View Full Version : Voter Fraud
This concerns me greatly. While we have a special counsel to try to find proof of Russian collusion in the 2016 election, we have our own internal voting problems right here at home that are not getting enough attention. How about your own state?
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS ARE ILLEGALLY REGISTERED TO VOTE IN TEXAS
A coalition of conservative leaders is calling on Gov. Greg Abbott to take immediate action to ensure election integrity in November’s elections.
https://empowertexans.com/under-the-dome/hundreds-of-thousands-are-illegally-registered-to-vote-in-texas/
RetroRevolver77
08-18-18, 19:54
Well with the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if Texas, Idaho, and Florida go blue.
Well with the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if Texas, Idaho, and Florida go blue.
If they do it won't be because of voter fraud.
In Kansas our Secretary of State, Chris Kobach, unlike other Secretary's of State's has the power to investigate AND prosecute voter fraud - he doesn't have to go through the Attorney General. As a result has spent his stint as Secretary of State pursuing illegal voters.
His count so far is EIGHT total. A legal immigrant, who voted before he attained citizenship, and seven other people who “double-voted” or were citizens who voted in Kansas and another state. IIRC most of them were Republicans.
The immigrant who voted was caught when at his naturalization ceremony, the immigrant, Victor David Beek, was offered the chance to register to vote in Sedgwick County.
“This gentleman did so, and then when the Sedgwick County election office went back to the office to enter his information, they found that he had been on the voter rolls since 2011,” Kobach said.
Kobach said he did not know whether Bebek had been affiliated with any political party.
Bebek will be on unsupervised probation for up to three years and pay a fine of $5,000, according to a statement from Kobach’s office.
Kobach found that Bebek illegally voted three times: in a 2012 special election and the 2012 and 2014 general elections. He was a Peruvian national at the time who voted in Sedgwick County, according to Kobach.
Kansas has voter identification laws strongly supported by Kobach that have often been criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union and Democratic lawmakers in the state.
Rep. John Carmichael, a Democrat from Wichita, filed legislation this year to strip the secretary of the power to prosecute voter fraud and election crimes, but the bill has not moved forward in the Kansas Legislature.
“I’m not at all convinced that finding one non-citizen to prosecute after a two-year search justifies giving the secretary of state what is unprecedented authority held by no other secretary of state in the nation,” Carmichael said.
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article144256424.html#storylink=cpy
My opinion is that, yes, there is voter fraud. But it is not widespread. The folks who say otherwise, IMO, are doing so to keep the electorate agitated and suspicious of the opposition party, and for there own political gain. Here's the way it that works:
Kobach promised cities help. It cost them millions — and powered his political rise
Kris Kobach likes to tout his work for Valley Park, Mo. He has boasted on cable TV about crafting and defending the town’s hard-line anti-immigration ordinance. He discussed his “victory” there at length on his old radio show. He still lists it on his resume.
But “victory” isn’t the word most Valley Park residents would use to describe the results of Kobach’s work. With his help, the town of 7,000 passed an ordinance in 2006 that punished employers for hiring illegal immigrants and landlords for renting to them.
After two years of litigation and nearly $300,000 in expenses, the ordinance was largely gutted. Now, it is illegal only to “knowingly” hire illegal immigrants there — something that was already illegal under federal law. The town’s attorney can’t recall a single case brought under the ordinance.
“Ambulance chasing” is how Grant Young, a former mayor of Valley Park, describes Kobach’s role. Young characterized Kobach’s attitude as, “Let’s find a town that’s got some issues or pretends to have some issues, let’s drum up an immigration problem and maybe I can advance my political position, my political thinking and maybe make some money at the same time.”
Kobach used his work in Valley Park to attract other clients, with sometimes disastrous effects on the municipalities. The towns — some with budgets in the single-digit-millions — ran up hefty legal costs after hiring him to defend similar ordinances.
Farmers Branch, Texas, wound up owing $7 million in legal bills. Hazleton, Pa., took on debt to pay $1.4 million and eventually had to file for a state bailout. Fremont, Neb., raised property taxes to pay for Kobach’s services. None of the towns is currently enforcing an ordinance he helped craft.
“This sounds a little bit to me like Harold Hill in ‘The Music Man,’ ” said Larry Dessem, a law professor at the University of Missouri who focuses on legal ethics. “Got a problem here in River City and we can solve it if you buy the band instruments from me. He is selling something that goes well beyond legal services.”
Kobach rode the attention the cases generated to political prominence, first as Kansas secretary of state and now as a candidate for governor in the Aug. 7 Republican primary. He also earned more than $800,000 for his immigration work, paid by both towns and an advocacy group, over 13 years.
Kobach’s recent legal struggles have been widely reported. In June, a federal judge handed him a sweeping courtroom defeat, overturning a Kansas law that required proof of citizenship to register to vote. The judge went so far as to order him to attend six hours of continuing legal education after he repeatedly botched basic courtroom procedure. Another recent Kobach endeavor, a federal commission aimed at combating voter fraud, which he co-chaired, shut down after a bevy of lawsuits challenged it.
But Kobach’s failures in the courtroom date back far longer. An investigation by The Kansas City Star and ProPublica shows that the towns Kobach represented — small, largely white municipalities overwhelmed by real or perceived demographic shifts — were swayed by Kobach’s message: An ordinance would solve their problem and could easily be defended in court. Based on public records requests, filed in June with the towns that Kobach represented, this article for the first time details the costs to municipalities and the payments to Kobach for his lengthy local legal campaigns.
When Kobach was hired by Farmers Branch in 2007, then-Mayor Bob Phelps said Kobach cited his anticipated victory in Valley Park as a selling point. The City Council, Phelps said, “bought it hook, line and sinker.”
In Hazleton, Valley Park’s results were cited as a reason for optimism. Both Kobach and Lou Barletta — then mayor of Hazleton and now the area’s congressman — used the town as a reason to press on with their costly litigation.
“Valley Park has a similar ordinance that was modeled after ours,” Barletta told a local reporter at the time. “They were also sued. They went to federal court and won.” Neither he nor Kobach mentioned in the interview that Valley Park’s ordinance, ultimately, looked very little like Hazleton’s.
Albertville, Ala., chose to do a bit of homework on Kobach, and it paid off. When Kobach arrived in the town in March 2010, he painted a bleak picture of its future: He said he’d been all over the country helping towns that were suffering from an influx of illegal immigrants. Albertville, he continued, was more afflicted than any he’d seen. He predicted it would collapse under the weight of the influx. Kobach said he could help them.
As he’d done in Valley Park, Kobach said, he would write an ordinance that would force the illegal immigrants to leave.
