How Can This Not Make Sense?
By Jim Lynch on Sep 20, 2006 in Good Ideas, House, Politics
You need one to cash a check. It’s a necesity if you want to drive a car. Unless you look as old as I do (and if that’s the case, I’m sorry) you need one to buy and adult beverage or a pack of cigarettes. If you want to rent an apartment, a hotel room, or even a dvd from the video store you better have one.
It’s what most sixteen year olds can’t wait to get. I had to wait until I was seventeen in NJ. I’ve had one now for over thirty years from three different states.
It is the most common form of personel identification — the state issued photo id.
The House passed a bill to require an ID before voting.
Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. “This is not a new concept.”
This is just comon sense. So naturaly there are those on the left who are already having a cow.
But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly — groups that tend to vote Democratic — who might have trouble producing a photo identification.
“This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax,” said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. “It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters.”
Sorry, but I’ve gotta call BS on that.
It’s not going to hurt minorities.
It’s not going to hurt the poor.
It’s not going to hurt the elderly.
It’s not tantamount to a 21st century poll tax
It’s not going to disenfranchise large numbers of legal voters.
It will help prevent fraud. You lefties are against fradulent voting, aren’t you?
Don Surber put it this way:
Let us uphold My Rights as a voter not to have my vote dilluted by felons, foreigners and frauds.
[...]
I hope the Senate makes voter photo ID the law of the land. If necessary, amend the U.S. Constitution. Voter fraud undermines the Republic.
Yes, it does.
Sphere: Related ContentTags: Elections, House, Politics
Loading ...
the 24th amendment expressly forbids this law. If you force someone to have an ID in which they pay for, you’ve now instituted a poll tax. So unless you repeal the amendment, this bill is unconstitutional. It’s why the Georgia law was just struck down.
fxk | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
fxk, you have to remember, the constitution and international treaties are “quaint” guidelines if you ask the White House counsel. They’re not really binding. Just look at the whole NSA “terrorist surveillance” program. It couldn’t be more directly contrary to the 4th Amendment. And even S.Ct. interpretations of it are just for show. See, e.g., Gitmo. But the Constitution is just more of a set of advisory guidelines if you’re a Republican. It’s only binding when you’re trying to stop gay marriage or something important like that. It’s not binding on trifling, petty little things like presidential power, the right to trial, voting rights, free speech or privacy.
db | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
It is not a poll tax. Calling it one doesn’t make it so.
Jim | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
What happened in Ohio in 2004?
Would this law help?
Robert | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Can you show me one verifiable instance of a person voting under more than one identity or of an illegal immigrant voting? Why don’t you show the same passion for rules to verify electronic voting which can be used for wide scale fraud? Hypocrite!
madmatt | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Jim,
“the 24th amendment expressly forbids this law. If you force someone to have an ID in which they pay for, you’ve now instituted a poll tax.” What part of that is hard to understand? And I feel dumber for having read your response. Wish I could get those few seconds of my life back.
Progressive Force | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Absent any evidence that fraudulent voting in this way is a significant problem, (and there isn’t) then a big government mandate is unnecessary and totaly wrong. What has happened to conservatives? Have they all lost their principles? Had this been the democrats proposing this you would have been screaming about the big government interference and wasteful spending.
failureman | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Jim,
Are you serious? Voter fraud isn’t the problem. Election fraud is.
Elections aren’t stolen by people who vote twice, they are stolen by the people who count the votes. Hence, we see exit polls that don’t match the vote count (though somehow that isn’t seen as an indication of fraud here, even though it would be in any other country). Furthermore, voter fraud, when it does happen, is usually committed using absentee ballots, which this bill does nothing about.
Your pronouncements that this won’t hurt people are just pronouncements. You don’t really know, and you provide no evidence that it won’t hurt people. Futhermore, your assertion that this isn’t politically motivated by republican un-democratic calculus is laughable to anyone who has followed politics for more than a few days.
We weren’t born yesterday. We know that the republican party has engaged in voter suppression for a long time now…this is just another link in that chain. For you to pretend otherwise is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
ME | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
I’ll type slowly.
