Kansas House passes voter citizenship bill

[Seedersandleechers]

TOPEKA | Republicans on Thursday pushed a bill through the Kansas House requiring potential voters to prove their U.S. citizenship ahead of this year's election, although GOP senators are divided on whether the state will be ready to enforce the rule.

The House approved the bill 81-43, with all of the votes for it coming from Republicans. It would impose the proof-of-citizenship requirement for people registering to vote for the first time in Kansas starting June 15, more than six months ahead of schedule and in time for the normal surge before a presidential election.

Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who introduced the bill, says the rule combats election fraud, but critics believe it will suppress turnout among poor, minority and elderly voters.

Legislators approved a proof-of-citizenship rule last year but — at the Senate's insistence — it's not scheduled to take effect until Jan. 1, 2013. The Senate has a large GOP majority, but its leaders are less conservative than Kobach and his allies and hesitated to move too quickly to impose the requirement.


http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/23/3447637/kansas-house-passes-voter-citizenship.html




What's the matter with Kansas?

[roguevalley]

1. can we say unconstitutional?

[judesedit]

55. Do I hear recall? I should if I don't. Pure bullshit. They'll do anything so people CAN'T vote.

The GOP can't win otherwise. I say recall all of these nazi bastards.

[NaturalHigh]

2. How is it a bad idea to make sure that registered voters are US citizens?

Sorry, but my outrage meter isn't registering on this one since I think that all registered voters should indeed be US citizens. I have to show a government-ID when I vote, and so far I haven't seen any hardships caused because of it.

[starroute]

3. Then you're one of the lucky ones

There are people -- mainly elderly or minorities -- who don't have a government ID and either don't have or would have serious financial and other problems acquiring the documents to obtain one.

There have been plenty of articles on some of the more outrageous cases, and they're easy enough to find online.

[NaturalHigh]

6. My next-door neighbor is 82, and he's all for this.

His wife is slightly younger, but she thinks it's a good idea too. The neighbor across the street was a state delegate to the democratic convention in 2004, and he's for it. I think this is just one of those things that "cool" people are supposed to hate because the majority thinks it's a good idea.

[Bradical79]

12. You're uneducated about the issue and your post is insulting/condecending.

An example that comes immediately to mind was the attempted passing of a voter id law coupled with the closing of DMV's in poor African American neighborhoods to suppress Democratic voter turnout (Wisconsin I think?). It's not a coincidence that these laws are being drawn up by Republican legislatures ahead of national elections.

[NaturalHigh]

14. I think I'm pretty well educated about the issue, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

It seems you think that I am not entitled to mine since I disagree with you, but I see that a lot these days.

[Bradical79]

23. Here's why I felt you are uneducated about the issue

1.You seem unaware of cases where voter id laws have been used as a form of voter suppression, and in how they can be used in that way.
2. You didn't seem to be aware of any cases of fraudulent voting affecting an election which is the main reason to have a voter id law (going by your post to another user below).
3. You don't seem to know how such a case would be dealt with under current law (so you don't know why the law needs changed).
4. Your only argument seemed to be that a couple people whose opinions you respect are okay with it, and you gave absolutely insight to their reasoning behind being okay with the change.
5. You were insulting people in implying that their opinions about the issue were formed simply to be part of some cool crowd while not addressing a single argument they've made in regards to these unnecessary laws.

Also, I never said you aren't entitled to your opinion, though I did respond in a slightly more inflammatory way that I normally would have because I thought you were being an ass.

[NaturalHigh]

24. "I did respond in a slightly more inflammatory way...

because I thought you were being an ass."

Fair enough - at least you're honest about it.

[shraby]

34. Both of my parents were born at home as was my brother. Many who were, may find

it difficult to prove they are U.S. citizens..even though our family has been in this country since the mid 1600s.
No only that, my dad's younger brother wanted to collect social security and his parents moved around so much that he didn't even know where he was born and wondered if I knew how he could find out.

