Bush v. Gore II: Voting Fraud Back at Court

On this morning after the New Hampshire primary, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a voting rights case that presents the justices with the most starkly partisan choice they have faced since Dec. 12, 2000.

That cold late autumn night, you remember, a bitterly divided court handed the presidency to George W. Bush. This bright winter morning, a bitterly divided court -- arguably more conservative than the court of seven years ago -- will hear arguments about whether Indiana's stringent new voting law is a legitimate tool against growing voter fraud (as many Republicans argue) or a cynical attempt to deprive less affluent Americans of the right to vote (as many Democrats say). Jeffrey Toobin, the New Yorker's legal affairs writer, has the best view of the case and its connection with its infamous predecessor.

Unless the two new justices -- Samuel A. Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts -- show a level of statesmanship they have yet to display in their brief tenures, I would bet the family farm that this grand political case comes out precisely as the last one did. That means we'll almost certainly see a victory for Republicans, a defeat for Democrats, and a renewed awareness that the Florida recount debacle has done little to improve the chances that more votes are counted.

Politicians and bureaucrats could have reached two conclusions following the Florida recount and additional voting problems in Ohio and elsewhere in 2004. One is that states weren't doing enough to ensure that as many votes as possible were counted. The other is that the chaos in Florida was the result not of shoddy and outdated election systems but of marginally legitimate voters trying to horn in on the election process.

The first conclusion was inclusive: How do we work the system to make more votes count? The second conclusion was exclusive: How do we prevent more votes from counting? Guess which way the Democrats went? Guess which way the Republicans went? Guess which side clearly held the political advantage in state houses across the country until the congressional election of 2006? And guess what happened?

Indiana and dozens of other Republican-controlled states -- and the U.S. Congress -- decided that they would make voting requirements more stringent. This meant a new requirement that all voters must show government-issued photo identification before they cast a ballot. No more bank statements or other proof of residency. No more signing in before a poll worker to whom you have signed in for the past six elections.

Now, for me and for you, perhaps, this new requirement is no big deal. A driver's license does the trick. So does a passport or a military ID. But think of all the people out there who do not drive, or who have not traveled abroad, or who are not in the military. Even a wanna-be voter with a Social Security card, that granddaddy of all Identification, would be turned away because the card does not contain a photograph.

There wasn't much of a factual basis behind the legislation. And, to be candid, there wasn't much of a factual basis against it, either.

I'm told lately that opponents of the Indiana law were able to find an elderly woman who tried but was unable to vote at a precinct station where she had voted for eons because of a photo ID requirement. Perhaps we will learn more about her during oral argument. And perhaps we'll get to hear about some of Indiana's prosecutions for voting fraud over the past decade or so. Surely if there aren't any -- and I don't think there are -- that would be relevant.

In fact, oral arguments are likely to begin and end with pointed questions from the justices about how each side justifies the conclusions (or legislation) it has reached. The fair thing, it seems to me, is to give a "tie" to more, not fewer, voting opportunities. In this case that would mean the court would strike down the new ID requirement. But life and the court's history, recent and otherwise, suggests that the fairest ruling doesn't always get handed down.

By Andrew Cohen |  January 9, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Previous: Uncomfortable Life-or-Death Moments for the Justices | Next: No Way Jose Makes the Right Call

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



If you are going to write about Florida in 2000, you must also consider the 40,000 mostly black voters illegaly purged from the rolls in a process directed by the Republican candidate's brother and his partisan Secretary of State. See the US Civil Rights Commission report at http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm

That is more significant than the "shoddy" people trying to "horn in" on the election, or the hanging chads and whatnot. What is remarkable is that nobody did prison time for it. This kind of trick is standard operating procedure in today's Republican playbook.

Posted by: Chase | January 9, 2008 08:33 AM

It will be interesting if arguments are brought talking about the particular tools to use to get a photo ID. Because usually people don't get a photo ID until they are at least 16. I know some of you are thinking of passports, however if you have no intentions of traveling abroad, spending the money and time to get your kids a passport is a waste especially when on a limited budget. So 16 seems a reasonable age to assume, and as Andrew points out not all of us drive. I had a buddy from NYC who didn't have a driver's licence until he was 20 while we were in undergrad in Annapolis.

Anyway, back to my point. People are not born with a picture ID, so what is used to gain a picture ID? It probably varies greatly depending on the picture ID type. I wonder if one of the sides brings that point up during the arguments. And if it is, how will the Justices utilize the fact that non picture IDs have to be used to gain a picture ID in their opinions?

Posted by: GC4Life | January 9, 2008 08:51 AM

And let's not forget all picture IDs are not equal. I'm a 25 year old who doesn't drive (I've always lived in cities with extensive public transit and little parking). I carry a state issued "Liquor ID" which is, in theory equal to a driver's liscense for identiifcation purposes. But I've been challenged both at the airport and when I've tried to buy alcohol. Last week the waitress at Applebee's accused me of having a fake because she had never heard of a "Liquor ID." She tried to confiscate it! I'm not too worried about missing out on having a beer with dinner but I'm always anxious when I fly or vote that the person checking IDs doesn't recognize mine as valid.

Posted by: Elizabeth8 | January 9, 2008 09:23 AM

If the act of voting has become so complicated and contentious, is it not a sign that our "experiment in democracy" has run its course? Why cannot we perform the basics of a democratic government without resorting to trickery and deceit? Let us hope that honorable and forthright citizens step forward to do that right thing.

Posted by: Quentin Allen | January 9, 2008 10:21 AM

Lets not be stupid or is that what most of the big shots want us to be. I believe that all 50 states issue photo ID cards at their Motor Vechiles depts. There is no reason why someond doesn't have some sort of gov., ID on them unless of course they are ILLEAGLE'S and shouldn't be voting anyway. But then we have people like MR Guliani who think the Illeagles should have ever right as citizens that pay taxes and really work to improve there standard in life and for the country.Everybody should have to show ID to vote and prove they are citizen. Maybe we should go back to when yo had to own propety to vote?? Someone has to get there sorry head out of there a__ s and start breathing regular air and get some oxygen to there brain and start thinking about what best for this country to survive and be the country its suppossee to be.

