Voter I.D. is a matter of honor
Some things to think about: 1. If voter ID really isn’t an issue, why all the stories of voter fraud across America, can they all be lies? 2. If politicians are really concerned about their constituents why are they exempt from a lot of the laws they have passed for the rest of Americans; own health care, special pays/vote yourself raises, best retirement package ever designed ect…3. How did the system get to where we entitle the lazy, unmotivated, and unproductive, cheat your employer, no personal responsibility, protest against the people who work hard to make ends meet crowd. How can ethical, hard working Americans support this; unless your goal is government dependence?
The Army/ Corps of Engineers have values to live by that have been around since their inception.
They are loyalty (bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution), duty, respect, self-service, honor, integrity — do what is right, legally and morally; be willing to do what is right
even when no one is looking. It is our “moral compass” — an inner voice; and personal courage.
I would just humbly ask that each of us think about the above when you vote this fall.
Gregg Struss
Baxter
Comments (45)
Add commentAcross America?
The voter ID Amendment does not apply across America - just to Minnesota. And there is no great mass of "stories of voter fraud across Minnesota." What we have is a blatant attempt to deny the ballot to large numbers of MInnesotans.
Democrat voters.
right Rolf?
P.S. Rolf
No more posting late at night or very early in the AM, because marsbar says that that shows that YOU have no real life.
I know better. Have a nice night, I do respect some of your opinions.
The voter fraud in the news
Is Gov. Scott of Florida attempting to disenfranchise a myriad of voters by scrubbing the voter rolls of "non-citizens".
Keith Hansen alluded to it as if it were a wonderful process allowing Florida to prevent voter fraud by scrubbing the dead and non-citizens from the rolls. I hope he sees fit to write a follow-up showing how the courts might be shutting their flawed process down.
The problem is, there is an inordinately large amount of real citizens who are being taken off the rolls. They scrubbed the rolls in 2000, and I guess they thought that was pretty effective in getting Bush elected, so they are trying again.
We shall see.
FnB
Yes. Democrat voters. IMO voter ID is a clever and legal scheme to cut DFL turnout. I can't blame the Pubbies for trying; it might work.
A voter ID amendment is overkill ....
and its like using a tourniquet for a band aid job. There were 2 million voters in 2008, and in that year, there were 117 voter fraud cases taken to court. By these numbers, it makes more sense to toughen the present laws than amend our constitution. If we're going to amend the constitution for similarly broken laws, then we need a constitutional amendment stating that all people must drive on the right side of the road.....
Still 48,000 Unverified Voters from 2008
According to a fed lawsuit filed by several groups over the alleged voter fraud in Crow Wing County in 2010 there are still 48,000 unverified voters in the 2008 election where Al Franken won by only 300 votes. People say there is no voter fraud, but any sort of vote that counts before it is verified still can have the same effect.
It just makes sense to have an ID for voting just like so many other things we do in life. The small group opposing this have motives to undermine the vast majority of people who just want integrity in the election process.
Once they succeed in
Once they succeed in excluding seniors with limited mobility and disabled people who will they exclude from exercising their constitution right next?
How many people in nursery homes have a driving license?
How difficult will it be for them to make a trip to town to get a voter ID?
Does the GOP care if they exclude them from voting?
This is more about excluding voters than it is to prevent voter fraud.
Lakeweed
Maybe you missed one of my recent posts involving this subject. I directed it at you and am genuinely curious.
Which number is greater, those disenfranchised because they have to produce some form of ID, or those who simply stay home because they believe that elections are bought (stolen) anyway?
Fish
Excuse me but most people in "nursery homes" are not of legal voting age.
tripwire3
the name is lakelander
What is your point? Staying home is voluntary.
The voter ID law in Missouri was overturned as unconstitutional in 2006 (Weinschenk v. State).
Dead voter rights and other stuff
"Keith Hansen alluded to it as if it were a wonderful process allowing Florida to prevent voter fraud by scrubbing the dead and non-citizens from the rolls. I hope he sees fit to write a follow-up showing how the courts might be shutting their flawed process down."
