September 21, 2006 9:25 AM
Interesting article and the comments even more interesting.
What everyone is missing out is that it is not a Democrat bashing or a Republican bashing.
One has to ask why we have the issues we have with our government and the policies we have allowed them to implement at every level.
If we want a true democracy, and want to make sure we always do the right thing then we have to seriously ask why we have allowed so many things to go on for so long that havenot in anyway produced the results we want.
If we are a representative democracy and our representatives have not done the job they are required to perform then get them out first and foremost.
Identity to be elgible to vote is valued and should be cherished. If we can't make this process easy and cost effective then the whole concept becomes a hogwash.
The citizens of this country need to be held accountable for how things have been conducted over the course of the last 50 years and if we belive that having the ability to vote is not to be valued then we have to deal with the consequences such as passing of Laws that we don't necessarily approve but having not participated don't have the right to complain about.
The many Middle Eastern Countries are run as dictatorships and thus people don't have the right to make choices freely. We have that choice and we have let it go to waste, unless we are pushed against the wall I doubt we will have any real change that is about "DOING THE RIGHT THING" we may always do what is legal under the Laws we supposedly enact.
Posted by: Dumbnutz | September 21, 2006 9:27 AM
I heard on NPR a Republican legislator, state I think, on the floor proclaiming there is no inconvenience and then later they interviewed him, redfaced because he could not register because he did not have the proper forms of ID he himself required for voter registration...after he went out of his way to take the time to drive down to the office. Priceless.
Posted by: jethro | September 21, 2006 9:31 AM
Bill,
You pay for passports, you don't just ask for them.
Posted by: Janet | September 21, 2006 9:43 AM
The courts have ruled that poll taxes are illegal. Poor babies in the GOP house will have to find another way to disenfranchise poor and middle class voters.
Posted by: Tom O | September 21, 2006 9:49 AM
You know this bill will never pass muster with the Supreme Court anyway. It’s unconstitutional and an obvious attempt by the Republicans in congress to keep their jobs. What they will get is uproar from citizens that can see through this cheap shot at the constitution, and be more convinced than ever to get rid of these lying, cheating, bastards. As for Paulo, you should probably move to China or North Korea, where you would feel much more at home under communism. Hey Bill, ditto.
Posted by: Rory M | September 21, 2006 9:49 AM
the republican party is on the brink of loosing what little seats they have, "there is no stopping what can't be stopped", they have to use what little powers they have to try and hang on, as was done in florida "chad", they are oozing with insecurity and everyone else who believes in there mediocre tactics does the same, the bottom line is the people have to come out and vote, and according to everyone else anyone that dosen't have a passport is to busy working as a day laborer or working in the field or taking jobs that nobody wants, the proof is in the pudding, there are much more important issues to deal with, they can't see them and its sad to see the direction they are taking this Country.
Posted by: William | September 21, 2006 9:53 AM
Buying beer, driving a car, and flying in a plane are PRIVELEDGES. Voting is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. There is a big difference.
Posted by: jethro | September 21, 2006 9:56 AM
"Liberal logic: the government can require you to show an ID in order to buy beer, but it can't require an ID for voting.
Posted by: Bruce | Sep 21, 2006 9:25:49 AM"
Once again, Bruce fails to recognize the fine lines of distinction between showing a state issued drivers license to by beer and being required to show a passport to vote.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 21, 2006 10:57 AM
" there are much more important issues to deal with, they can't see them and its sad to see the direction they are taking this Country.
Posted by: William | Sep 21, 2006 9:53:15 AM"
William,
Never fear! Another Terri Schiavo or Elia Gonzales may be just around the corner!!
If only the 'Liberal War on X-mas' could be ginned up before the November elections!!
Posted by: C.Morris | September 21, 2006 11:02 AM
C.Morris..I personaly have a problem with
garden Gnomes..is there anything we can do?
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2006 11:20 AM
One step closer to a forced national identity card system. Why don't they simply microchip us all with our social security number at birth or naturalization and be done with it?
Posted by: Dienne | September 21, 2006 11:43 AM
Bill R,
Yeah, they (Gnomes) are somewhat pagan, or even Satanic.