[CreekDog]

38. you aren't well educated about the issue

if the best you can say is that your 82 year old neighbor "likes it".

[Ms. Toad]

18. Search out anyone who works setting up Social Security eligibility

and ask them to characterize the population having the hardest time establishing eligibility for social security, and you will find out pretty quickly what the problem is.

According to one survey, approximately 1 in 14 people do not have a state sponsored ID of any sort, and many of these cannot prove their citizenship. The elderly did not always register their births, particularly the rural elderly who were born at home (my father is 80, and although is birth was registered, he was born at home and it might well not have been). When birth certificates are missing, alternate documentation is sometimes accepted - family bibles, baptismal certificates, testimony of individuals alive at the time of birth - all things which are likely to disappear over time (meaning the elderly are less likely to have alternate documentation) or with unstable living circumstances (targeting the poor, if they are missing their primary documentation). In addition, the official records in areas of high racial tension were sometimes destroyed accidentally or deliberately - and are inaccessible. Individuals in the populations whose records were most likely to have been destroyed (e.g. minorities) are also statistically more likely to have moved about and lost their secondary documentation (and be out of touch with individuals who know the circumstance of their birth).

FWIW, if my parents die and I don't manage to capture the information before they do, I would be unlikely to be able to prove my brother is a citizen. He has no personal records (lots of moving about), his mental capacity means he would be unlikely to be able to provide much assistance (he tests above developmental disablity level, but not by much), and I don't know what city he was born in - a prerequisite to obtaining a duplicate birth certificate (he was adopted). At a minimum, it would be a costly proposition - the equivalent of a poll tax.

Just because it has been framed in a way that makes it seem innocuous does not mean it is.

[NaturalHigh]

20. Ms Toad, you make some good points.

It doesn't change my mind about the issue at hand, but it does give me some new things to consider.

[Ms. Toad]

29. You might also ask yourself why we all of a sudden need a solution

to a problem that, to the extent it is a legitimate concern, has been around for a couple hundred years.

What is the motivation for it becoming a concern at this point in our history? Who (which party) is it that is likely to benefit from the voters who will find it more difficult (or impossible) to vote? (Check the document I linked to which identifies the populations most likely to be citizens but not have IDs - statistically how are they likely to vote?)

Aside from motivation, would implementing it have a disproportionate impact (a standard way of measuring whether a law that does not literally discriminate is, in fact, discriminatory)? Would minorities, women, people with disabilities, or people over 40 be disproportionately impacted by this law? If it does, then it probably requires some heightened level of need for the law in order to be constitutional (rational basis, strict scrutiny, or something in between). In other words, even if there is a reason to require IDs for voting, if it would affect minorities more than non-minorities, that may not be enough because laws which discriminate are suspect.

(Not all anti-discrimination laws use a disproportionate impact, and the level of scrutiny applied varies based on the basis of discrimination, but - again - more things for you to consider)

[CreekDog]

39. Why would it change your mind?

you've already decided based on something other than information.

since information didn't help you come to your opinion, why would information change it?

[enlightenment]

56. That is really unnecessary.

Inflammatory and the antithesis of what progressives are supposed to represent.

You should consider a time-out to rethink your attitude.

[CreekDog]

57. honesty is necessary

the poster has been all over this thread to support the id requirement except to defend it's obvious weaknesses --in fact, the poster admits to supporting the thing without actually knowing much about it.

and chooses not to learn.

i was nicer than was necessary.

[HeiressofBickworth]

43. My former mother-in-law

was born in Oklahoma before it was a state. The births of white babies were not registered at the time she was born therefore, no state birth certificate for her. She had a hard time registering for social security, but in the end, after much time and cost, was able to do so. Not everyone has the resources to so diligently pursue it. So, yes, I think these Republican bills requiring excessive forms of identification are designed to suppress votes of demographic groups traditionally aligned with Democrats. Remember, kids, the higher the voter turn-out the more likely Democrats are elected. Has always been so, it's just now that they are combating the trend with suppressive laws.