“There are certain things that cities can do to deal with the burden that illegal immigration imposes on the taxpayers,” Kobach told municipal officials at a public meeting, a local paper reported. He dismissed concerns over potential legal challenges and their high costs. The American Civil Liberties Union, he said, had a track record of losing cases like these.
Albertville’s government was poised to hire Kobach until a City Council member made a call to Valley Park. After hearing firsthand about the town’s experience, Albertville’s City Council voted against bringing him on.
“The advice I have gotten from towns which passed similar resolutions said they would not do it again,” Councilman Randy Amos said after the vote.
Kobach says he warned the towns what they were getting into. “The elected representatives of the people made a decision with full awareness that fighting the ACLU costs money, that yeah, it was worth it to fight the ACLU and worth it to get these ordinances in place,” he said. “I believe in these cities and these ordinances and what they’re doing. And so if there was some way I could help them, I did.”
Some of Kobach’s former clients — typically those most zealously opposed to immigration — speak highly of the work he did for them.
“It was honestly an honor to work with the guy,” said former Valley Park City Attorney Eric Martin. ”He knew his subject matter and was very driven to get something passed.”
That’s not how Phelps sees it.
“It was a sham,” Phelps said of Kobach’s pitch, which ultimately ended in a resounding defeat for Farmers Branch. He “kept telling us, ‘We can win this. We’ll just keep appealing it,’ which I felt was very misleading. It was just a sad situation that we had to go through, and everybody now regrets it.”
More to the story here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article215374130.html#storylink=cpy
So, here is a quote and a question from the OP's link.
In a recent interview Starr County District Attorney Omar Escobar confirmed that non-U.S. citizens are on the voter lists in his county. He is quoted stating, ‘That non-citizens are registered to vote is beyond question. That non-citizens are voting in Starr County is also beyond question.’ They are registered and voting, the only remaining question is, how many.”
It sounds to me that DA Escobar has knowledge of criminal activity. In Kansas, District Attorneys are the Chief Law Enforcement Officer's of the County - they can, if need be, arrest the Sheriff.
So it seems to me that Escobar, has a sworn duty to ensure that criminal acts that he is aware of are investigated and prosecuted as warranted.
Has he done so? Or is he only making such statements for political reasons, and in the process markedly exaggerating the problem?
Seems to me if the problem was as large as these folks say, Texas would have been blue long ago, since they claim more than 280,000 non-citizens in Texas are registered to vote, with another four million registered voters in question.
All them illegals voting Democrat, sheeeeetttt, Texas would have been as blue as Kalifornia.
Once again, not saying there is no voter fraud, just saying it is way, way, overstated.
Ol' Chris Kobach, who in eight years only nabbed ONE non-citizen voter, and seven others who double voted was last year revealed as a source of President's Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that millions of people illegally voted in the 2016 presidential election. Kobach has offered no evidence to back up Trump’s claim of such fraud in the 2016 election.
That is some badass math, based on the factual evidence that we have.
Judicial Watch has been keeping tabs in voter roles (which is the heart of voter fraud). It’s more common than people realize.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-warns-11-states-clean-voter-registration-lists-face-federal-lawsuit/
And SanFran is currently registering illegals to vote. While it’s local, the rationale isn’t.
https://www.westernjournal.com/san-francisco-signing-illegals-vote-local-election/
RetroRevolver77
08-18-18, 22:46
I read somewhere that if you subtract the amount of illegals that voted for Hillary, Trump won the popular vote. Someone estimated over 7 million illegal alien votes were cast and there's now reports that there 3.5 million more registered voters than there are actual adult age voters in the country. Now that's assuming that every single living adult is voting which is impossible, some might be disabled, so the actual difference is probably twice that number. Basically millions more are registered to vote than the actual number of people we should have here according to the census numbers. I've also seen estimates for the number of illegals living in the country is now estimated over 30 million and possibly as high as 40 million. That's like a nation within a nation.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-has-3-5-million-more-registered-voters-than-live-adults-a-red-flag-for-electoral-fraud/
Once again, not saying there is no voter fraud, just saying it is way, way, overstated.
Ol' Chris Kobach, who in eight years only nabbed ONE non-citizen voter, and seven others who double voted
I think the people caught above prove the opposite of what you claim it does. Not ONE illegal voted in the whole State? Or our ability to identify anyone as illegal on voting rolls is close to ZERO?
Now I'm sceptical of the wild "millions" claims too, but no more than those who claim zero. I suspect the number is somewhere between, and large enough to swing the results in some places.
Well with the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if Texas, Idaho, and Florida go blue.
Areas of Texas with large populations are already vote majority blue by a large margin - Austin, Beaumont-Port Arthur, El Paso, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and the Rio Grand Valley: https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/texas/
It is only a matter of time before the numerous smaller red counties can no longer put together a collective red majority, which is why voter fraud is a hot issue here.
I think the people caught above prove the opposite of what you claim it does. Not ONE illegal voted in the whole State? Or our ability to identify anyone as illegal on voting rolls is close to ZERO?
Now I'm sceptical of the wild "millions" claims too, but no more than those who claim zero. I suspect the number is somewhere between, and large enough to swing the results in some places.
Yep. It doesn't have to be millions nationwide. It just needs to be targeted in specific, crucial areas. Voter fraud is most often thought of as illegals voting, but there is also the voter fraud like boxes full of "missing" ballots mysteriously showing up at the last minute (reference Al Franken's dubious victory in MN). Felons, illegals, the dead, etc.
I think the people caught above prove the opposite of what you claim it does. Not ONE illegal voted in the whole State? Or our ability to identify anyone as illegal on voting rolls is close to ZERO?
Now I'm sceptical of the wild "millions" claims too, but no more than those who claim zero. I suspect the number is somewhere between, and large enough to swing the results in some places.
BINGO.
While I certainly believe the Founding Fathers has great wisdom in creating the Electoral College, it does make voter fraud "easier" if you will. No need for millions voting illegally across the country; that might be too "above the radar" for it to be poo-pooed and ignored. No, the Electoral College allows for the zeroing in on critical districts within a close state that can tip that state's electoral votes one way or another. Since the majority of states have "winner take all" electoral policies it can be a ripe opportunity for tomfoolery.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-19-18, 11:20
While I certainly believe the Founding Fathers has great wisdom in creating the Electoral College, it does make voter fraud "easier" if you will. No need for millions voting illegally across the country; that might be too "above the radar" for it to be poo-pooed and ignored. No, the Electoral College allows for the zeroing in on critical districts within a close state that can tip that state's electoral votes one way or another. Since the majority of states have "winner take all" electoral policies it can be a ripe opportunity for tomfoolery.