This is the 24th amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, 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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is the definition of tax from the American Heritage dictionary:
# A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
# A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.
Now we make the gigantic leap that paying the government a fee for my drivers license is a tax per the definition of tax and section 1 of the amendment and this would be unconstitutional.
fxk | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
To be fair, maybe you aren’t being intellectually dishonest.
Maybe you are incapable of putting youself on the shoes of those with disabilities, or suffering from poverty, or otherwise different from you.
If you don’t have a car or can’t drive, you don’t have an driver’s license. If you don’t fly out of the country every few years, you don’t have a passport.
Getting people registered to vote is hard enough. Expecting them to go get their picture taken, dig up birth certificates, and pay $20 months ahead of time JUST TO VOTE, is unrealistic.
What I’m saying is: in your world, everyone has ID because they need one. NOT EVERYONE LIVES IN YOUR WORLD. and for those people, voting probably isn’t important enough to go through the hassle.
ME | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
There’s a way to resolve this particular dilemma:
States should require photo IDs to vote IF such IDs are provided by the states to the voter at no charge AND are widely available AND the 24th Amendment is itself amended to allow this particular mechanism under these particular conditions.
If all those conditions apply, we’ve addressed both the procedural and the substantive objections.
More importantly, we’ve also torn up and tossed away the last remaining fig leaf between us and a serious conversation about ELECTION fraud, which, as ME notes at #8, is much the more serious problem.
Lex | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
The bill requires the states to provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can’t afford them. Absent a fee this does not constitute a poll tax.
The idea that exit polls not matching vote results is evidence of election fraud is laughable. However, I do agree that safegaurds need to be enacted to protect absentee balots. Say, why don’t we require a photocopy of a photo ID be submitted along with the balot request?
As for voter supression, I only want to supress those who are not legally entitled to vote.
Jim Lynch | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
1. It is not a poll tax.
2. It is a protection from fraud. My votes are canceled in West Virginia by dead people. I can prove it. No one is ever prosecuted.
3. Truly poor people have all sorts of ID from the various government programs my tax dollars provide.
4. People with disabilites also have plenty of ID.
5. You need a photo ID to buy beer.
6. You need a photo ID to buy cigarettes.
7. You need a photo Id on your person to drive a car.
This is a phony issue brought by adherents of a party that has been a minority party since Jimmy Carter failed the hostage crisis in Iran in 1979. Democrats cannot win in a fair fight. No Democratic candidate has received a majority of the vote in 30 years (Clinton won by pluralities)
You wanna talk stealing an election? How abvout Wisconsin 2004, won by Democrats by 11,386 votes — onlky because the 100,000 fake “voters” weren’t purged from Milwaukee’s voter rolls until after the election.
Study election law and elections before opining. It is unfortunate that Gail Collins did not study this issue with an open mind before runninng that Pro-voter fraud editorial in NYT today.
don surber | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
the real vote fraud is not having an auditable paper trail. Just look at the last election is Alaska where the number of votes exceeds the number of people in the district but the republicans and diebold claim that the vote count and software is proprietary.
Tim Barlow | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Democrats cannot win in a fair fight. No Democratic candidate has received a majority of the vote in 30 years (Clinton won by pluralities)
Geez, Don - thanks for the non-point-repug-talking-point.
Does it matter? You’d think that it would be easy for you to figure out that the third candidate in any race you *probably* refer to had more in common with the Democratic stance than the repug platform. But who cares?
How about tying in a requirement for a paper trail on votes? Or how about the elimination of hackable electronic machines, or even the shady practices by which notorious repug donors are given contracts to provide voting machines?
Are you wingers opposed to a receipt for votes? Wouldn’t that be more effective than requiring ID? Hell, fake IDs are easy to come by, and just how rigorous of a vetting process is going to take place at the polls?
I smell a rat.
KC | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Requiring an ID to buy beer is a lot different than requiring an ID to vote.
Drinking beer is not a fundamental part of living in a participatory democracy. Voting is. Please stop making this silly “argument”.