Dead voters should join the nearest "Occupy " group and protest in front of theCemetary
"How many people in nursery homes have a driving license? "
Not many. Folks in nursery homes should be given two pounds of Weed-Be-Gone and told to shut up.
Voter ID’s should be issued by the MN Department of Revenue to those MN residents who filed an IncomeTax Form each of the previous four years. Voter I Q’s should also beChecked. If you can’t spell your last name, you get no vote. Granted, that would clear out a whole host of deadbeat liberals but fairness dictates that if you aren’t a law abiding, contributing citizen of this state, you have no say in how it is run nor who runs it. Get a brain, get a job, pay your share and make sure Minnesota never has another Ventura or Dayton.. Love to all - Steve
Johnny Jing
Still touting the 48,000 number I see.
$$$$ Waste of money$$$$
"A state court in Wisconsin has granted summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against the implementation of Wisconsin’s new voter ID law, bluntly calling it an unconstitutional attempt at voter suppression." http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/03/17/wisconsin-voter-id-law...
Just going to keep the lawyers employed.
Voter id law struck down in Texas, too! Texas!!! And South Carolina!
"The U.S. Department of Justice has blocked a new voter ID law from going into effect in Texas. The department says the state failed to show that the law would not deny or limit minorities' right to vote. Texas, like several other states, has to have its voting laws cleared by the Justice Department because it has a history of voter discrimination. The department says Texas also showed no evidence that there's significant voter fraud that would justify the new requirement. The department made a similar decision in December to block South Carolina's new voter ID law."
(from www.npr.org dated March 17, 2012)
53,000 Dead Voters Found in Florida!
Florida election officials are set to purge up to 53,000 dead voters from the voter rolls in Florida. Florida is now using the nationwide Social Security Death Index for determining which voters should be purged because they have died. Most states aren’t using the same database. The Pew Center has discovered that 1.8 million dead Americans are registered to vote. Perhaps worse, 2.75 million Americans are enrolled in two states each, while 68,725 are signed up in three. Indeed, Pew found, "24 million — one of every eight — active voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate."
pdnet
They are dead, but there is no proof anyone stole their identity and voted. MN purges the dead from the rolls quickly. Not so Florida and other states. That is why Minnesota ranks at the top for quality and honest elections and high voter turnout. If you have all the dead on the rolls, your %age voting is adversely affected.
If you have a bunch of people stuffing the ballot box...
...your percentage of voting is high, but is that a good thing?
proof, meuhl
Oh that's right...there is none. Because it didn't happen.
Waiting for the backlash
Intrusions and delays at the airport aren't going to be nuttin' compared to the wrath of the legitimate citizens denied the right to vote under this provision this fall. And those of us with an ID acceptible to the old timers who run the polls will experience delays like never before.
Should be interesting--I wonder if some votes will change right there at the polling booth as a result of this!
Lakelander
The name is Tripwire3! But I apologize. Did you feel disenfranchised?
Whether it is voluntary or not, they are still disenfranchised. The word can also mean deprived or marginalized.
Apparently Lake missed the recent article in the Pioneer Press..
...according to Andy Cilek, in 2006 in Harris:
"approximately 10 individuals registered on Election Day all using the identical address, that of a laundromat in the same block as the polling place. When election judges challenged the eligibility of those people, the Chisago County Auditor told the judges that there was nothing that could be done to prevent or otherwise segregate the suspicious ballots."
You think those folks really lived at the laundromat, Lake?
Like somebody on here
Said before. If lake.snow & fish are against this. That means it has to be a GOOD thing.
& lake you can not be talking about the same Justice Dept that said there was no problem with the black panthers & their voter intimidation are you??
well, if you are homeless
That may be the warm place you go during the day, meuhl.
What address do the homeless use? "Underpass at the South 8th street bridge???" Do they have the right to vote?
Proof, Lake?