Actually the opposite. It creates choke-points where you can carefully watch the process. Think of it this way. You either have to watch 10 districts closely, or every single ballot voted everywhere? One is controlling the Straights of Gibraltar and the other is trying to control the whole Med. The EC wasn't meant to prevent fraud in voting, but it is an outcome of the process.
RetroRevolver77
08-19-18, 11:32
They are already rigging small elections, just that one here in Ohio had a bunch of people voting that were over the age of 115 still on the registry. Then they found a bunch of ballots that were of course 3 to 1 for the Democrat. Point being, they are going to pull out all the stops now.
I think the people caught above prove the opposite of what you claim it does. Not ONE illegal voted in the whole State? Or our ability to identify anyone as illegal on voting rolls is close to ZERO?
Now I'm sceptical of the wild "millions" claims too, but no more than those who claim zero. I suspect the number is somewhere between, and large enough to swing the results in some places.
I agree with all you posted except:and large enough to swing the results in some places.
Let's think critically for a moment. If the numbers were true, and the belief was that most of those illegal voters were casting Republican votes, how many of you would be calling for action? I'd be willing to bet that Ol' Omar, the DA of Starr County, Texas, for one, would be keeping his fvcking yap shut.
That is what is bullshit about this whole deal, at it's heart it isn't really about the rule of law, it is about gaining political advantage.
Onerous voter registration laws, such as Kobach pushes, are designed to make it more troublesome and difficult for lower income and minority folks to vote. In many places these are the folks who are likely to vote Democrat.
Ol' Fatboy Republicans such as myself, are likely to have registered 20 or 30 years ago, and kept up with address changes as we bought new houses. I just show up, show them my DL (which pisses me off - they wont take my retired ID because it doesn't have an address) and vote.
Now, my neighbor down the street who just moved into a nice rental, has to have her driver's license (or state ID card), and birth certificate to register to vote. As noted if she doesn't have a DL she has to get a state id card.
Personally, I don't find that hard to do, largely because my wife is uber-organized and has packets for each of us containing birth certificates, social security cards, adoption papers, divorce decrees, marriage certificates, DD214's, retirement papers, etc.
If I was on my own I'd be hosed, I'd have to plan enough ahead of time to get a copy of my birth certificate, because I had one once, but I lost it, then stand in line waiting to register. I'd be a lot less likely to register to vote.
The redundancy here is that to get the original DL or State ID you have to show the birth certificate and proof of your address - a utility bill or some other proof. Don't make much sense to me.
I agree with all you posted except:and large enough to swing the results in some places.
Let's think critically for a moment. If the numbers were true, and the belief was that most of those illegal voters were casting Republican votes, how many of you would be calling for action? I'd be willing to bet that Ol' Omar, the DA of Starr County, Texas, for one, would be keeping his fvcking yap shut.
That is what is bullshit about this whole deal, at it's heart it isn't really about the rule of law, it is about gaining political advantage.
Onerous voter registration laws, such as Kobach pushes, are designed to make it more troublesome and difficult for lower income and minority folks to vote. In many places these are the folks who are likely to vote Democrat.
Ol' Fatboy Republicans such as myself, are likely to have registered 20 or 30 years ago, and kept up with address changes as we bought new houses. I just show up, show them my DL (which pisses me off - they wont take my retired ID because it doesn't have an address) and vote.
Now, my neighbor down the street who just moved into a nice rental, has to have her driver's license (or state ID card), and birth certificate to register to vote. As noted if she doesn't have a DL she has to get a state id card.
Personally, I don't find that hard to do, largely because my wife is uber-organized and has packets for each of us containing birth certificates, social security cards, adoption papers, divorce decrees, marriage certificates, DD214's, retirement papers, etc.
If I was on my own I'd be hosed, I'd have to plan enough ahead of time to get a copy of my birth certificate, because I had one once, but I lost it, then stand in line waiting to register. I'd be a lot less likely to register to vote.
The redundancy here is that to get the original DL or State ID you have to show the birth certificate and proof of your address - a utility bill or some other proof. Don't make much sense to me.
Can you walk into a gun shop and buy a weapon with a non-official ID? How about buying beer? (in TN you have to show ID no matter how old you look, state law)
Would seem to me that if you wanted to vote bad enough you'd get an official ID, especially since IIRC most states issue them for free (not the driver's licenses, they ding you for that, but just a state ID). Not to mention a good portion of these "downtrodden" and [I just LOVE this term] "disenfranchised" folks get bussed in on election day, but can't seem to get a ride to obtain their free state-issued ID? Nah, ain't buying it.
Sorry, you cannot have unfettered access to voting. It cannot be a circus. There has to be order in it. If you have to prove who you are officially to buy a gun (another Constitutional right I might add), or even buy a six-pack, then you sure as hell should have to show official ID to vote.
Actually the opposite. It creates choke-points where you can carefully watch the process. Think of it this way. You either have to watch 10 districts closely, or every single ballot voted everywhere? One is controlling the Straights of Gibraltar and the other is trying to control the whole Med. The EC wasn't meant to prevent fraud in voting, but it is an outcome of the process.
Let's agree that it is a double-edged sword then. I see your point, but surely you see the other side of the blade in my post above yours.
Business_Casual
08-19-18, 20:51
How many of us are signed up to be poll watchers?
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-19-18, 20:59
Let's agree that it is a double-edged sword then. I see your point, but surely you see the other side of the blade in my post above yours.
The Dems want to get rid of the EC and go to popular vote, that seems like the more dangerous 'side'. I know what you mean. Something like a couple of hundred thousand votes (tenths of a percent of the popular vote) is what carried Trump in those swing states. So that would be a model for hundreds of votes per county would be enough to move enough states to shift elections.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-19-18, 21:00
How many of us are signed up to be poll watchers?
I can only watch after my Mom's shift is over...
Can you walk into a gun shop and buy a weapon with a non-official ID? How about buying beer? (in TN you have to show ID no matter how old you look, state law)
Would seem to me that if you wanted to vote bad enough you'd get an official ID, especially since IIRC most states issue them for free (not the driver's licenses, they ding you for that, but just a state ID). Not to mention a good portion of these "downtrodden" and [I just LOVE this term] "disenfranchised" folks get bussed in on election day, but can't seem to get a ride to obtain their free state-issued ID? Nah, ain't buying it.
Sorry, you cannot have unfettered access to voting. It cannot be a circus. There has to be order in it. If you have to prove who you are officially to buy a gun (another Constitutional right I might add), or even buy a six-pack, then you sure as hell should have to show official ID to vote.
I really didn't expect you to choose to get my point.
I'm not saying you ought to be able to just walk up and vote, you should have to show some form of ID, although it pisses me off when someone doesn't take my retired ID.
The real issue is the hoops that some states make folks jump through to register.