Posted by: patfitz1217 | January 9, 2008 10:32 AM

I see no reason that a Photo ID should not be required to vote.If unless you are ashamed of who you are or you do not have the right to vote in the first place? There are at least 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Why should they be allowed to vote? If I went to Mexico could I vote there? PS I am a Democrat and I do not agree with my party on this issue.

Jim

Posted by: James Vance | January 9, 2008 10:33 AM

It is time to have a national ID Card. I don't want to hear about racial profiling. Almost every country on earth has an ID card in one fasion or other. In this electronic age, the card can be designed to have certain information which can be verified with a card reader like a credit card reader with a screen to see the face and confirm the other information about the individual and in can be updated annually or any other interval.

Posted by: Esref Bilgihan | January 9, 2008 10:39 AM

I think governmentissued ID's are the first step to a national Identity card and a step away from indidual freedom. Next there be GPS strip in the card so the government will know where you are at any given time. I think many states are telling freedom don't let the door hit you on the ass as we throw you out.

Posted by: Pete Duran | January 9, 2008 10:48 AM

People spend all kinds of money on the latest and greatest techie gadgets. Even 8 year olds walk around with ipods. If the cost of a photo id is too much of a burden on some people, maybe these yuppi-muppies can spring for the cost of a photo id card for the needy. I for one do not want any illegals (of whome there are reportedly 13,000 in my town) voting in any election.

Posted by: conservative independent | January 9, 2008 10:52 AM

Every State needs to issue bonafide Identification Cards to each and every person of voting age and have them renewed every 4 years, much like a drivers license as they currently do in Minnesota. There is a charge for this paid by the individual seeking the ID but they also have to meet stringent requirements as to their identity. This eliminates fraud and also ID theft. not to mention filtering illegals out of the workplace, where they are required to have a Social Security number and an State Drivers license or State issued picture ID.

We cannot undo what happened in the election of 2000 in Florida, nor even the Ohio chaos but we CAN put a stop to this for future candidates and voters!

Posted by: Starbuck12 | January 9, 2008 10:59 AM

Karl Rove's plan to politicize the Dept of Justice, in part, was to restrict votes for Democrats by claiming voter fraud. Bush accomplished this using the incompetent dishonest Alberto Gonzales to appoint partisan U.S. Attorneys. Stealing our democracy by disenfranchising Dem voters and packing courts with partisan judges is a secret plank in the Republican Party's increase business profits at-any-cost agenda.

Posted by: Chuck | January 9, 2008 11:31 AM

anyone in Ohio with a utlity bill can vote. How many illegals voted under that provision of "law"? And yes, a democrat claimed it was a positive step for the state of Ohio.

If we dilute the value of citizenship to this level what do we have left to be proud of? After all, it is apparent that many still want to come here, even when the effort to become a citizen is high.

Posted by: Matthew | January 9, 2008 11:32 AM

Let's just embed microchips at birth into our foreheads, so we can address all the republican fear-mongering over whatever current issue it is they want to wet their pants over.

I mean, they want a surveillance state anyway.

What a disgrace as a national party.

Posted by: Egilsson | January 9, 2008 11:47 AM

Chase is correct illegal "Voter Caging took place in 2000, when the republicans purged the Homeless, Minority (Black) students and motor voters in Jacksonville,fl. and other democratic precincts in Florida and those who used the motor voter when they changed their voting addresses in Motor vehicle dept.were purged illegally by the Republicans. This illegal activity was not prosecuted by the government.
Congresswoman Corrine Brown was censured by the House republicans when she tried to speak out against voter fraud perpetrated in the 2000 election. This practice was continued and amplified by Attorney General Gonzalez and cost him his job. It is a wonder the DOJ let him off the hook.
the fact is that the White House is going ahead with Illegal Voter Caging in the 2008 elections. Don't let this happen!

Posted by: speedyo | January 9, 2008 11:56 AM

Andrew Cohen writes
"This bright winter morning, a bitterly divided court -- arguably more conservative than the court of seven years ago -- will hear arguments..."

You seem to use the term 'conservative' in a political context. Is the SC makeup more politically conservative or more legally conservative? From my amateurish (i.e. not a lawyer) view, those are two different things. It seems to me that a legally conservative opinion would be that, yes, requiring a photo ID that costs money to acquire would amount, albeit loosely, to an unconstitutional poll tax that could/would keep eligible voters from participating. Is that a valid or invalid interpretation of the law and what makes for legal conservatism?

Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 12:19 PM

I notice that not one of the comments stated that the Indiana law does not pertain to absentee voting,because most minorities do not vote absentee.This is just another republican ploy to control the polls such as in Florida.

Posted by: lahutch1 | January 9, 2008 12:34 PM

I believe the trial court in this challenged the plaintiffs to come up with one actual individual who would be illegally denied the right to vote under the statute, and that they were unable to find even one.

In fact, just about everyone who is legal has a picture ID. Without it, you can't cash a payroll check, write a check at Safeway, fly anywhere etc. If you don't want a driving privilege, you can get an ID only card from the DMV. If you're so incompetent that you can't figure out how to get an ID, then you're a nincompoop, and I don't want you voting anyway.

Posted by: William Graves | January 9, 2008 12:50 PM

I find it rather amusing that those who are most for a national ID to "Prove" one has the "right" (rather than, arguably, a citizenship responsibility) to vote are ones that clearly could not pass a minimal (and quite unconstitutional literacy) test.

Personally, I think those what are willing to show up and contribute deserve a say.

I'm not all that respectful of obediently waiting one's turn and standing in line as a qualification for US citizenship. European citizenship, yes. But we are not a nation of polite people, or historically all that respectful of arbitrary rules.

Hell, some of our national heroes are pirates.

So maybe we should talk about earning and maintaining citizenship, rather than whether or not one is or isn't.

Seems to me if it's worth anything - maybe it it should require more than just being born here, or being naturalized.

I sure know a lot of folks who, having been born here, do nothing whatsoever to deserve the rewards of citizenship - and there are any number of "illegals" who would make better citizens than many.

People who don't like the factuality of that observation tend to talk about "rules" a lot, forgetting that those rules are set for the benefit of the nation - not theirs, and there is no guarantee that in some authoritarian future that the rules might cut in the other direction, equally "for the good of the State."