[Scruffy1]

26. Democrats like suppressing voter turnout, too.

Maybe a quick read of Armed Madhouse would help.

[mac56]

28. Explain, please.

What is Armed Madhouse?

[dflprincess]

45. It's a book by Greg Palast

http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/

[dflprincess]

44. The League of Women Voters in Minnesota is opposed to the voter ID amendment pending

in the Minnesota legislature because it will disenfranchise people. If you go to their website you can educate yourself about the reasons why:

http://www.lwvmn.org/page.aspx?pid=1118

[Ken Burch]

46. There's no need for it. We've never had a serious problem with non-citizens getting to vote

What you need to understand is that this is all part of the GOP "the Democrat Party only wins 'cause of vote fraud" meme. Don't let yourself get fooled by spin and lies.

[golfguru]

42. That is hard to believe

I just bought my college student daughter a state issued ID for a princely sum
of $10. State could issue those ID's free for seniors.

[toddwv]

4. This is about making voting an onerous, difficult process.

It has nothing to do with ensuring that voters are citizens.

It means longer lines in areas that serve minorities and it means more hoops for voters to jump through.

All for a "problem" that has a minor effect, if any, on the results.

[Hugabear]

7. You should not have to show government ID in order to vote

Requiring ID in order to vote is tantamount to a poll tax - these types of laws are predominantly put in place to discourage minorities from voting. Do you think it's any coincidence that rethugs make up the vast majority of those pushing for laws requiring ID to vote?

[NaturalHigh]

8. Then how do you know that the person is who he/she claims to be?

Can anyone walk in and claim to be me and vote in my place? What happens when I go to vote and the nice little lady behind the counter tells me that I already voted?

[Posteritatis]

9. Because that happens so often as is, right? (nt)

[NaturalHigh]

11. I really don't know...

but if it happens once, that's too often.

[mac56]

27. This is a solution in search of a problem.

A manufactured crisis. Here in MN, in the recount for the Franken-Coleman election, they only located one voter who had voted fraudently - - and he voted for Coleman, the Republican.

[StarsInHerHair]

47. I know, how many non-US citizens were caught voting?

what are their names & where did they come from? If the people FOR voter id laws CAN'T answer these questions.......it proves there is not a real problem with foreigners voting in America

[Hugabear]

32. Do you need to show ID in order to request an absentee ballot?

Or how about when you mail in your absentee ballot? How do I know that someone didn't just take your absentee ballot out of your mailbox and fill it in themselves?

Or do you propose one set of criteria for those who request absentee ballots, and a different set of criteria for those who choose to vote in person?

[Jim Lane]

41. You seem to assume that there's no safeguard except a government-issued photo ID

In New York, the voter registration information sent out to the polling places includes the voter's signature. When you vote, you sign in. The poll worker is supposed to make you sign in without being able to see the signature that's on file. (They don't always remember to do this, but even if the hypothetical fraudster can see the real voter's signature, it's not easy to create a passable forgery on the fly, on the first attempt.)

Of course, no system is perfect. You can be as strict as you want about ID's and signatures and whatnot, and some people will get away with voting improperly. You can be as lenient as you want, and some people will still be improperly barred from voting. Both kinds of errors are bad. The task for policymakers is to be practical, and to do a realistic assessment of each type of danger.

There's good reason to believe that the proponents of voter ID laws have not done that kind of balancing. As others in this thread have mentioned, the evidence of actual voter fraud is minuscule, while the evidence of actual (successful!) voter suppression is considerable. I conclude that a voter ID law would exclude many more legitimate voters than fraudsters.