But a good measure of a society can be drawn from what they value as important.
Though I saw '04 as the last chance to step back from the abyss of stupidity, I still hold out a glimmer of hope for 11/06.
Maybe, just maybe...
It's gonna get beyond butt-ugly this time.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 21, 2006 11:46 AM
Bill R.
PS.
If you really want to show your yard gnome who is boss, hit him full on in the face with you hose on full blast.
Very satisfying, indeed! I just did it!
Posted by: C.Morris | September 21, 2006 12:31 PM
Having been a Republican all of my adult life,I am appalled by the introduction of this Bill,since the 2000
election I have questioned the Republican Party's behavior and the total lack of common sense.
Where, when and how is this going to stop?
Posted by: Heinz | September 21, 2006 1:01 PM
So you have to pay to get a passport. Big deal. It's a minimal charge at the post office and I'd argue it should be lifted, anyway, as everyone should be allowed to get a passport regardless of financial hardship. You know, you already have to pay (postage) to get your voter registration card sent back to your address in most voting districts in several states already. You just pay for it at the DMV under motor-voter. If you don't know that you're paying for it does that make it less of a poll tax?
Yes, I know requiring that oh-so-expensive passport violates the letter of the law, but it's more of a step toward recognizing the real world of voting law and how it's evolved. If you don't think the systems of identification most districts are using are badly outdated you're only kidding yourself.
What would be best course of action is if the government issued photo ID voter registration cards when you register free of charge. That would eliminate the haggling and going through a list of thousands of names on election day to find people who don't bring ID. Seems simple enough to me. Until then I'll take the passport proposal as a step in the right direction.
Bill R., I understand how much you and your leftist friends in politics sympathize with the poor. You sympathize all the time with them when you need their votes and then you shove them back down into the welfare state until they're of some use to you again. That's quite a hand up. It's noble work you're doing. Really.
Posted by: Bill | September 21, 2006 1:20 PM
Why are we so concerned about the cost of an ID? I pay for gas to drive to the polls, should the government pay for this? I take time out of my work day to vote, should the government compensate me for lost wages? Are these costs poll taxes also?
Is proving citizenship unimportant? Maybe one side of politics would like the support of illegal voters....hmmm, which side would that be? For all the accusations about stealing elections, allowing illegal voters is exactly that.
If you think getting proper identification is too big a hurdle, maybe your priorities are not in line. 10 illegal votes will make my legitimate vote seem unimportant. Empower the legal voter by ensuring only legitimate votes are counted.
It's not as if election day is tomorrow. They are giving advanced notice. So you want to vote? Get prepared! It starts with reading the paper, keeping your eyes open and using good reason. Provign citizenship is not asking too much.
I am in favor of any plan to make the election process bulletproof. We've had enough conspiracy theories in the last elections. Let's take the ammo away from the theorists.
No matter what obstacles lie between you and voting, if you find it isn't worth it...we are probably better off without you casting your vote (that goes for Dems, Reps, Conservatives and Liberals alike).
Posted by: Tim | September 21, 2006 1:34 PM
Bill...My leftist friends and I do sympathize with the poor. I know this is hard to believe, but, to "alot" of people that meager amount to you of $95 is a great deal of money. If they are in a welfare state, it would be because the republicans don't want to increase the minimum wage without tacking inheritance tax reform...those poor have nothing to leave to anyone...why do you need to deny them a large hand up in wages without trying to get a little more for the ones who "have"? Also illegal immigrants take the low qualified jobs from the same poor..yet you have full power in congress
to address this...could it be that you don't want to crack down on the employers of illegals
because they can make more money..It's all about big business. They can't afford health care because republicans are in bed with pharmacuetical companies. Noble indeed!
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2006 1:43 PM
This bill would essentially hand over the US government to foreign-born naturalized citizens.
About 1/4 of Americans have a form of photo ID that proves citizenship, but 100% of naturalized citizens have such ID.
Under this bill a birth certificate is insufficient. A Drivers License is insufficient. A military ID card is insufficient.