Posted by: Bob King | January 9, 2008 01:02 PM

patfitz1217 complains that "Ill Eagles" might try to vote, and claims that is the only reason a person might not have government-issued photo ID. Patfitz urges critics to get their heads out of their behinds. His reasoning is as clumsy as his spelling, and as crass as his argument. Very few illegal immigrants are both fluent in English and sufficiently interested in American elections to risk discovery and deportation by trying to vote. It isn't remotely likely that this tiny minority will sway any American election. The native-born Americans disenfranchised by these rules are virtually certain to outnumber patfitz' bogus bogeyman by several orders of magnitude.

Posted by: M Levi | January 9, 2008 01:19 PM

There is nothing wrong with going out of your way a little to get a photo ID.We do not want voter fraud and yes we also didn't want it in Chicago and Texas in the past.I hope it's in the past.
If our government had been doing its job and protecting our borders since about 1960,this wouldn't be a problem.The Demos want them here to commit voter fraud and some business owners and managers(campaign contributers) want cheap labor.But it is elected officials whose first duty is to protect our borders.

Posted by: Jack Kinch(1uncle) | January 9, 2008 01:20 PM

Isn't it funny there's only voter fraud when the Republicans win? No voter fraud heard of in 06 when the Dems won.

Posted by: Bob | January 9, 2008 01:28 PM

On my drive in to work this morning, I heard over WTOP Radio News (Washington DC Metropolitan Area) of an interview with a woman who was a citizen who tried to vote in the either (didn't catch the state) New Hampshire or Iowa this week without a photo ID. She was told she could vote but it would not be counted. She was and is very upset. Is this a precursor to the 2000 and 20004 election debacles all over again? Millions will try to vote in the upcoming presidential primaries and the general elections without photo IDs, and millions of votes will not be counted. If the government wants everyone to be properly identified to vote, then it should issue government photo ids to everyone upon reaching the age of 18 when each person is legally eligible to vote. This issue is too important to leave to states. First each State is already being bled dry of funds and resources trying to provide for its residents (without much help from the federal government in recent years). Second we should not have to go through this every 4 years to elect a president. Nationally, you don't hear of these allegations when other elections are being held. Voter disenfranchisement is fraud. Tampering with votes is fraud. Tampering with electronic voting machines is fraud. Hampering and interfering with voter turnout is fraud. Fraud is fraud no matter when or how. If it's being done, arrest the culprits on the spot and send a message to the citizens and noncitizens that if it is suspected that you are ineligible to vote in any election, locally or nationally, you will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. So far we have heard of no one being arrested or prosecuted for these shenanigans in the last two elections. So it seems fair to say those responsible feel free to do so again this time around. When and where will it all stop? In my 37 years of voting in elections, my experience has been that there are so many people out there, young and old, who don't and won't go to the polls to vote because they feel their votes won't be counted and if they are, the election hinges on how many electorial votes a candidate gets so even if they vote, their vote still won't matter. Now is the time for those groups out there promoting voter education and election turnout to become more visible (in large groups) to educate and encourage everyone who is egilible to vote to do so. I have never seen so much excitement about an election in my lifetime. People want change not the status quo. That means voting and having those votes counted too!

Posted by: Barbara Malloy | January 9, 2008 01:33 PM

Let me see, I'm unaware of any state that doesn't require a photo ID to drive a car. Doesn't seem to be a problem.

So I guess the concern with requiring a photo ID to vote suggests that it must be more important to validly establish a right to drive than it is to establish a right to vote. Who'd of thunk it.

And yes, we need a national photo ID for this very purpose.

Posted by: | January 9, 2008 01:52 PM

This is yet another Republican effort to create a scary bogeyman out of whole cloth. Illegal aliens voting? Has there been a single documented case of this happening anywhere in any of the 50 states? I thought not.

I happen to live in a housing community in a large city where 75 percent of the residents are over the age of 75. Many don't drive (no need or desire to) and many don't travel overseas (no need or desire to). We're going to make them get a photo ID for the privilege of voting? Oh, yeah, I forgot, most of them are Democrats. Geez, do you think THAT might be why why these photo-ID laws are being pushed by Republicans?

Posted by: Matthew | January 9, 2008 01:57 PM

How come we don't get published stats anymore on how many DEAD people voted in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006?

Posted by: Bette | January 9, 2008 02:01 PM

I used to shiver when I saw films about Nazi Germany and how the police would stop people and ask for their papers, because, of course, all citizens of the fatherland must have identification or they are to be purged.

funny how close we now skate to fascism. The Nazis had concerns about security to which they were responding, most of the felt, quite rationally. If people have nothing to hide, why don't they just submit?

The party that supposedly venerates the founding fathers like a religious cult seem to forget that the primary purpose of the revolution was not security but personal liberty and freedom from precisely the kinds of oversight so many here seem to be recommending.

Posted by: mw | January 9, 2008 02:18 PM

This has always been how the Republicans operated (and, to be fair, how many pre-Civil Rights Democrats operated as well).

First it was the BLACKS: Oh, my God! If THEY'RE allowed to vote, pretty soon they'll be running the town and sleeping with your daughters!

Then it was the COMMIES: There's THOUSANDS of them in your hometown! They want to turn the country over to the Russkies. Watch your neighbors very carefully. If you see a woman doing anything but housework, call the FBI!

For the last few elections, it was TERRORISTS and GAYS! They're EVERYWHERE! They want to kill everyone and have sex in your church!

Now it's ILLEGAL ALIENS! They're responsible for everything that's wrong in this country! We need a three thousand mile long, 80-foot high barbed wire fence! They must be killed or deported on sight!

I wonder who's next? Sushi-eaters maybe? All that RAW FISH is UN-AMERICAN and is DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY!!!

Posted by: Tekka Maki | January 9, 2008 02:27 PM

People that are too stoopid to get a photo ID in the land of the free don't have any business voting in the first place-give us all a break!

Posted by: | January 9, 2008 02:35 PM

The voting system is rigged by both political parties if it wasn't they would agree on a fair set of rules for everybody. They do not want fair elections they just want to win and they will try to rig the process in their favor. The truth is Lord Acton had it right "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely corrupts absolutely".