When we consider policymakers' motives, we might also consider who benefits. The laws have a disparate impact on demographic groups that are more likely to vote Democratic. When a Republican-controlled state government passes a voter ID law and appropriates a reasonable sum for providing ID's, free of charge, to legitimate voters who currently lack such documentation, then I may take their stated concerns seriously -- but I'm not holding my breath.

[alp227]

54. If that person has your personal info the person is either an identity thief

or a jealous friend.

[sofa king]

13. Because we already do?

I know that I, as a registered voter, signed a form that says something like, "under penalty of law, I affirm that I am a US citizen."

In so doing, I created a legal document that affirms my citizenship, and if I lied about it, it's my ass. That document and the information I provided can be verified a dozen different ways, and should be, but it should not be my job to do that for the state. States specifically reserve those procedures for themselves whenever there's money involved, so why should voting be any different?

Complicating the procedure the way Kansas intends to complicate it also seems to me to have a whiff of presumption of guilt, but that probably only proves that I'm not a lawyer. It is perfectly reminiscent (to me) of the original Grandfather Clause, which I believe was enacted for more or less the exact same reasons.

[NaturalHigh]

15. Someone would be willing to break the law by voting fraudulently...

but would not be willing to break the law by signing a piece of paper?

[sofa king]

17. Then why not bust 'em right now?

Where are they, these fraudulent voters? Why have they not been stopped by oh, say, checking the information provided on the form?

Because they don't exist. Because this is a voter suppression effort based on the exact same evidence that we used to invade Iraq: bullshit.

[NaturalHigh]

19. If I understand you correctly, I'm all for busting them...

based on information provided on the form.

[sofa king]

33. So was South Carolina.

Guess what they found? Jack shit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101459130

[EFerrari]

31. It's false framing.

Do you remember when the Bush DoJ / campaign ordered a US attorney to go find instances of voter fraud in New Mexico and he couldn't? There is no significant voter fraud problem in this country, much less from immigrants who want nothing to do with getting in trouble with the authorities.

And you are fortunate you can prove your citizenship so easily. Older people and low income people are often unable to sort out their paperwork and get a government ID.

Put another way, the reason that REPUBLICANS always push this is because they know it will impact Democratic turn out, not because they give a flying f about non-citizens voting.

Your outrage meter should be pinging because this is a law to exclude poor voters from exercising their franchise, not because anyone wants non-citizens to vote.

[fasttense]

48. Well your outrage meter is broken then.

Well your outrage meter is broken then.

For starters, there is so little voter fraud (except in RepubliCON talking head circles - think Anne Cultergiest) that these silly little rules do nothing more then stop honest voters. The last I looked the voter fraud cases are like .001%. That's not a problem our legislatures should even be working, considering all the real problems out there. What they should be considering is those machines that may or may NOT count your vote.

Then the devil in the details comes out. What will they accept as proof of citizenship?

How about a State College issued Student ID? NO wrong, you can't vote.

How about a military retiree dependent ID? NO, they will take a military retiree ID but not their dependent's ID.

Will they take a military dependent’s ID? I don't know but you better check on it.

How about a birth certificate, well now we have to look at that certificate. Is a name misspelled? Guess what my mother's maiden name is misspelled on mine but don't tell the driver's licenses bureau, I may not be allowed to vote.

Is the location of your birth properly punctuated? Did they get that coma between the city and state? If not, stand by for some arguments at the DMV.

Is the seal raised on your birth certificate, or is it just a copy. No raised seal, too bad, you can't vote. Go get a real copy. Was your original long form birth certificate destroyed in a fire years ago? Well, you get a certification of your birth but the DMV has never seen one of those so guess what you, can't vote.

Will they take that flimsy little card they hand out when you first registered to vote five years ago? I don't know and neither do you. Do you really want to spend the time standing in line when they may turn you away anyway?

And after putting in all these totally useless arbitrary bureaucratic rules that fight an imaginary problem, the voting population suddenly, magically goes way, way down. And when fewer people vote, more idiot RepubliCONS get voted in.