This is the link to the Federal Voter Registration, and, yes, I think it is bullshit they provide it in any language but English: https://vote.gov/files/federal-voter-registration_1-25-16_english.pdf
If you scroll through to the state requirement section and look at paragraph 9 for each state you'll find some variations.
For example, in Tennessee -
9. Signature. To register in Tennessee you must:
• be a citizen of the United States
• be a resident of Tennessee
• be at least 18 years old on or before the next election
• not have been convicted of a felony, or if convicted, have had your full rights of citizenship restored (or have received a pardon)
• not be adjudicated incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction (or have been restored to legal capacity.
Not too bad. Get your DL and vote.
Now let's look at the same section for Kansas:
9. Signature. To register in Kansas you must:
• be a citizen of the United States
• be a resident of Kansas
• be 18 by the next election
• have provided a document, or copy thereof, demonstrating United States citizenship within 90 days of filing the application with the secretary of state or applicable county election officer
• have completed the terms of your sentence if convicted of a felony; a person serving a sentence for a felony conviction is ineligible to vote
• not claim the right to vote in any other location or under any other name
• not be excluded from voting by a court of competent jurisdiction
• acceptable documents demonstrating United States citizenship as required by K.S.A. § 25‑2309(l) include the following:
(1) a driver's license or non‑driver state identification card indicating on its face that the holder has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship;
(2) a birth certificate indicating birth in the United States;
(3) pertinent pages of a valid of expired United States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant's passport number;
(4) a naturalization document indicating United States citizenship.
(5) A document issued by the federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, and amendments thereto, indicating United States citizenship;
(6) a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number, or tribal enrollment number;
(7) a consular report of birth abroad of a citizen of the United States;
(8) a certificate of citizenship issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
(9) a certificate of report of birth issued by the U.S. Department of State;
(10) an American Indian card with KIC classification issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
(11) a final adoption decree showing the applicant's name and United States birthplace;
(12) an official U.S. military record of service showing the applicant's United States birthplace;
(13) an extract from a U.S. hospital record of birth created at the time of the applicant's birth indicating the applicant's United States birthplace.
If one does not possess any of the listed documents, the person may alternatively prove his or her citizenship through the process described in K.S.A. § 25‑2309(m)
Seems to me you sound like you don't think your States registration process is onerous, neither do I, on the other hand our Kansas registration law is bullshit. Our Secretary of State got it passed simply to make it more difficult for those who are more likely to vote Democrat to register.
We have voted for several hundred years just fine, is there really a valid need to make things more difficult in Kansas in particular?
26 Inf, in the example of TN above, how does one prove US citizenship there? Simply check a box? Looks to me like most of the lengthy list for KS is spelling out what the acceptable forms of proof of citizenship are. Other than that, it is pretty much the same as TN.
If TN proof is to simply check a box, then I will take the KS proof list all day long.
For example, in Tennessee -
9. Signature. To register in Tennessee you must:
• be a citizen of the United States
• be a resident of Tennessee
• be at least 18 years old on or before the next election
• not have been convicted of a felony, or if convicted, have had your full rights of citizenship restored (or have received a pardon)
• not be adjudicated incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction (or have been restored to legal capacity.
The process of getting a DL (the most common form of ID) involves proof of "stuff", does it not? Moved here in 1996 and traded my Ohio DL in for a TN one. But backing up even further, in order to get my Ohio DL way back in the day when I was 16 I'm pretty sure I had to produce a birth certificate. So it's done once, long ago, and every DL re-issue/renewal/change piggybacks off the info originally used to obtain it.
It sounds like Kansas merely goes to the great lengths of spelling out what would have, in most locales, involved getting your DL in the first place.
(1) a driver's license or non‑driver state identification card indicating on its face that the holder has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship;
Doesn't the above statement from the Kansas regs basically (but redundantly) state what was needed in order to get a DL in the first place?
For example, in Tennessee -
9. Signature. To register in Tennessee you must:
• be a citizen of the United States
• be a resident of Tennessee
• be at least 18 years old on or before the next election
• not have been convicted of a felony, or if convicted, have had your full rights of citizenship restored (or have received a pardon)
• not be adjudicated incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction (or have been restored to legal capacity.
The process of getting a DL (the most common form of ID) involves proof of "stuff", does it not? Moved here in 1996 and traded my Ohio DL in for a TN one. But backing up even further, in order to get my Ohio DL way back in the day when I was 16 I'm pretty sure I had to produce a birth certificate. So it's done once, long ago, and every DL re-issue/renewal/change piggybacks off the info originally used to obtain it.
It sounds like Kansas merely goes to the great lengths of spelling out what would have, in most locales, involved getting your DL in the first place.
(1) a driver's license or non‑driver state identification card indicating on its face that the holder has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship;
Doesn't the above statement from the Kansas regs basically (but redundantly) state what was needed in order to get a DL in the first place?
Relying on a DL from another state seems like a bad practice to me. Maybe that state doesn't verify country of origin (birth certificate)? And then there are those states that issue DL to unauthorized immigrants: http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/states-offering-driver-s-licenses-to-immigrants.aspx
In my own case, I was not born in Texas. I am old and don't remember, but don't recall having to show my birth cert to get my first DL, or to show my BC to get a TX DL when I moved here.
Relying on a DL from another state seems like a bad practice to me. Maybe that state doesn't verify country of origin (birth certificate)? And then there are those states that issue DL to unauthorized immigrants: http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/states-offering-driver-s-licenses-to-immigrants.aspx
In my own case, I was not born in Texas. I am old and don't remember, but don't recall having to show my birth cert to get my first DL, or to show my BC to get a TX DL when I moved here.
I am not against a national standardized process (with regards to certifying who you are and citizenship) to obtain a DL. I ain't no spring chicken myself but I'm pretty sure a birth certificate had to be shown back in 1981 when I got my first DL. You would have had to prove you were at least 16yo, and what better way to do it?
But yes, discrepancies among the different state issuing regulations should be cleaned up.
I really didn't expect you to choose to get my point.
I'm not saying you ought to be able to just walk up and vote, you should have to show some form of ID, although it pisses me off when someone doesn't take my retired ID.
The real issue is the hoops that some states make folks jump through to register.
This is the link to the Federal Voter Registration, and, yes, I think it is bullshit they provide it in any language but English: https://vote.gov/files/federal-voter-registration_1-25-16_english.pdf
If you scroll through to the state requirement section and look at paragraph 9 for each state you'll find some variations.
For example, in Tennessee -
9. Signature. To register in Tennessee you must:
• be a citizen of the United States
• be a resident of Tennessee
• be at least 18 years old on or before the next election
• not have been convicted of a felony, or if convicted, have had your full rights of citizenship restored (or have received a pardon)
• not be adjudicated incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction (or have been restored to legal capacity.