It really is as simple as this: making it more difficult to vote will reduce the number of poor, elderly and disabled people who vote. These types of people tend to vote for Democrats. Everyone knows this, including the republicans sponsoring these bills, bright and early billy here, and even don surber.
Now I might even support some sort of bill like this, if there were any proof (not rightwing suspicions) that voter fraud is significantly affecting our elections. If you have such proof, please provide links. Has anyone even studied the issue? Note: “studied” does not include the drugged-up rantings of Limbaugh.
Colin | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
So Don, where’s the evidence of this vast army of illegal voters? There is none at all. Intensive investigation has shown the number of fraudulent voters is miniscule, maybe double digits in an entire state, yet there is ample evidence that requiring a Driver’s License will suppress thousands of elderly and poor voters.
Until there’s evidence on Voter ID fraud, I can see no reason to demand that my grandmother who doesn’t drive has to be licensed to vote.
Ed | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
The poor and the elderly and virtually every, single citizen in this country has adequate identification. Please do not try and gin up a lie like that. Those few legal voters who do not have such an ID would be able to get one for free under this legislation. The “dead vote” in some areas, Chicago for example, is well known and pretending it isn’t is disingeuous. Exit polls are not, in any way, shape, or form a reliable way of counting votes. The commenters here are using the “carpet-bomb with talking points” that happens whenever the Daou Reports links someone on the right.
Gaius | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
” The “dead vote” in Chicago” is Urban Myth. There is no evidence of this happening in recent decades and the evidence from the Daley ’60s is largely anecdotal. Show me the indictments/convictions. Griping by political partisans is not evidence.
Ed | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
The League of Women Voter looked at 9 million votes in Ohio in 2002-2004 and found 4 (FOUR) 4 fraudulent votes.
Not what I’d call a major problem compared to the others facing election officials.
http://www.cohhio.org/alerts/Election%20Reform%20Report.pdf
Ed | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
It’s all Diebold! They’re evil. And Ross Perot stole votes from Clinton! Behind every election there’s a plant that not just makes votes up to manipulate their candidate into office, but is also able to convince both parties who oversee the elections all is well. That means there are at least 50 completely charismatic individuals who are smart enough to rig entire elections and fool the entire public. They are our future Albert Einsteins, but only because Repuglicans want to steal elections they are monitoring elections everywhere.
Aha! But there must be proof there’s voting fraud going on the opponents of this bill claim on one hand, but on the other the issue of election fraud must just be so damn proven it’s an accepted conspiracy. They have the Carter Center to back their allegations, and it is the same Carter Center who certified Venezuela so it must be accurate.
Let us not look at Washington where dead people can vote, provided it’s for a Democrat. Nor let us look at Ohio where Michael Jordan can vote five times, but that assumes Jordan lives in Ohio and he doesn’t. But we’re told this is a partisan issue.
Opponents want to paint this bill as trying to limit voters. What nonsense. ID cards, not a driver’s license, are required for all adults in all 50 states. You can be cited by police in all 50 states for not having an ID card. Now those same mandatory ID cards are somehow an issue in trying to make our elections more secure? That seems odd since the party opposing this measure has voters who still scream out that the elections they did not win were stolen. Fine, then present an ID at the polls and we can cut that area out of the equation.
Chad Evans | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
I see nobody here is willing to step up to the plate and second the assertion that we need a real, verifiable paper trail for elections.
Yes, Diebold is a huge repug donor, and yes, their code has been hacked and last I checked, they’re against a paper trail.
So who is against a paper trail, and if so - why?
KC | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Anyone who supports these voter id bills going to provide a link to a non-partisan source that shows voter fraud is a significant problem in our elections?
These voter id bills are going to cause a lot of inconvenience (for everyone), and are going to cost us taxpayers a lot of money. As conservatives, I assume you are opposed to wasting our precious tax dollars.
Shouldn’t we at least make sure there is a voter fraud problem first?
Someone provide a link to a study, or even a decent newspaper article, that says voter fraud is a serious problem that must be addressed now at great taxpayer expense.