Posted by: TM | January 9, 2008 03:25 PM

While I don't subscribe to a Federal ID (outside of passports) plan, and do see evidence of very poor polling oversight, I have to ask: why don't you have a DMV-issued ID card? It deosn't matter if you don't drive, you NEED one to get by doing anything!
If you can't sacrifice a day or two to the Purgatory that is DMV in the effort to maintain the bare minimum of getting by in this world (is it even possible to get a job without a photo ID?), then honestly - HOW can we trust your choices in an election? Truly?

Step up to the plate and get the one little annoyance that ALL of us NEED to have, and you'll prove yourself in my eyes.
There's no need for high-tech National ID programs.

/rant

Posted by: ptg | January 9, 2008 03:42 PM

"People that are too stoopid to get a photo ID in the land of the free don't have any business voting in the first place-give us all a break!"... "If the cost of a photo id is too much of a burden on some people, maybe these yuppi-muppies can spring for the cost of a photo id card for the needy."..."If unless you are ashamed of who you are or you do not have the right to vote in the first place?"
An article by Mussolini I read recently was very interesting in putting comments like this in historical context. When a Republic evolves into a Fascist State the powers in charge encourage the population to scapegoat minorities like the homeless, the poor and illiterate. They nibble away at the edges, taking potshots at the intellectuals and gays. Anybody not just like them are in violation of a deeply felt, almost religious awe of Country and Citizenship. Any variation is a threat the the Fatherland. News is replaced by rumors and anecdotes. Since the media is corrupted by political forces people have to turn to outside sources of information for what their own government is doing. Questioning the officials is a good way to be "disappeared". Everyone is afraid except the wealthy and they are outraged that not enough is being done to protect their interests. Excuses for wars are invented. There is a stench of lynch mob fever.
I have to use Germany in the 30's as an example because it fits: Jews, Roma, Gays, intellectuals, leftists, all of them are suspected of being dangerous and having an agenda to control the government for their own good! Unlike the ones who already control the government for their own good. Yes, if we are not afraid of our government we should not fear carrying our papers with us and submitting them to petty officials and police or Homeland Security. But suppose you signed a petition once calling for the impeachment of Cheney? Suppose your ex-spouse happens to be employed by the FBI or Homeland Security? Once you fail the "citizen test" you can be taken to a secret prison and tortured until you confess to something. The President has asserted that power and used it many times. It's not just that "bad guys" might be on the streets, but that the "good guys" have been making many obvious mistakes, like Iraq's nuclear bomb project, biological labs and secret stocks of nerve gas. People who make big mistakes also make little mistakes and if you or your loved one is caught in a little mistake, a misspelled name or a wrong number, then truly terrible things will happen to you. Like what happened to the Japanese Americans in WW2 and what happened to the various Muslim Americans after 9-11.

Fascists always use these arguments as they set about controlling the government for their own goals. They turn citizen against citizen and against all non-citizens. They attack countries they believe will fold easily to make their Leader look strong. They have to move fast before their stories are checked but once the iron glove is on, once the people can see the danger it is usually too late. Fortunately history shows that such evolution eventually grinds on past fascism to some form of democratic government. Look at Germany today, it's not too bad. certainly a bit less than a superpower but Americans can be strong in a good way and we can rebuild trust. Once the world reacts to our wars of aggression and occupation, once Israel uses a nuke on a Muslim nation, once the military sees the futility of continuing to fight the world we can move on. Whoever has the task of defining the New America may want to divide up the place into regions, maybe New York, if it still stands, will become a city-state. Things could get better for the small farmer, for the carpenter and craftsman. It's not exactly a silver lining, but certainly a nice chrome one.

The thing is, history shows that power seized is pried out of the hands of the powerful after they are dead. Hitler in the ditch, Saddam headless in the dirt. People in the streets don't change nations. Petitions to corrupt politicians don't save democracies. Change this big has an inertia of it's own, like global climate change. It's too late to stop it, I suggest everybody keep journals for future historians to mull over. And everybody who wants to get out before it all collapses should get a picture ID like a passport as soon as possible.

Posted by: William Shirley | January 9, 2008 03:43 PM

In my experience working the polls, most of the people who show up to vote get to vote. Almost all the time, the ones who don't get to vote get turned away because they came to the wrong polling place. But the second most likely reason is that they hadn't voted in 3 years, and that's when their record gets purged for inactivity. (Haven't voted since 2004? Better re-register now.)

On the other hand, several used their Voter ID card in lieu of a photo ID, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a photo ID.

Posted by: Nony Mouse | January 9, 2008 04:06 PM

I think literacy should be a requirement. Anyone incapable of doing better than - "they are ILLEAGLE'S and shouldn't be voting anyway. But then we have people like MR Guliani who think the Illeagles should have ever right as citizens that pay taxes and really work to improve there standard in life and for the country.Everybody should have to show ID to vote and prove they are citizen."

THE MYTH OF WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD IS A GOP INVENTION, AND THE IMPETUS FOR FIRING THE (REPUBLICAN) US ATTORNEYS WHO COULD NOT COMPLY WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ' DEMAND FOR UNSUPPORTED VOTER FRAUD PROSECUTIONS OF DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS.

BUT A LIE REPEATED OFTEN ENOUGH BECOMES SOMEONE'S TRUTH.

Posted by: Andrew | January 9, 2008 04:24 PM

I have a friend who moved to Florida and went to the town clerk to register to vote. The application was fowared to the county clerk. The application was return to him as incomplete. He took it to the town clerk and she checked out and said every thing was ok. It was sent to the county clerk again it came back as incomplete. So he calls the county clerk and asks whats incomplete with my voter registration application and he was told that it was complete alright you marked your voter registration application as Democrat an his mistake was that he marked him self as a Democrat and he asked what was wrong with that and was told we usually don't register Democrats as voters. He was Indiantown Florida and I guess the county clerk just figured out that anybody from the sticks were not smart enough to votee

Posted by: Lawrence | January 9, 2008 04:27 PM

If a state wants to pass voter ID laws, then they have a responsibility to assure every citizen can acquire the IDs quickly for free and without having to leave their homes.

That would alleviate the concern of disenfranchising the poor, the elderly and the physically challenged.