[Sabayon65]

49. I don't see anything wrong with it either.

The right to vote comes with constitutional limits:

Being a US Citizen (14th Amendment), and being at least 18 years of age (26th amendment).

Having to prove that you're an American citizen isn't any worse than having to show your driver's license to prove that you're over 18.

Had the new rule come with stipulations violating the 15th, 19th, or 24th amendment to the Constitution, then there would be a potential problem.

[MarkCharles]

53. " isn't any worse than having to show your driver's license"????

DUH, foreign born folks, non-citizens, CAN and DO have driver's licenses!

There is a false equivalency in your argument.

Proof of birth, (something, that, by definition, had to happen at least 18 years before registering to vote is a more difficult proof than taking a driver's test, where no proof of place of American birth is required.

[greiner3]

50. My next door neighbors include;

Genghis Kahn, Mao and Stalin, all who think along the same lines as you.

However, on the other hand, some of my other neighbors are JFK, FDR, Ghandi and Lincoln.

As I see it, my neighbors, 4 to 3, refute YOUR neighbors and make you fail.

[otohara]

5. All Together Now - Yesterday in CO - House Passed

the all-state-GOP voter suppression law too!

Luckily the senate will kill it

These GOP SOS's must have weekly conference calls.

[oldhippydude]

10. actually

they have the same koch connection

[otohara]

21. Koch Is A Powerful Drug

I just fired off a couple of emails to the local CBS station for doing a story about the voter fraud meeting that took place. No mention of the investigation the SOS carried out, finding only 6 cases.

Pitiful reporters

[Dont call me Shirley]

16. WTF is the matter with kansas?!

[TheMastersNemesis]

22. Too All You Fools

I am a Vietnam veteran who was in RVN. As far as I am concerned I wasted my time on jerks like you. As far as I am concerned you ARE no better than the VC we faced. If you support this travesty you can all go to you know where. Thank god none of your are my neighbors. Besides that Kansas is nothing but a state of racists and bigots. It would be better if your state just sunk below the surface of the earth.

[NaturalHigh]

25. From a fellow veteran, thank you for your service.

[aka-chmeee]

30. You seem to know an awful lot about Kansas,

You must be from one of those really progressive, neighboring states like, say, Missouri or maybe Oklahoma.

[TheMastersNemesis]

40. From Colorado

Oklahoma and Missouri are not much better. Taking away a person's vote for specious reasons is unAmerican. We all know tha the GOP would outlaw Democrats and progressives if they wanted. Besides to get a passport costs over $100. Just to get a birth certificate in Illinois is $50. Voter Id is a racist and bigoted policy. It is Jim Crow all over again.

[patrice]

35. "Kansas is nothing but ..." more evidence of how/why veterans should not be imputed with special

wisdom, simply because they are veterans.

Though you and I may agreed in being against vote-suppression, this post is another example of why I am VERY tired of hearing, "I am a veteran and ...."

[patrice]

36. P.S. I should have prefaced that with, "From a fellow veteran ...."

[patrice]

37. Eliminating Medicare voters, uh .... in more ways than just one. nt

[Derechos]

51. VA shelved a similar bill due to high costs.

This is a law in search of a problem that doesn't really exist. But the administrative costs will be real as well as the hassel on voters trying to register. If anyone is interested in an analysis of the costs in Virginia such as those related to voter education, staff training, and provisional ballot administration, see
http://www.thecommonwealthinstitute.org/2012/02/20/tighter-voter-id-requirements-bring-costs-to-virginia/

[MarkCharles]

52. Just how many 90 year old Mexicans live in Kansas anyway?

I'd hate to have 3 or 4 of them vote!

<sarcasm, folks, please!>

[Auntie Bush]

58. Maybe these laws prevent a few voters from voting illegially...but they

Prevent many thousands of legible voters from voting. Why don't I hear people complaining about this travesty?