Valid documents for voting are limited to:
(1) Passport
(2) Certificate of Naturalization
(3) Certificate of Citizenship
Every foreign-born citizen has either #2 or #3, and most have #1 as well. A minority of native-born citizens have #1 and virtually none have either #3 (they don't qualify for #2).
Posted by: opendna | September 21, 2006 1:44 PM
Well another republican voice of sympathy! Yea Juanito..those republicans really care about the common man. Tim...your assertion about the cost of gas and such is obsured. Thats not the issue..and apparently you too do not know how poor some people are in America(this is where Bruce and others say...pull yourselves up)today.
I'm sure you piss away that much on beer but you really need to open your eyes to the plight of poverty. The more I reread your post the more I know I'm talking to someone who doesn't have a clue...so I'll waste no more of your time!!!1
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2006 1:51 PM
"10 illegal votes will make my legitimate vote seem unimportant. Empower the legal voter by ensuring only legitimate votes are counted."
Tim,
A few hundred votes in Fla. negated the 550K margin that Al Gore received in 00. I know, it was all legal.
I can remember Rather, Brokow, the other dispensers of conventional wisdom, breathlessly informing us all how 'your vote really really counts' after all. Well, at least in Florida that time.
Tell that to the 550K majority that voted for Gore.
Yeah, I know, The Electoral College system, yada yada yada.
Where you fairly posit the argument that 10 illegal votes may steal your legal vote, I posit that just maybe a few scrounged and possibly illegal votes negated 550k votes.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 21, 2006 1:54 PM
Tim writes "Why are we so concerned about the cost of an ID? I pay for gas to drive to the polls, should the government pay for this? I take time out of my work day to vote, should the government compensate me for lost wages? Are these costs poll taxes also?"
Well if it werent for our ability to vote and enact laws that we today take for granted Tim maybe you would not be able to vote even. If you were a white male and not a property owner you could not vote then it changed to include all white males then white women. Only recently in our 200 plus year history have allowed minorities the right to vote.
To want and need to enforce that only citizens get to vote is sincere and necessary. How we enforce that this happens has to find what would apply even to the lowest common denominator. Having someone get a passport is one thing, but if the economics of it are that it is not viable for some people we are then not addressing the lowest common denominator.
There probably are better cost effective measures that can be deployed to enforce the rules.
Why not also pass a bill that would require every eligible citizen to vote or be penalized by a tax penalty.
If we consider Voting to be a Priviledge bestowed upon us for being citizens then we should also make it such that this priviledge is valued.
Neither party would like every citizen to mandotorily require to vote as it would be not in their best interests.
Thus the need to try and marginalize in the name of enforcing rules of eligibility that cost to prove for the lowest common denominator.
When everyone is forced to vote then we will have a better country at hand. As it stands we are close to having almost 80% apathy in the political process and policies that are meant to be BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE PEOPLE.
Posted by: DumbNutz | September 21, 2006 2:14 PM
Bill R.
Tax breaks allow small businesses to hire more workers. Mainly unskilled workers who would otherwise not have any jobs. Ending the death tax was supported in polls by 65% of Americans. That's good enough for me. Jobs are the only real way to help the unemployed and better jobs are the only way to help the working poor.
Bush has expanded MedicAid, HeadStart and every other entitlement program aimed at the poor during his six years in office. But even Bill Clinton realized welfare and entitlement reform was the first step to helping the working poor.
If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, but if you teach him to fish (i.e. give him a job) he eats for a lifetime.
Posted by: Bill | September 21, 2006 2:16 PM
And Bill R.
If you and your leftist care so much about the poor why have welfare rolls, unemployment rolls, AFDC payments and general poverty expanded every year in poor communities since Lydon Johnson introduced his Great Society?
Even Howard Dean admits the Great Society was a failure. Oh, but I forgot, you care and we don't. But whatever poverty ribbon it is that you wear because you care won't give these people a better future. Good luck with your meaningless gesture.
Posted by: Bill | September 21, 2006 2:19 PM
In Chicago, will the picture of the tombstone suffice?