Colin | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Sir,
By your general argument then you would not have a problem with an id system for gun ownership…to prevent fraud by felons, and foreigners right?
cheers,
Jeremy
jeremy white | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
I am sure you also support federal legislation that, while requiring IDs, also makes it possible and easy for any citizen to obtain such an ID. You righties are in favor of encouraging all citizens to exercise their right to vote, right?
See, anyone can play the supercilious rhetorical question game.
Reginald Perrin | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Have a problem with showing a valid, legal ID to purchase a gun? No. You see I don’t think that showing identification infringes on your right to own a gun or vote.
Jim Lynch | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Several comments have asked for proof that this type of fraud exists. The problem is that actual prosecutions are difficult, if not impossible, because there is no requirement currently in place.
By the same token you can’t prove that the large scale disenfranchisement would take place. You just assume that it would because that promotes the position you’ve taken.
Jim Lynch | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
We have a bright one in our midst. One Jeremy White who wrote:
“By your general argument then you would not have a problem with an id system for gun ownership…to prevent fraud by felons, and foreigners right?”
There is a law that requires an ID presented to purchase a gun already in place. Second Amendment advocates object to the wait period on what they see infringes upon their Constitutional rights. Showing an ID to purchase firearms or ammo does not restrict someone from purchasing either unless they are under 18.
Colin:
“Anyone who supports these voter id bills going to provide a link to a non-partisan source that shows voter fraud is a significant problem in our elections?”
Define significant. If it happens once I’d say that’s significant because it is what forms our government.
Reginald:
“I am sure you also support federal legislation that, while requiring IDs, also makes it possible and easy for any citizen to obtain such an ID. You righties are in favor of encouraging all citizens to exercise their right to vote, right?”
And your question is . . . what exactly? It’s pretty easy for anyone to get an ID card. We already pay for the offices to stay open and employees to man the office. We already pay our police to require IDs on all adults. We already pay the administration costs for producing these ID cards. We subsidize public transportation for those who won’t walk or cannot walk to an ID office. We subsidize telephone companies which own the lines for people to call a friend with a car to go get an ID. We subsidize or pay for many in the low income bracket to pay bills, therefore the argument they don’t have any money is complete nonsense. And, yes, we do support IDs for all legal citizens, the same legal citizens that have the right to vote.
Chad Evans | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Chad,
You are willing to incovenience millions of voters and spend millions of dollars to prevent a single fraudulent vote? I can tell you feel very strongly about this issue. Perhaps you are one of these new “don’t tax but spend anyway” conservatives.
If you are so committed to ensuring 100% accuracy in our elections, you should consider if the money spent on voter id bills would be better spent on modern voting systems that ensure each vote is counted accurately, with a voter-verifiable paper trail.
Before I’d support a voter id law that purports to reduce fraudulent voting, I’d need to see some proof that there actually is a problem. No one here has provided a link yet…
Colin | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Here’s a quote for you:
In Washington, for example, where Christine Gregoire was elected governor by a 129-vote margin, the elections superintendent of King County testified during a subsequent unsuccessful election challenge that ineligible ex-felons had voted and that votes had been cast in the names of the dead. However, the judge accepted Gregoire’s victory because with the exception of four ex-felons who admitted to voting for Dino Rossi, the authorities could not determine for whom the other illegal votes were cast. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, investigators said they found clear evidence of fraud, including more than 200 cases of felons voting illegally and more than 100 people who voted twice, used fake names or false addresses, or voted in the name of a dead person. Moreover, there were 4,500 more votes cast than voters listed. One potential source of election fraud arises from inactive or ineligible voters left on voter registration lists. By one estimate, for example, there were over 181,000 dead people listed on the voter rolls in six swing states in the November 2004 elections, including almost 65,000 dead people listed on the voter rolls in Florida.
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/report.html#sect1
Gee, that isn’t a goose-steppin’ rethuglican neocon talking either. Unless you’re going to call Jimmy Carter that now that he disagrees with the talking point of the day. Dang those inconvenient facts as opposed to feelings.