Not too bad. Get your DL and vote.
Now let's look at the same section for Kansas:
9. Signature. To register in Kansas you must:
• be a citizen of the United States
• be a resident of Kansas
• be 18 by the next election
• have provided a document, or copy thereof, demonstrating United States citizenship within 90 days of filing the application with the secretary of state or applicable county election officer
• have completed the terms of your sentence if convicted of a felony; a person serving a sentence for a felony conviction is ineligible to vote
• not claim the right to vote in any other location or under any other name
• not be excluded from voting by a court of competent jurisdiction
• acceptable documents demonstrating United States citizenship as required by K.S.A. § 25‑2309(l) include the following:
(1) a driver's license or non‑driver state identification card indicating on its face that the holder has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship;
(2) a birth certificate indicating birth in the United States;
(3) pertinent pages of a valid of expired United States passport identifying the applicant and the applicant's passport number;
(4) a naturalization document indicating United States citizenship.
(5) A document issued by the federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, and amendments thereto, indicating United States citizenship;
(6) a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number, or tribal enrollment number;
(7) a consular report of birth abroad of a citizen of the United States;
(8) a certificate of citizenship issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
(9) a certificate of report of birth issued by the U.S. Department of State;
(10) an American Indian card with KIC classification issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
(11) a final adoption decree showing the applicant's name and United States birthplace;
(12) an official U.S. military record of service showing the applicant's United States birthplace;
(13) an extract from a U.S. hospital record of birth created at the time of the applicant's birth indicating the applicant's United States birthplace.
If one does not possess any of the listed documents, the person may alternatively prove his or her citizenship through the process described in K.S.A. § 25‑2309(m)
Seems to me you sound like you don't think your States registration process is onerous, neither do I, on the other hand our Kansas registration law is bullshit. Our Secretary of State got it passed simply to make it more difficult for those who are more likely to vote Democrat to register.
We have voted for several hundred years just fine, is there really a valid need to make things more difficult in Kansas in particular?
In your example what part of Kansas law is onerous? When you go get your DL or state issued ID you just show citizenship. You can then use that state issued document to register to vote. What makes that onerous? I’ll wager that in order to get a DL or ID in TN you have to show proof of citizenship. Assuming that TN participates in the RealID thing.
I’m confused by your above post. On one hand you state that voters should have to show some ID, but you find it onerous to show proof of citizenship as a requirement for ID. I’m in TX and when we adopted the RealID requirements for state issued ID, when my DL expired I had to go stand in line at the DPS office with some proof of citizenship (Passport, Naturalization very, SSN card...). Would it have been nicer/easier had I been able to do that online, over the phone or similar, sure but that stuff didn’t exist back then. Did I find it annoying to take a day and stand in line. Sure. Was it onerous and racist? Eff No!
We have voted for hundreds of years without the ID thing. However, a hundred years ago, possibly even 50 years ago we did not have tens of millions of criminals living free among us. We did not have the ability (I’d also like to think the lack of morality) to move people from 1 voting location to another during open polls. We also didn’t have absentee ballots or early voting...
Without ID and without tracking, what stops people from sending in absentee ballots, going to early voting and then voting on Election Day? In this modern civilized age it’s obviously not morals.
I guess I’m asking you what your solution is. I’m pretty sure we agree that per the Constitution only citizens have a right to vote. So how does one prove they are a citizen in a less onerous way??
I ain't no spring chicken myself but I'm pretty sure a birth certificate had to be shown back in 1981 when I got my first DL.
LOL! I got mine in the late 50's.
There are 248 counties in this country that have more registered voters than they do adult citizens. That should tell you all you need to know.
How quickly we forget acorn.
For example, in Tennessee -
9. Signature. To register in Tennessee you must:
• be a citizen of the United States
• be a resident of Tennessee
• be at least 18 years old on or before the next election
• not have been convicted of a felony, or if convicted, have had your full rights of citizenship restored (or have received a pardon)
• not be adjudicated incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction (or have been restored to legal capacity.
The process of getting a DL (the most common form of ID) involves proof of "stuff", does it not? Moved here in 1996 and traded my Ohio DL in for a TN one. But backing up even further, in order to get my Ohio DL way back in the day when I was 16 I'm pretty sure I had to produce a birth certificate. So it's done once, long ago, and every DL re-issue/renewal/change piggybacks off the info originally used to obtain it.
It sounds like Kansas merely goes to the great lengths of spelling out what would have, in most locales, involved getting your DL in the first place.
(1) a driver's license or non‑driver state identification card indicating on its face that the holder has provided satisfactory proof of United States citizenship;
Doesn't the above statement from the Kansas regs basically (but redundantly) state what was needed in order to get a DL in the first place?
Okay let me explain, when you got your original drivers license you had to provide a birth certificate, correct? My daughters have fairly new Kansas DL's and that is what they had to do.
So why isn't that enough proof? In fact, according to the Feds that is.
And you guys didn't flash on the fact that said the documentation of citizenship had to be on with the Secretary of State within 90 days of registration, did you? Another trip to get documents copied/certified and another trip to mail them. And yet we hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth over 3 day waiting periods for firearms purchases.
All of this is in a state that spent several million dollars investigating and found ONE case where a non-citizen voted.
You are choosing not to understand that this is overkill in terms of the demonstrated problem.
Going back to Texas, and the article that started this, it was stated that: more than 280,000 non-citizens in Texas are registered to vote, with another four million registered voters in question.
According to the Texas Secretary of State there are 15,249,541 registered voters in Texas.
Do you really believe that at a minimum 1 in every 55 registered voters in Texas is an illegal? (280,000 figure) or that on the tope end, up to 28% of the registered voters in Texas are illegals? (280,000 + 4,000,00 figure)
Believe what you want, I think it is bullshit rhetoric designed to keep the voting base inflamed and limit opposite party voter registrations.
RetroRevolver77
08-20-18, 12:00
If the people in India, who are arguably among the poorest people on the planet- are required to have an ID to vote then why not here?
Averageman
08-20-18, 12:08
My Mother works at he local polling place during every election.
She turns people away if they don't exactly meet the rules. I think the only way to prevent the tide turning against us is to apply the rules and hold fast.
All Politics are local, so this may be the only way to keep things right.
BTW; Did anyone ever address the Black Panthers holding court outside the polling places with clubs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A
And who called the Police?
Do you really believe that at a minimum 1 in every 55 registered voters in Texas is an illegal? (280,000 figure) or that on the tope end, up to 28% of the registered voters in Texas are illegals? (280,000 + 4,000,00 figure).