See, that's the problem. You can't prove those people were eligible to vote and the Minnesota State Constitution says in Article VII, Section 1, that ineligible:
“persons shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state.”
I guess ineligible voters must represent a very large part of the Democratic Party's base for them to get so upset about making sure people are eligible before they vote. As for the means of assuring eligibility, I'm open to options. However, it seems that Dems would prefer to keep things sloppy. I wonder why?
meuhl
Do the homeless have the right to vote?
Can a person who is homeless vote?
Yes, an elector who is homeless or without a fixed address can vote, if he or she registers on the voters list during an election. To register, the elector must provide proof of identity and the address where he or she is staying.
Proof of identity can be an official document bearing the elector's name. For identity and residence, the attestation of residence by the administrator of a local shelter is acceptable, if the shelter has provided food, lodging or other social services to the elector. In order to register and vote, the elector will also be required to provide a second document authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing the name of the elector. Without such proof, a person who is homeless can register on election day as long as another voter who is registered in the same electoral district, and who provides satisfactory proof of identity and residence, can vouch for that person.
Per Cheyenne and Lakelander demand that you post a source for everything you put on this site: http://homelessnation.org/en/node/13291
(even though Lakelander's "Waste of Money" post was copied from a website that I was on this morning, I guess the liberals in here don't have to post their sources just the people they don't agree with)
done, lifelongresident, see above
And thanks for the homeless voting information. Another reason to have election day registration. Some people don't stay in one shelter long as there are requirements regarding that.
48,000
Your number of 48,000 is merely part of the evidence a group is bringing to court to prove their point. It doesn't mean it is accurate. Who are the groups you mention?
Out of the 2 million voters that year, 48,000 is about 2 percent ... and like was previously said, even if this number is accurate, how many of them actually did vote? I still say an amendment to a constitution requires a problem that is of epidemic proportion -- toughen the laws, empower the election judges more... but this need not be a constitutional amendment.
Don't waste time thinking about it
The "48,000" number is a big red herring.
Every one of those 48,000 would have needed to provide some proof of residence in order to be allowed to vote by the election officials.
If that sounds like a strange group to use in an argument suggesting a dire need for photo ID, it is. Those folks had to show an ID of some kind to vote! Specifically, a drivers license, a military ID card, a state issued ID card, a passport, or other item with their photo and address on it.
Or if they didn't have something along those lines that had their correct address, one of them along with a utility bill, rent statement, or student fee statement that did show their address had to have been provided.
What that 48,000 number really stands for is the number of people the pro-voter ID group claims have not been verified by the secretary of state as eligible voters.
In other words, you grampa ed who just moved to senior housing but forgot or didn't know he had to register to vote 21 days or more ahead of time--who when asked to show proof of residence to his lifelong acquaintance the election judge--and pulled out his drivers license number, his library card, his credit card, his social security card, and a bill from his new place with that address on it--would be counted in that 48,000 number if the secretary of state didn't check to see if he was a felon or illegal alien or called incompetent by some court!
I think each and every case of possible malfeasance in voting should be investigated. But there's no need to make all of us pay for the very few instances of malfeasance. There is no evidence suggesting anything approaching a level of concern be needed here. Remember in our state when votes are close a recount with a greater level of scrutiny of each vote can be requested.
We have a good system that works reasonably fast and smoothly for the majority of voters--with darn few problems. As it turns into a system that turns eligible voters away and leads to long delays that voters aren't used to when voting, it will be interesting to see if votes don't change right there at the voting booth!
The constitution already says you are supposed to stop...
...ineligible voters from voting. Our current system of same day registration doesn't do that. It doesn't even pretend to do that. Clearly, a system that allows voters with contested eligibility to vote has some major problems. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't care what method we use to regain some integrity over this process, but it sure would be nice if the Dems showed some concern over people under guardianship being trotted to the polls to "vote". And no, Lake, people under guardianship do not have the right to vote, but homeless people, if they meet the eligibility requirements, do.