Posted by: Kevin Schmidt, Ojai CA | January 9, 2008 04:32 PM

With the news about the vulnerability of our most personal information stored in the computers of the IRS, I am not in favor of a national ID card. But I am certainly agreeable to the requirement of a State ID card. I grew up in a time where you have to have one, so I'm not sure what the problem is. The 2000 election is in the past, and I would dearly like for those who perpetrated that fraud on this country identified and prosecuted. Can you imagine if we had not been put in that situation? What benefits might Al Gore had brought about? How many American lives might have been spared in Iraq and the Trade Tower buildings on 9/11? Imagine our country enjoying the worlds respect as it did under the previous administration. I look forward to seeing our country, our economy, and our global standing restored in the next Clinton administration.

Posted by: Donna | January 9, 2008 04:54 PM

Questions for both sides: Would anyone working at the polls be able to spot a phony ID? Would anyone willing to commit voter fraud consider obtaining a phony ID a hurdle too burdensome to overcome? Finally, would anyone willing to commit voter fraud be put off more by obtaining the false ID than by committing perjury with a signed statement at the polls?

Posted by: William Smith | January 9, 2008 05:38 PM

What would a national ID card do? If it were issued by ChoicePoint then it would be ineffective and more. From Wikipedia on ChoicePoint concerning the Florida voter file (2000 presidential election)-
"The allegations charge that 57,700 people (15% of the list), primarily Democrats of African-American and Hispanic descent, were incorrectly listed as felons and thus barred from voting. Reports estimate that 80% of these people would have voted, and that 90% of those who would have voted, would have voted for Al Gore.[22] Other allegations include listing voters as felons for alleged crimes said to have been committed several years in the future. The official (and disputed) margin of victory, in the election, was 537 votes." On national securty contracts - "Changes in national security policy in response to the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks including the allocation of US$130 billion[9] in related government contracts increased the role of ChoicePoint and other private companies in homeland security and crime-fighting. (In 2005, around 50% of the US$40 billion given annually to the 15 United States intelligence agencies was spent on private contractors.[10])It has been reported that this work was contracted to private companies because they could compile and use information in ways that government officials could not. US privacy and information laws, strictly limit the government's ability to conduct surveillance on US citizens, but these restrictions do not apply to corporations."
ChoicePoint has also 'suffered' major security breaches and hundreds of thousands have had their identity stolen.

Posted by: Ebeth | January 9, 2008 06:32 PM

To quote George Will many times in his columns, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

A good Conservative dictum.

So, why is it that the biggest supporters of fixing this thing which is not broken seem to be Conservatives?

After reading some of the posts above, I have no wonder why H. L. Mencken refered to the American voter as "Boobus Americanus"

Posted by: DC | January 9, 2008 06:52 PM

Anyone who believes that illegals flock to the polls to vote is either braindead, a republican or a U.S. Attorney. Illegals have a strange tendency of staying as far away from anything connected to the government, be it state or federal, as they can possibly get. This is, as usual, a non-issue that has been used by Republicans to subvert our democracy in order to prevent legitimate citizens from voting. Every U.S. citizen of legal age should have the right to participate in our Democracy, not just those people who prefer to dictate who may or may not vote. Those people who are so concerned with voter fraud should be a little more concerned with what they are voting on (hackable voting machines) and who is doing the counting!

Posted by: lgvalliere | January 9, 2008 07:47 PM

Everyone should be required to have an implanted radio frequency ID chip in their forehead or left hand so they may conduct business with the state. Soon it could be used for banking and other financial transactions and no cash or credit cards would be required at all.

Posted by: Phil Graves | January 9, 2008 08:46 PM

I didn't read all the comments so I'm not sure if someone else addressed this point but the current chief justice PARTICIPATED in the Florida recount strategy.

He was down there writing briefs and possibly yelling outside the office where the infamous chads were hanging.

He should immediately recuse himself from any case involving voting.

Posted by: peggy | January 9, 2008 09:20 PM

In most of the discussion of the Indiana law, no one mentions a few especially obnoxious (at least to me) factors.

1. The government ID if from a state must be from Indiana, and must be current; there are cases of expired Indiana driver licenses not being accepted [the person in question was elderly, and had stopped driving a few years earlier].

2. The bill was passed very quickly, in the first few weeks of the new GOP administration.

Posted by: David Drasin | January 9, 2008 10:24 PM

I always voted republican , but no this time.Electoral fraud no only happen in Indiantown,Florida but in the whole state.These people are violeting the constitution of the USA, destroying the future of this Nation, but the worse crime they are commiting is destroying the faith in the institutions of this country

Posted by: aleksen Jvisant | January 9, 2008 10:51 PM

No, they should have the number "666" branded into their foreheads to identify themselves "so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."

Fine bunch of NeoKon Khrister Rightists YOU are - not knowing your Bible for beans! But that only figures - b/c you all really ARE a bunch of hypocrites led by the noses by Pharisees - which, may I remind you, are the two classes of people even Jesus himself could. Not. Quite. Forgive.

Consider THAT as you roast in Hell for your Bush Nazi damnation....

Posted by: DR Darke | January 10, 2008 12:09 AM

It is sad when you have to read more than one publication to get at least two accurate sides to any story these days. It is the difference between advocacy and real, nearly extinct journalism, and both "sides" are to blame. Not all dead people who "vote" are Democrats (circa Chicago, 1960), and not all absentee voters who vote in both New York and Florida are Republicans. The Wall Street Journal does give some credibility to both sides: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110011102

They point out the real issue is voting integrity. Bad enough that my wife and I will probably once again cancel each other's votes out without worrying that the dead or small children will flood the ballot boxes with invalid votes. Both parties have integrity issues. Let's find ways together to keep the honest people honest.

Then there's absentee ballots. . . .

Posted by: Richard Minerd | January 10, 2008 12:58 AM

I think the opponents of this law have erred in their strategy. Perhaps the voter ID law hurts Democratic voters more, but making it a political issue hurts the opponents' cause. The real issue here is that the law imposes an arbitrary barrier to a fundamental right. We should make it easier to vote, not more difficult.