1 in 55 is only 1.81%. But say it is half that, or less than 1%, which does not seem to me like an outlandish number.
Then throw in the example of special election for the 12th Congressional District in Ohio. Unofficial results show Republican Troy Balderson has a lead of 1,564 votes over Democrat Danny O’Connor. We won't know until 24 Aug what the final count is, but the current 1,564 is a pretty slim margin in district where 203,109 votes have been counted so far = 0.77%
My Mother works at he local polling place during every election. She turns people away if they don't exactly meet the rules.
How does she know if they are US citizens or not?
Averageman
08-20-18, 12:31
How does she know if they are US citizens or not?
They are required to have ID, She makes sure that the rules are available right there as She checks ID's. There may be an exception in the small print, but She knows the exceptions, can quote them and shows the rules to anyone who feels slighted if they can't vote.
They are required to have ID, She makes sure that the rules are available right there as She checks ID's.
OK, I get that, but how does the ID types they can use guarantee US citizenship? Maybe you said earlier in this thread but I don't recall. Not even sure which state you are in.
Averageman
08-20-18, 13:07
OK, I get that, but how does the ID types they can use guarantee US citizenship? Maybe you said earlier in this thread but I don't recall. Not even sure which state you are in.
When you arrive to vote at the polls on Election Day you will announce your name and place of residence to the election official and present one form of identification from List #1 or two different forms of identification from List #2 or 3. (A.R.S. § 16-579(A)).
List #1 - Sufficient Photo ID Including Name And Address (One Required)
Valid Arizona driver license
Valid Arizona non-operating identification card
Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification
List #2 - Sufficient ID Without A Photograph That Bear The Name And Address (Two Required)
Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
Indian census card
Property tax statement of the elector's residence
Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification Arizona vehicle insurance card
Recorder's Certificate
Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder
Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”
List #3 - Mix & Match From Lists #1 & #2 (Two Required)
Any valid photo identification from List 1 in which the address does not reasonably match the precinct register accompanied by a non-photo identification from List 2 in which the address does reasonably match the precinct register
U.S. Passport without address and one valid item from List 2
U.S. Military identification without address and one valid item from List 2
I'm willing to bet She can quote those by heart.
It's a lot of BS, if you can't show up with a photo ID, why do you get to vote anyway?
Okay let me explain, when you got your original drivers license you had to provide a birth certificate, correct? My daughters have fairly new Kansas DL's and that is what they had to do.
So why isn't that enough proof? In fact, according to the Feds that is.
And you guys didn't flash on the fact that said the documentation of citizenship had to be on with the Secretary of State within 90 days of registration, did you? Another trip to get documents copied/certified and another trip to mail them. And yet we hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth over 3 day waiting periods for firearms purchases.
All of this is in a state that spent several million dollars investigating and found ONE case where a non-citizen voted.
You are choosing not to understand that this is overkill in terms of the demonstrated problem.
Going back to Texas, and the article that started this, it was stated that: more than 280,000 non-citizens in Texas are registered to vote, with another four million registered voters in question.
According to the Texas Secretary of State there are 15,249,541 registered voters in Texas.
Do you really believe that at a minimum 1 in every 55 registered voters in Texas is an illegal? (280,000 figure) or that on the tope end, up to 28% of the registered voters in Texas are illegals? (280,000 + 4,000,00 figure)
Believe what you want, I think it is bullshit rhetoric designed to keep the voting base inflamed and limit opposite party voter registrations.
Oh I understand what you're driving at. I believe I said not too far above: "I am not against a national standardized process (with regards to certifying who you are and citizenship) to obtain a DL."
If Kansas skews from the norm then make it so they are in line with other states in that regard. Once you've proved who you are and where you were born then that info is used to issue a DL or official state ID. From that point forward the legwork has been done and the ID itself is all that should have to be shown. No argument on that. But it needs to be shown at some point in order to legitimately ascertain who is carrying said ID.
You're the one who veered off on the finer points of Kansas law. You live there, do your best to have it changed.
It's also a bit dismissive, and condescending, to infer that only white people in Kansas can adhere to that state's law. That somehow blacks or naturalized citizens are incompetent idiots who couldn't possibly comply with those regs since they throw shit away or don't save "stuff" (like important documents). Only white people have their ducks in a row. Riiiiight.
Some 85yo white farmer from out in the Kansas sticks (DOB puts him squarely in the Depression era) would have it just as easy....or hard....as an 85yo rural black man to cough up a birth certificate.
My Mother works at he local polling place during every election.
She turns people away if they don't exactly meet the rules. I think the only way to prevent the tide turning against us is to apply the rules and hold fast.
All Politics are local, so this may be the only way to keep things right.
BTW; Did anyone ever address the Black Panthers holding court outside the polling places with clubs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A
And who called the Police?
They pull that shit where they can get away with it. Namely in predominantly black AO's. Wouldn't fly in Soccer Town USA's suburbs, I guarantee you that. The meek would call the cops, the more, uh, annoyed would bust a few heads.
OK, I get that, but how does the ID types they can use guarantee US citizenship? Maybe you said earlier in this thread but I don't recall. Not even sure which state you are in.
Once again reinforces my point about national standards on state ID requirements.
When you arrive to vote at the polls on Election Day you will announce your name and place of residence to the election official and present one form of identification from List #1 or two different forms of identification from List #2 or 3. (A.R.S. § 16-579(A)).
List #1 - Sufficient Photo ID Including Name And Address (One Required)
Valid Arizona driver license
Valid Arizona non-operating identification card
Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification
List #2 - Sufficient ID Without A Photograph That Bear The Name And Address (Two Required)
Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
Indian census card
Property tax statement of the elector's residence
Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification Arizona vehicle insurance card
Recorder's Certificate
Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder
Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”
List #3 - Mix & Match From Lists #1 & #2 (Two Required)
Any valid photo identification from List 1 in which the address does not reasonably match the precinct register accompanied by a non-photo identification from List 2 in which the address does reasonably match the precinct register
U.S. Passport without address and one valid item from List 2
U.S. Military identification without address and one valid item from List 2
I'm willing to bet She can quote those by heart.
It's a lot of BS, if you can't show up with a photo ID, why do you get to vote anyway?
Not responsive to my question, the only thing on those lists that i see that guarantees citizenship is a US passport. Foreign nationals can be in our military and own property in the US, work for the government, have US bank accounts, etc., etc.
It's also a bit dismissive, and condescending, to infer that only white people in Kansas can adhere to that state's law. That somehow blacks or naturalized citizens are incompetent idiots who couldn't possibly comply with those regs since they throw shit away or don't save "stuff" (like important documents). Only white people have their ducks in a row. Riiiiight.