Have a nice day! Another drive-by snarking from the friendly folks at the Crabitat.
Gaius | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Gee, that isn’t a goose-steppin’ rethuglican neocon talking either. Unless you’re going to call Jimmy Carter that now that he disagrees with the talking point of the day. Dang those inconvenient facts as opposed to feelings.
And yet another chance to weigh in on a paper trail wasted. I’m starting to see a trend with the repubelicans here. You aren’t interested in real accountability, as fake IDs are easy to make, and again - WHAT GOOD IS ASKING FOR AN ID? IS THE NAME GOING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE VOTE AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROCESS? AND IF FRAUD IS DETECTED, WHICH CANDIDATE HAS THE VOTES TAKEN AWAY?
This is a smokescreen for repubelicans who have benefited immensely from rigged/stolen/manipulated elections in the last decade or so.
KC | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
And requiring an ID is going to do Voter Database cleaning how? Stop ex-felons from voting how?
Yet another wildly inaccurate drive-by snarking from the friendly folks at the Crabitat.
Ed | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Rescind the tax breaks for the rich and give a voting ID to everyone.
With the few dollars left over maybe we can fund VA hospitals.
Brilliant idea.
Do you think the RNC or Religious Right (whose main goal is in making the tax cuts permanent) will help push this idea through?
————————————-
Also, “You can be cited by police in all 50 states for not having an ID card.”
PROOF PLEASE.
Robert | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Don:
The notion that “truly poor people have ID” is not true. I live in a predominantly Navajo portion of the Southwest and it is common for folks to not have drivers license’s or any other form of ID, some of them don’t even speak english! We should send em’ back where they came from - oops, that wouldn’t work would it?
Jornada | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
KC, bite your false toungue. If there was proof of any massive vote-rigging there would be judicial action and you know that. The entire concept of requiring IDs is to help ensure the elections are participated by legal citizens of this nation. If we don’t require IDs to vote to ensure who these people are, what good would solving any potential problem with electronic voting be? It wouldn’t.
Collin, don’t make assumptions on where I stand. You propose that if we are to change anything we should just funnel money towards fixing electronic voting machines. That assumes, first, there’s a problem with them or that they are less consistent than the paper ballot. Sorry, you’re going to have a very hard time convincing me culling data electronically is less efficient and less statistically truthful than counting ballots or processing them through a machine.
And what inconvenience is there? You are already required to have an ID card on you at all times. That’s already a state law. If you consider it’s inconvenient to open your wallet at a voting center, then you must be the laziest person in this nation.
Besides, who ever said Democracy was convenient? Isn’t it more convenient to have a dictator without asking the public who that should be?
Oh please Robert. You have access to Google and a telephone just like I do.
“Rescind the tax breaks for the rich and give a voting ID to everyone.”
Yes, let’s make those rich people pay a higher percentage of taxes than everyone else, thus ending the entire “we’re all equal” debate. Oh, wait. We already do make the rich pay a higher percentage than the rest of us.
Jornada, you need an ID to obtain welfare. Truly poor people are on some form of government assisstance.
Chad Evans | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Chad,
I had just never heard of this law.
What a revenue-maker.
Police hang out by a lake and when people come out of the water ask to see the ID they legally have to have on them at all times.
That would be like printing money.
I see you already realize we make the rich pay a higher tax rate than the rest of us.
No problem. I’m glad you agree that this is a great idea.
As someone who is so afraid that your vote is being diluted by fraud, I just knew you’d agree.
Besides, the rich can afford to help out with something as dire as this.
It’s the least they could do.
It’s not like we’re asking them to help fund a war that is being fought for their best interests.
Robert | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Chad:
“you need an ID to obtain welfare. Truly poor people are on some form of government assisstance”
That is not true on reservations, many people live in remote areas get around by horse or share a car between up to 20 people. Any govt. benefits (health care and food assistance) that these peple receive are doled out by BIA representatives travelling through the reservation. There is no traditional “welfare” for tribal members living on reservations like the welfare that people in cities receive.