Posted by: jss | January 10, 2008 02:33 AM

Get a compulsory photo FEDERAL ID for every U.S. citizen. I really cannot think of any liberties cut by that ... I am not an U.S citizen (spanish, here) and I assure you the experience is I am protected by the law, still identified by the Govt.

Posted by: Enrique Olcina | January 10, 2008 03:39 AM

Eventually, if not soon, we probably will all have government IDs. courtesy of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Frankly, you should be free to have no ID at all and be anonymous as long as you abide by the law. The fact is, letting anyone on the street vote without ID is corrupt and absurd. The right to vote is guarenteed, however carrying an ID does not seem burdensome The right to own a gun is, to most people, guaranteed but there are hundreds of stipulations on that. There are hundreds of stipulations on where you can be, especially on either private or government property, even in the street (eg. jaywalking). To vote, you need a physical address to be contacted at. I think state or federal government can afford to supply a photo ID of decent quality to those who really can't afford it, I think a nonprofit org also might pay a small fee for those peopleso they can vote. Showing you are a US citizen I'm afraid is necessary. I'd like to see a politician suggest that anyone in the US has the right to vote just because they are present. That is certainly unconstitutional. Citizenship has its priviledges, but it also has its reponsiblities: paying taxes,potential military service if desperately needed, jury duty if you want to vote, etc. America has become the land of entitlement without responsiblity. Such a society will not survive long. Chaos will prevail. Freedom has its price and the price is responsibility. If you can't provide that even for yourself, aqssumming you are capable mentally, well God help you.

Posted by: KMR from WA | January 10, 2008 03:55 AM

And oh, hummm !!!! Get only ONE voting system for everyone, at least in the Federal elections ... That would be most clarifying and would set a rule for the states

Posted by: Enrique Olcina | January 10, 2008 05:45 AM

Ok, there's a duty for everyone of us, I mean, Spanish, to provide an ID to any member of the National Police. There would be a fine, small one, if you don't have it, however, I have hardly go identified to a Police station -and I mainly go to because I lost my ID- and the National Police do have my ID there, my name, picture, etc ... Fine that I have the right to go unnoticed and as long as I abide the law, unidentified. I could say that as long as I abide the law I have no problems on being identified, and I have another rights, heavily protected, such as habeas corpus, to not to be retained without a legal cause ....

Posted by: Enrique Olcina | January 10, 2008 05:56 AM

OK, sorry, and I can see the point. Get a COMPULSORY, FREE TO ACCESS, FEDERAL I.D. for every U.S. CITIZEN.

Posted by: Enrique Olcina | January 10, 2008 05:58 AM

Even Immigration and Custom Enforcement(ICE) can't always correctly identify counterfeit documents. There is no way that state government officials can even come close to the laboratories and expertise of ICE. I have a driver's license. I had one in a prior state of residency. Nothing I did to get either of them establishes residency or citizenship. I don't believe illegals want to endanger themselves by voting. I believe voter fraud is almost non-existent. It's election fraud, meaning an organized plan, usually by an organization or party, that is the real danger.

Posted by: Anne Scofield | January 10, 2008 06:03 AM

Even Immigration and Custom Enforcement(ICE) can't always correctly identify counterfeit documents. There is no way that state government officials can even come close to the laboratories and expertise of ICE. I have a driver's license. I had one in a prior state of residency. Nothing I did to get either of them establishes residency or citizenship. I don't believe illegals want to endanger themselves by voting. I believe voter fraud is almost non-existent. It's election fraud, meaning an organized plan, usually by an organization or party, that is the real danger.

Posted by: Anne Scofield | January 10, 2008 06:07 AM

Poll Tax 2008. My daughter is 17 soon to be 18, has no driver's license or permit. And we will have to pay $8 to get a state issued driver's ID for her to vote in South Dakota.

Dred Scott. Poll Tax 2008. Democracy should be free and equal. Always

Posted by: Alex | January 10, 2008 08:34 AM

The correct decision on this case is so constitutionally obvious, that perhaps the expected majority of framer-channeler justices will need utilize Bush v Gore as precedent? Yes, I know ...

Posted by: quousque | January 10, 2008 08:44 AM

Would it be unconstitutional if it had been passed in Illinois rather than Indiana?

Posted by: will | January 10, 2008 11:30 AM

Um, Short solution: Put a photo on the voter registration card...

Posted by: d_westenberger@yahoo.com | January 10, 2008 12:19 PM

KMR from WA had it right:

"Frankly, you should be free to have no ID at all and be anonymous as long as you abide by the law."

Before they went further and got it wrong.

Posted by: DC | January 10, 2008 05:04 PM

"Not all dead people who "vote" are Democrats (circa Chicago, 1960)" - Richard Minerd

Shhh! You're not supposed to mention that.

It's rare, but every once in a while you will find an historian or political observer actually say that one of the reasons Richard Nixon didn't challenge the voter fraud in Cook County in 1960 is that it would have exposed that both sides did it.

Posted by: DC | January 10, 2008 05:10 PM

Irrespective of the Court's Ruling , the Concerns and interests of Ordinary Peoples in the USA , and Around the World are "Fair Game" to be shot down , UNLESS...

Please Make Sure That Your Favorite News Source(s) in
Your Location , Gives as much attention to the News
and Events of and about Ordinary Peoples Around the
World,as they constantly give to enhance the
well-beings of other-than Ordinary Peoples, Around the
World. Request that the News Source(s) print the
full contents which follow... for Ordinary Peoples
Around the World.

If Britney Spears Goes to the bathroom , the same
favorite news source(s) covers that story for other-
than of Ordinary Peoples Around the world ...Certainly
an historical first ever Self-Help Conference of
Ordinary Peoples Around the World, is more News Worthy
for ordinary Peoples ..than constant accounts of the
likes of a Britney Spears...just an example .

For Immediate release

Contact: Efil Sih
Tel. + 52 983 833 1216

Individuals , groups,and organizations, of Ordinary
Peoples , from anywhere and everywhere around the
world are invited and welcomed to attend this Most
Historic, Humanity International, "Self-Help"
Conference of Ordinary Peoples Around the World.


The said Conference is to be convened at noon (12:00)
on 17 July 2008 through 8:00 P M, on the same date.
The said Conference will convene the same for 18 July
which concludes this much needed long over-due
historical Humanity International Self-Help Conference
of Ordinary peoples Around the World.