Posted by: Terry | September 21, 2006 3:28 PM
I really don't think this is an issue of voter fraud. I mean look at voter turnout in recent years. For christsake its pitiful. There's really not a lot of people voting that isn't supposed to. That means, its about the republicans trying to make sure a certain group of people don't get to vote again.
Posted by: gdub | September 21, 2006 4:04 PM
Bill...you're right..they need jobs. The same jobs we have given to the illegal immigrants. They just passed terror legislation in 2 weeks..why has it taken so long if this was important to republicans? It's cheap labor and it is bringing us down. Illegals are doing work
to rebuild New Orleans...why have they allowed
employers to continue this? Because they are in favor of business not people. They have full control of the branches of government and again 2 weeks for terror years for immigration. These are our citizens losing jobs. 11 million and counting...how many are enough?
Posted by: bill r. | September 21, 2006 5:22 PM
The issue is moot. The courts have concluded that any ID that has to be $$$paid$$$ for =equals= a poll tax and thus unconstitutional.
Case closed. Next.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Bart, Bruce and many others: What you seem to miss is that this bill is not asking for the same kind of ID that buying a beer or driving a car require. In fact it specifically states that *that* kind of ID is insufficient. Instead, it requires an ID that costs nearly $100 to obtain. Perhaps you are fortunate enough that 100 dllars is an insignificant sum...pocket change, or beer money. If so, good for you. For myself, however, that is nearly half a week's pay, and I work full-time and have NEVER received any kind of governmental support. Add to that the problems faced by those who were adopted, and have no access to their official birth records, thus are unable to prove citizenship and are therefore also denied the right to vote under this bill. These are not minor inconveniences, but rather enormous and potentially insurmountable obstacles for many citizens. This measure, if passed, will almost certainly disenfranchise HUGE amounts of legitimate voters, and convince many more that voting is just not worth the trouble. Voter turnout is already alarmingly low, how can anyone think that lowering turnout further will be beneficial?
Posted by: Desmond | September 21, 2006 8:56 PM
I don't have a problem with requiring a photo ID in order to vote- as far as I recall, when I worked the polling places for the 2000 elections, we were encouraged to check that the person had some form of valid ID. What I *do* have a problem with is requiring people to pay for the ability to vote. Passports are expensive- I'm sorry, but not everyone has a hundred dollars to blow on a passport they'll only use to vote. If the government wants to require our voter registration cards to have a photo, fine- *if they provide it*. I'm willing to stand in line, fill out forms, etc- it's not that I'm not willing to do something extra to be able to fill out those ballots on election day.
However, forcing people to effectively buy the right to vote is against the law, a law passed because the last time we had a payment required to vote, it was to disenfranchise a large population of voters. Go on all you want about leftists, lazy people, whatever, but the facts are this: According to our constitution, we cannot charge people any sort of fee in order to vote. This bill requires a passport in order to vote. Getting a passport requires a fee- and not a particularly small one, either. Add all that together and you get the very simple answer- this is not constitutional. Period.
Posted by: Emma | September 22, 2006 1:00 PM
Here's what I wonder.
Before 1940, 20% of African Americans' births were never registered with the state. In other words, for 20% of African American senior citizens, no birth certificate exists.
I personally know a man who was tortured and almost killed in 1970 in a Mississippi jail for helping people register to vote.
I know his family was very poor because his mother died of pellagra, a disease of malnutrition, when he was an infant. It is likely that he was born at home, perhaps delivered by a midwife in the community.
I wonder if a record of his birth exists?
Or will he, in his last years, lose the right to vote that he nearly died for?
Meg
Posted by: Meg Cox | September 23, 2006 8:56 AM
Meg,
Those unimportant types don't count anymore.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 23, 2006 8:05 PM
tatto next
Posted by: bobby Hollis | September 24, 2006 2:47 PM
i am an american citizen who wants passport so that i can go into foreign mission trips. the money is not an issue but i was convivted of a felony in 1994. a non violent offence and not drug related. can i obtain a passport or will i have to hire an attorney. i finished my probation in 1999.
Posted by: autumn edde | January 26, 2007 8:34 PM