Voters are generally bused to their local chapter house by the tribal leadership on election day. Balots are printed in English and the local dialect. Requiring drivers licenses, or other forms of govt. ID would in fact hinder many tribal members from voting.
Jornada | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Robert,
I never said police hang out by lakes and check ID cards. I said IDs were already mandatory. It is a ticketable offense, but so is jaywalking. I know one person who has ever received a ticket for jaywalking. Ticketing for jaywalking too would be a huge revenue source.
I don’t agree the rich should pay a higher percentage the rest of us in terms of the percentage rate in which we all pay. If I pay 30 percent, shouldn’t everyone else pay the same rate? I believe so, but even with that rate the richest 2 percent still pay the vast majority of all federal income. That’s fair based upon the percentage of revenue.
How you come to the conclusion the rich should be put at a disadvantage though is rather odd. What was their crime? What did they do to have to be treated differently than the rest of us? Is it a penalty to become enormously successful? You seem to believe that it is or should be. Talk about wanting to stiffle competition, growth and capitalism.
But you show your colors by claiming the GWOT is fought for them. Yes, I assume people like Mark Cuban really strikes it rich when nations go to war because it helps out his Internet businesses? I would expect nothing less from the groups that come from the Daou Report. There are always a few reasonable people to which we may disagree on topics but do not throw garbage out and pass it along, but you’ve shown you are indeed part of the larger stereotype of The Daou Report readers. How very sad that you don’t stand enough on your own convictions to raise your own opinions loud and high and argue on the merits thereof.
Chad Evans | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Gaius,
Thank you for the link. I’ll take a look.
Chad,
I don’t know what state you live in, but in Texas I’m not required to carry identification if I’m walking down the street.
This is what I mean by ‘inconvenient’: the Missouri law requires people who do not already have a drivers license get a voter ID card. To get this card they must go to an office and provide proof of citizenship, proof of legal residence at their current adress, and, if they have changed their name (eg., a woman voting under her married name), proof that the name change was legitimate.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/09/21/no_right_to_vote/
I consider that onerous. So did the Missouri judge who prevented it from taking effect.
Take a look at the document Gaius helpfully linked to, and you’ll see that our election system is quite a mess. Read the whole thing if you want to see what adults, who have clearly given this a lot of thought, think we ought to do.
I have to get going. Thanks for the chat.
Colin | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Collin, I live in Texas actually, and you are required to have ID on your person at all times. You even have to have an ID when you’re at the lake.
Again, it’s not an offense that is normally ticketed, but it is an offense no less.
Chad Evans | Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Jim Lynch: The idea that exit polls not matching vote results is evidence of election fraud is laughable.
Direct, probative evidence? Of course not. But circumstantial evidence warranting a more detailed look-see? Absolutely. I know being antiscience is quite the trend these days, but scientific exit polling has actually gotten very, very good at closely reflecting the ultimate ballot count in fair, free elections.
Don Surber: You wanna talk stealing an election? How abvout Wisconsin 2004, won by Democrats by 11,386 votes — onlky because the 100,000 fake “voters” weren’t purged from Milwaukee’s voter rolls until after the election.
And you have proof that even one of those “100,000 fake ‘voters’” actually cast a ballot that was counted. Right?
Chad Evans: ID cards, not a driver’s license, are required for all adults in all 50 states. You can be cited by police in all 50 states for not having an ID card.
Not in North Carolina, dear. But thanks for playing.
KC: I see nobody here is willing to step up to the plate and second the assertion that we need a real, verifiable paper trail for elections.
Sorry I didn’t make that clear. That’s partly because N.C. law already requires such a thing, so I don’t worry about it as much as I used to. For the record, I edited the book “Black Box Voting: Ballot-tampering in the 21st Century,” co-written by my friend David Allen. So I’m all about the paper trail.
(And lest this be construed as in any way a partisan issue, I’ve been a Red State Republican since 1978, and David’s a wild-eyed liberal Democrat.)
Lex | Sep 22, 2006 | Reply