The Declaration and Doctrine by and for Ordinary
Peoples Around the World ...on the Subjects of
Democracy and Us...for the very first time ever will
be made available to all persons in Attendance at this
ultra-unique Conference.


Registration fee for each Ordinary person from
anywhere around the World, to attend and participate
in the Humanity International "Self-Help" Conference
of Ordinary Peoples Around the World , is a Maximum of
$5.00 in the currency of the USA,or its foreign
equivalent . Personal, Business , and any and all
other forms and methods of remitting the Registration
fees in easily negotiable means , made payable to
Humanity International,and mailed to:

Humanity International
% Efil Sih
22 de Enero #133
(entre: Hidalgo y Reforma)
Colonia Centro
Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico 77000

The Said Convention is currently scheduled to be
convened at the same location as above. Notifications
of any changes of locations , due to hopefully ,far
more persons than expected will make Registrations to
be in Attendance thus necessitating that we have
additional space than that available at the above
location...we will so notify where such space is to be
located.

Ordinary Peoples Around the World are hereby
authorized by Humanity International to use the Banner
/name of, Humanity International, to raise/obtain the
monies to pay for their Passports, Visas required,
attendance transportation, and all other expenses
associated with their attendance at this once in a
lifetime opportunity to attend and participate in the
very first ever , Humanity International "Self-Help"
Conference of Ordinary Peoples Around the World.

This means that any where Ordinary Peoples are located
around the world who wish to attend and participate in
this Conference , they may hold Raffles , games of
chance, parties , dances ...concerts, and anything
else creative and "legal"...all under the banner of
Humanity International , this , that, and/or the
other... to raise the necessary monies required for
attendance to this first ever Conference of Ordinary
Peoples Around the World .

No Government or political entity of any worth for
Ordinary Peoples Around the World , should in any way
stand nor act in opposition to the using of the name,
intentions, and designs, of Humanity International ,
as the means and method of "Self-Help"...and this
Conference is the essential First Step for Ordinary
Peoples Around the World to Step above and beyond the
shackles of perpetual despairs and desolations assured
by conditions of being deprived of even the barest
necessities for staying alive.

I hope and trust that within this email you will each
have some of the answers to the many questions already
asked .

Thank you for your considerations to these contents
,and I look forward to seeing all of you here in
Chetumal...17, and 18 July 2008.

Please feel at liberty to question me further on any
points left unclear by me .

Always,

Efil

Posted by: Efil Sih, for Humanity International | January 10, 2008 10:10 PM

the strategy is to require photo IDs and eventually chips for everyone. that's a large part of why the GOP blew up the immigration issue. "we need it to keep the illegals from voting dems in!" what's wrong with a photo ID if you're a white american who pays taxes? every year more personal info will be required until they know the color of your crap.

and it's idiotic to compare recent republican vote fraud and theft to past vote fraud. it's like comparing army rangers to boy scouts.

illegal immigrants voting? dead people voting? compared with tens of thousands at the moved around in a computer? give me a break.

republicans who defend these traitors with such comparisons are are in serious dittohead denial--- thanks a lot for this bush disaster...and turning the word "republican" into an epithet.

Posted by: trank | January 11, 2008 12:58 AM

The Indiana Voter ID card issue now before the US Supreme Court also proves which political party is doing all the voter fraud.
This ain't rocket science! The Democratic Parties lawyers are trying to keep the states from requiring Voter ID's because the illegal votes cast in every election benefits them. The Republican Parties lawyers want only legal votes counted to stop voter-fraud like what happened in the 2004 election in King County, Washington (Seattle area). In King County, Wa. there were over 3,000 more Democratic Party votes cast for Kerry than there were registered voters.
It's just like getting to the bottom of a crime-you follow the money-trail. The party doing all the voter--fraud will try to keep doing it, and that's why the Democrats lawyers don't want any Voter ID card requirenments.
An interesting point in the Indiana Voter ID card case now before the Supremes is that the Democrats entire legal team hasn't been able to come up with even one case were a Indiana voter was deprived of his/her vote.
By the way: Voter ID cards are free

Posted by: madhatter | January 11, 2008 02:22 AM

P.S.
Only the Democrats could stoop so low as to condone the crime of voter-fraud, and to deprive legitimate voters like myself the right to vote by negating my vote with an illegal one.

Posted by: madhatter | January 11, 2008 02:30 AM

The Wall Street Journal, The NYT, and the Miami Herald paid for a complete recount of every Florida vote. Bush won.


Posted by: JimmyMac | January 11, 2008 09:39 AM

The purpose of a government issued photo ID is to indicate to others that the person who appears in the photo is the person who proved to a government employee the accuracy and validity of residence information and any other information requested on the form to get the photo ID. Photo ID is a useful tool, but should not be a requirement to prove voting district residency and thus a requirement to vote.

Proving residency can be done in a number of different ways according to local laws and custom. In no case should preventing a citizen from voting be acceptable. It is already difficult to register to vote, so there ought to be several ways of proving that one is the person who registered at a given address. Identifying oneself and comparing signatures on the list of those registered is a good way.

Related issues are restricting the hours that the polls are open and closing polls when people are still standing in line outside to vote. Polls ought to be open until midnight or as close to 24 hours of election day as possible.

I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion of these important issues in these postings. The freedom to discuss issues and vote is the hallmark of democracy and should not be infringed.

Posted by: Courtney Tucker | January 11, 2008 10:14 AM

I think the idea for voter ID has certainly come. With all the perceived and actual voter fraud occurring these days, I am all for issuing voter ID cards. I agree with those who say state issued cards are better, simply because it would be easier to administer at the state level than at the federal. If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't fear being asked to carry the ID.

Posted by: Lilycat1 | January 11, 2008 11:58 AM

If only we spent as much sound and fury keeping tabs on who buys guns....

Posted by: voodont | January 11, 2008 12:10 PM

"Rules finalized for national ID"

The secure driver's licenses would be required to enter a federal building or board a plane within the next 10 years.

From the Associated Press

January 11, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years under ambitious post-9/11 security rules to be unveiled today by federal officials.

The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting regulations for the Real ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been pushed back in the hope of winning over skeptical state officials.