Where did I say only whites can adhere to the law? Or, in fact, that anyone can't adhere to the law? The law puts more obstacles than are necessary in the process of voter registration. The Kansas law has a disparate impact on folks who find it harder by circumstance to jump through the hoops. Your statement is what might be called a plausible misdirection of the facts.
Some 85yo white farmer from out in the Kansas sticks (DOB puts him squarely in the Depression era) would have it just as easy....or hard....as an 85yo rural black man to cough up a birth certificate.
Yep, the first election those laws were in effect 3,500+ Kansans didn't have their votes counted, including some WWII Vets and Viet Nam Vets. Good deal.
Yep, the first election those laws were in effect 3,500+ Kansans didn't have their votes counted, including some WWII Vets and Viet Nam Vets. Good deal.
I guessed you missed the part where I said (repeatedly) that some sort of national standard for official ID's is in order. Then that ID in and of itself would be A-OK for using to prove who you are to vote.
Edit: NOT talking about a "national ID card", but state ones with a common agreement containing a minimum of requirements for identification.
No misdirection of facts either. You said it was to deny opposition party votes. I doubt you meant Republican. So same-o same-o...…...Democrats are too stupid/irresponsible/poor/whatever to have the rules apply to them? (admittedly a little convoluted in Kansas okay?) I'll bet many of those WWII and Vietnam vets were Republican voters. So the f****d-up Kansas law apparently screws everybody right? Not just the "opposition party".
I guessed you missed the part where I said (repeatedly) that some sort of national standard for official ID's is in order. Then that ID in and of itself would be A-OK for using to prove who you are to vote.
I think that the 'Star ID' program that lets you fly meets the requirements.
When my wife renewed her license recently she had to have a birth certificate and documents accounting for any name change on the birth certificate - marriage certificates, and if needed, divorce certificates, to get the Star ID on her DL.
My buddy's wife is the the Clerk of the District Court, she said her clerks were spending a lot of time pulling and certifying divorce decrees and marriage certificates for disgruntled women.
Meanwhile, guys roll in with their birth certificates and are good to go.
I suppose I should also be upset about that. :rolleyes:
Averageman
08-20-18, 16:02
I guessed you missed the part where I said (repeatedly) that some sort of national standard for official ID's is in order. Then that ID in and of itself would be A-OK for using to prove who you are to vote.
The only problem with that is States that are currently openly defiant against ICE and any system that would allow the Clerks in Sanctuary Cities to issue ID.
Ta Da Instant voting Citizen !
Okay let me explain, when you got your original drivers license you had to provide a birth certificate, correct? My daughters have fairly new Kansas DL's and that is what they had to do.
So why isn't that enough proof? In fact, according to the Feds that is.
And from what I gather a BC showing you were born in the USA is adequate to get a DL. Which in turn is sufficient to register to vote.
Until very recently the only thing you needed to show for a DL was proof of age and residency in the issuing state. Take me for an example. Back slightly after the wheel was invented I got my DL. This was PRIOR to me being a citizen. I went to TXDPS. Showed them a copy of my Romanian passport, convinced them that the funny words below the line showing my birthdate meant birthdate and not something else. We had a debate between issue date, birthdate and expiration date. My mom then showed her DL and a water bill to prove residency. Viola I had a fancy new DL without being a citizen. The same DL I used to register to vote once I got my citizenship. I then used an absentee ballot to vote while at college. All the while not a soul checked to see if I was actually a citizen. Go figure.
This is why in 2005 feds demanded that states update their procedures so that you need to show citizenship as well as age to get a DL. Those changes are the reason why you can use a DL instead of a passport to get on a plane, but may not be able to do so next year if your state doesn’t comply.
So I will ask you again. How is it onerous to be given a relatively large list of applicable documents and a specific timeline to fill out the forms to get an ID?
In TX if you have a state issued ID that was issued after the citizenship requirement you go vote with your DL or ID. They swipe the ID and verify it’s good and you reside in the voting area. All done with a swipe. That’s so onerous; I’m not sure how I can deal with it. Wish I could buy a gun like that.
The only problem with that is States that are currently openly defiant against ICE and any system that would allow the Clerks in Sanctuary Cities to issue ID. Ta Da Instant voting Citizen !
I thought at least some of them, if not all of them, already do?
RetroRevolver77
08-20-18, 16:27
I have to show my driver's license to vote and they check your signature on your license to the signature you provide when you vote. Plus to get a license renewed you had to have a birth certificate along with old driver's license and your social security card for renewal. So it's never been a problem, they know I'm a citizen, they verify my signature, and they check my ID. Now if I was Democrat they'd probably accept a stolen water bill after I got off a chartered bus with three dozen other Democrats all with their stolen bills for identification.
Taz, I have a TX DL and have had for 40 years. I don't recall ever having to show any proof of citizenship such as my birth cert or US passport, both of which I have. I show them my DL when I vote and all is good, but I have never shown proof of citizenship; although, I would have no problem doing so.
Secondly, you do not need to be a citizen to get on an airplane, just a valid DL or passport. How else would foreign nationals be able to fly.
Taz, I have a TX DL and have had for 40 years. I don't recall ever having to show any proof of citizenship such as my birth cert or US passport, both of which I have. I show them my DL when I vote and all is good, but I have never shown proof of citizenship; although, I would have no problem doing so.
Secondly, you do not need to be a citizen to get on an airplane, just a valid DL or passport. How else would foreign nationals be able to fly.
When I renewed after 2005, I was specifically told to bring in proof of citizenship. I assumed that it was related to the RealID act. I also had to leave digital fingerprints. Maybe I’m special. Or maybe when you were issued a DL, you used a birth cert which would default you to being a citizen. I did not so they may have noted that and needed proof to be compliant.
Come October 2020, if you live in a state that doesn’t comply with the RealID requirements for issuance of DL or ID you will NOT be boarding a flight at a USA airport without a passport or other compliant ID (military, badge...). Well, that is until a judge in Hawaii rules different. Foreign nationals MUST show a valid passport when boarding even domestic flights. As a foreign national you can’t board a plane with your foreign DL. AFAIK the only foreign ID that is accepted is a passport. May be different if you’re a permanent resident or foreign worker type of thing.
Averageman
08-20-18, 17:08
I would assume that a Concealed Carry Permit would likely have a more in depth and accurate depiction of who you are, where you were born and if you are a citizen or not.
BTW; Did anyone ever address the Black Panthers holding court outside the polling places with clubs?
:lol::lol: Man, that's a good one. Thanks for livening up my Monday.
When I renewed after 2005, I was specifically told to bring in proof of citizenship. I assumed that it was related to the RealID act. I also had to leave digital fingerprints. Maybe I’m special. Or maybe when you were issued a DL, you used a birth cert which would default you to being a citizen. I did not so they may have noted that and needed proof to be compliant.
