Why we need a state and federal Voter ID law

Posted by: Barthélemy Barbancourt

Tagged in: Untagged 

Three Wake County, North Carolina, Democrats have admitted to voter fraud charges, according to local news reports.

Kierra Fontae Leache, Shelia Romona Hodges and Brandon Earl Mclean each admitted to casting two ballots in recent elections. Local reports indicate all three voted for President Barack Obama twice in 2008.

According to ABC News Channel 11 in Raleigh-Durham, authorities have placed the three on $10,000 bonds.

The North Carolina Republican Party says this kind of fraudulent voter behavior is why the state needs a voter ID law. In July, Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue vetoed state Republicans’ latest attempt at instituting such a law, calling it an “obstacle” to constitutional principles.

Democrats hate voter ID laws because it is harder to win if you can't cheat.

Comments (7)add comment
written by TomC , August 11, 2011

I would not be opposed to the inked finger approach like in the Middle East as another step toward a one vote limit. But I am a strong advocate of voter-ID.

I do not like same day registration. Voting is a privilege, not a right. To force someone to plan ahead and go to the courthouse or post office or some other registration place is not unreasonable. It should be treated as a privilege and something special.

Not everyone should vote and not everyone should be allowed to vote. Federal law and the US Constitution only state you cannot deny someone's right to vote based on race, creed, religion, and sex. However a state could say that people who wear green shoes may not vote. Or no shirt, no shoes, no vote.

I absolutely do not like the vouching law in Minnesota. This has got to go. It invites fraud. I also do not like the extended early voting for many of the same reasons.

Absentee voting satisfies my requirement of needing to go to a little extra effort to vote. It should continue to give the military plenty of leeway in getting their votes counted.

Voting is a privilege, not a right.
written by Sequel , August 12, 2011

Uhh. I think you may be mistaken Tom.

written by Nobody , August 12, 2011

is right. Tom you might want to review the Voter Rights Act.

Ed Salden
written by Ed Salden , August 13, 2011

In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the [U.S. Supreme] Court ... affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution 'does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.' And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is 'qualified.'

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.... the U.S. is one of just 11 nations among 120 or so constitutional democracies that fail to guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions."

Aug. 8, 2005 - Jeff Milchen

Thanks Ed.
written by TomC , August 13, 2011

I had not had a chance to look up the ruling,but I knew of it. There are several states, Georgia is one, which does have a right to vote clause, but that is consistent with the ruling.

All the Voters Rights Acts and amendments state that you may not deny someone the right to vote based on a list of things like race, religion, sex, etc.

You could, for instance, like corporate stock, allow a vote for every $10K of taxes paid. All eligible voters would be allowed at least one vote, but some would be allowed more than one. How fair would that be?

Steve Anderson
written by sanders , August 14, 2011

I am all for the one person, one vote ideal. All I am asking is that you get ONLY one vote per person. That's what the Voter ID would accomplish. TomC is close with something like the inked finger, but that could still be abused by absentee voters going to the polls on election day.

I'm on the north side of 50. I've been carded three times in the last two days. Buying beer, at the bar, and at the bank. If you don't have an ID, how do you operate in this state?

nothing is simple anymore
written by Elmer , August 15, 2011

A few weeks ago I went into a liquor store in Edina MN and was asked to show ID. Since I'm mid 60s, I thought it might be to check for a DWI conviction. But no, I was told that they had been required required to check EVERYONE in fairness to the youth they used to only routinely check. They are not supposed to single out any special group. Holy shit. Equity in cash-register annoyance. How Edina liberal. Then I asked about seniors and immigrants who might not drive...Oh, everyone has an ID of some kind, was the answer. Wonder if Al Franken knows that?

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.