You must be special as I am positive I never showed a BC when I got mt TxDL 40 years ago, or at any renewal since. Plus, I just checked the DPS site for renewals and it didn't say anything that I found about providing a BC.
May be different if you’re a permanent resident
That is what I was referring to when I posted what I did.
As to 2020, if something changes for me, no worries, I'll just use my passport if I have to.
Believe what you want, I think it is bullshit rhetoric designed to keep the voting base inflamed and limit opposite party voter registrations.
The rhetoric on BOTH sides is over the top and designed to inflame BOTH bases.
Maybe some laws were designed to repress voters. Maybe some of those opposing ALL voter ID laws want votes from people who are not eligible.
Only one side seems willing to compromise and find a reasonable middle ground, to me that's a clue.
Averageman
08-21-18, 11:35
There is no "reasonable middle ground" when it comes to having the right to vote,
If you cannot prove you are a Citizen, (BTW you've had at least two years to obtain a .gov provided ID Card that would provide the evidence necessary,) at that point I would believe you should be turned away.
Excuse like, "I don't have transportation" lead me to inquire HTF did you manage to make it to the polling site today?
I've yet to see massive claims of dead Conservatives voting for GOP Candidates, I might be wrong, there may be a extremely rare example; but for the most part it seems the only ones showing up with a permission slip from Mom and wanting to vote are liberals.
The free ID was the compromise. To take away the crushing oppression of having to get a DL...
I'm disturbed that an ID or birth certificate isn't needed for any Government assistance. I don't think I could get a job without ID, I know I can't get a bank account without one. So bum or welfare seems the only way they could survive.
I'm disturbed that an ID or birth certificate isn't needed for any Government assistance.
That, too!
Averageman
08-21-18, 13:32
The free ID was the compromise. To take away the crushing oppression of having to get a DL...
I'm disturbed that an ID or birth certificate isn't needed for any Government assistance. I don't think I could get a job without ID, I know I can't get a bank account without one. So bum or welfare seems the only way they could survive.
We have a system in which the least amount of possible individual effort has to be put forth to make the biggest of life's decisions.
Should I be a single mom? Not to worry the .gov will help !
Should I get some form of Health Insurance? Not to worry, just show up at the E.R. !
Should I drive without a licence, Insurance or vehicle registration? Sure, go right ahead, just don't get caught and if you do, you'll likely only get a hand slap !
Should I finish High School? Not to worry, we have many programs to help you if you decide High School is a waste of your time, just ask your Mother, she will show you how they all work !
Can I vote if I cannot provide any form of Identification past an old water bill and a hand written rent receipt? Just bring those on down and vote away !
Some sort of Darwinian process is missing here. Should you really have all of your rights without any of your responsibilities being applied to any/all parts of life?
When you see this happening is it any wonder that people are so ignorant and breeding like rabbits.
We have a system in which the least amount of possible individual effort has to be put forth to make the biggest of life's decisions.
Should I be a single mom? Not to worry the .gov will help !
Should I get some form of Health Insurance? Not to worry, just show up at the E.R. !
Should I drive without a licence, Insurance or vehicle registration? Sure, go right ahead, just don't get caught and if you do, you'll likely only get a hand slap !
Should I finish High School? Not to worry, we have many programs to help you if you decide High School is a waste of your time, just ask your Mother, she will show you how they all work !
Can I vote if I cannot provide any form of Identification past an old water bill and a hand written rent receipt? Just bring those on down and vote away !
Some sort of Darwinian process is missing here. Should you really have all of your rights without any of your responsibilities being applied to any/all parts of life?
When you see this happening is it any wonder that people are so ignorant and breeding like rabbits.
Forgot one:
"Can I buy that AR15 you have hanging up on the wall over there Mr. Gun Dealer? I have my electric bill and college ID."
"No f*****g way!"
You must be special as I am positive I never showed a BC when I got mt TxDL 40 years ago, or at any renewal since. Plus, I just checked the DPS site for renewals and it didn't say anything that I found about providing a BC.
That is what I was referring to when I posted what I did.
As to 2020, if something changes for me, no worries, I'll just use my passport if I have to.
I'm in the same boat. I never had to show a B.C. to get my license. However, my state is working towards being RealId compliant and all of my kids have had to show their B.C. to get a license. If I want a compliant licence I will have to as well. I just have a passport card, so I'm good to go regardless.
I voted today. I had to show ID and they compared my signature on the ID to my signing for my ballot.
I would assume that a Concealed Carry Permit would likely have a more in depth and accurate depiction of who you are, where you were born and if you are a citizen or not.
You can be a Permanent Resident (Green card) and purchase a firearm. In Alaska you can also have a CCW license. You cannot, however, vote in elections that require you to be a U.S. citizen.
Averageman
08-22-18, 09:12
I'm in the same boat. I never had to show a B.C. to get my license. However, my state is working towards being RealId compliant and all of my kids have had to show their B.C. to get a license. If I want a compliant licence I will have to as well. I just have a passport card, so I'm good to go regardless.
I voted today. I had to show ID and they compared my signature on the ID to my signing for my ballot.
When we got our licences, we all likely took Drivers Education at school. The school had a good idea based on your BC and other documents as to your citizenship status.
Plus it wasn't such an overwhelming issue back then.
Had we only taken it more seriously then.
Averageman
08-22-18, 09:17
You can be a Permanent Resident (Green card) and purchase a firearm. In Alaska you can also have a CCW license. You cannot, however, vote in elections that require you to be a U.S. citizen.
Hmmm, perhaps if we took voting as seriously as ccw's?
I'm to the point where I no longer trust States to validate citizenship status.
Business_Casual
08-22-18, 10:28
I can only watch after my Mom's shift is over...
That’s “pole” not “poll” I’m afraid.
When we got our licences, we all likely took Drivers Education at school. The school had a good idea based on your BC and other documents as to your citizenship status.
This is true, but nobody has bothered to validate it since, not even when I moved to TX from another state. I have no problem whatsoever with the state asking me to prove my citizenship and would happily comply. But they haven't. I was curious about Real ID so I went to the DHS web site and here is what I found:
https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs
Q: What is REAL ID?
Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver's license today than before the passage of the Act.
Q: REAL ID does NOT apply to the following:
Entering Federal facilities that do not require a person to present identification
Voting or registering to vote
Applying for or receiving Federal benefits
Being licensed by a state to drive
Accessing Health or life preserving services (including hospitals and health clinics), law enforcement, or constitutionally protected activities (including a defendant's access to court proceedings)
Participating in law enforcement proceedings or investigations
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.