Even with more time and technical advances, Real ID still faces stiff opposition from civil liberties groups.

To address some of those concerns, the government now plans to phase in a secure-ID initiative that Congress passed into law in 2005. Now, Homeland Security plans a key deadline in 2011, with further measures to be enacted later.

Without discussing details, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff promoted the final rules for Real ID during a meeting Thursday with an advisory council. "We worked very closely with the states in terms of developing a plan that I think will be inexpensive, reasonable to implement and produce the results," he said.

In order to make the plan more appealing to states, federal authorities drastically reduced the expected cost, according to Homeland Security officials.

The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort, particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies.

By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a Real ID-compliant driver's license, with the notable exception of those older than 50, Homeland Security officials said.

The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses. By 2017, even those older than 50 must have a Real ID-compliant card to board a plane.


Tighter driver's license rules coming out

Story Highlights
• New regulations are the result of September 11 terror attacks

• Civil liberties organizations are continuing to fight new rules

• Cost of program was reduced in effort to garner states' support

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years under ambitious post-9/11 security rules to be unveiled Friday by federal officials.

The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting the final regulations for the REAL ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been pushed back in the hopes of winning over skeptical state officials.

Even with more time, more federal help and technical advances, REAL ID still faces stiff opposition from civil liberties groups.

To address some of those concerns, the government now plans to phase in a secure ID initiative that Congress passed into law in 2005. Now, DHS plans a key deadline in 2011 -- when federal authorities hope all states will be in compliance -- and then further measures to be enacted three years later, according to congressional staffers who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because an announcement had not yet been made. DHS officials briefed legislative aides on the details late Thursday.

Without discussing details, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff promoted the final rules for REAL ID during a meeting Thursday with an advisory council.

"We worked very closely with the states in terms of developing a plan that I think will be inexpensive, reasonable to implement and produce the results," he said. "This is a win-win. As long as people use driver's licenses to identify themselves for whatever reason there's no reason for those licenses to be easily counterfeited or tampered with."

In order to make the plan more appealing to cost-conscious states, federal authorities drastically reduced the expected cost from $14.6 billion to $3.9 billion, a 73 percent decline, according to Homeland Security officials familiar with the plan.

The American Civil Liberties Union has fiercely objected to the effort, particularly the sharing of personal data among government agencies. The DHS and other officials say the only way to make sure an ID is safe is to check it against secure government data; critics like the ACLU say that creates a system that is more likely to be infiltrated and have its personal data pilfered.

In its written objection to the law, the ACLU claims REAL ID amounts to the "first-ever national identity card system," which "would irreparably damage the fabric of American life."

The September 11 attacks were the main motivation for the changes.

The hijacker-pilot who flew into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had a total of four driver's licenses and ID cards from three states. The DHS, which was created in response to the attacks, has created a slogan for REAL ID: "One driver, one license."

By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license, with the notable exception of those more than 50 years old, Homeland Security officials said.

The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less. By 2017, even those over 50 must have a REAL ID-compliant card to board a plane.

Among other details of the REAL ID plan:


• The traditional driver's license photograph would be taken at the beginning of the application instead of the end so that should someone be rejected for failure to prove identity and citizenship, the applicant's photo would be kept on file and checked in the future if that person attempted to con the system again.

• The cards will have three layers of security measures but will not contain microchips as some had expected. States will be able to choose from a menu which security measures they will put in their cards.

• Over the next year, the government expects all states to begin checking both the Social Security numbers and immigration status of license applicants.

Most states currently check Social Security numbers and about half check immigration status. Some, like New York, Virginia, North Carolina and California, already have implemented many of the security measures envisioned in REAL ID. In California, for example, officials expect the only major change to adopt the first phase would be to take the photograph at the beginning of the application process instead of the end.

After the Social Security and immigration status checks become nationwide practice, officials plan to move on to more expansive security checks, including state DMV offices checking with the State Department to verify those applicants who use passports to get a driver's license, verifying birth certificates and checking with other states to ensure an applicant doesn't have more than one license.

A handful of states have already signed written agreements indicating plans to comply with REAL ID. Seventeen others, though, have passed legislation or resolutions objecting to it, often based on concerns about the billions of dollars such extra security is expected to cost.

Posted by: zz ziled | January 12, 2008 03:26 AM

There are high-level facists such as Laurence Silberman who have been pushing for national ID cards for over three decades.

Silberman, a Reagan appointee, is a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. When he was Deputy Attorney General in the mid-1970's he pushed the Attorney Generals to float the idea. None of them would do so; for good reasons.

All of you who think that this is benign are mistaken.

Posted by: | January 12, 2008 01:45 PM

re. The US Supreme Court's Indiana's Voter ID card hearing.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the witness who testified before the US Supreme Court that told the Supremes that she was denied her voting rights in the Indiana elections, has two drivers licences and is registered to vote in both Indiana and Florida. No word yet if she actually did vote in both states. Registering and voting in two different states is illegal and is VOTER--FRAUD!!!

Posted by: madhatter | January 13, 2008 11:07 PM

Very few responses here are as sensible as "madhatter." I don't want to engage in name-calling, especially of other respondents, but will simply point out some facts.
Fact: George Bush won Florida, as Algore correctly conceded before deciding not to. Fact: Algore and his Party tried to steal the election but failed, and are still mad about it. After all, they're The Democrats and They Have the Right to Rule because They're Right About Everything and the Republicans are not only wrong but Evil.
One poster even suggested that the country would be better off if Gore _had_ won in 2000, which is absolutely absurd if you look at what he has become since: an obese laughing-stock totally lacking in intellectual integrity and common sense. Al-Quaeda would now be our "third party," and the US would be paying "protection" money to Saddam and Osama.
Fact: "Agvalliere" was right IN PART when he wrote, "Illegals have a strange tendency of staying as far away from anything connected to the government, be it state or federal, as they can possibly get." True, EXCEPT that the costs of coming to public attention are so ridiculously low and the potential benefits of voting are so encouragingly high. (Vote to elect liberals who will protect you, provide food, clothing, and shelter, health care, education for your children, even if you don't do a lick of honest work and even if you engage in crime.) Note: there are plenty of illegal aliens who _do_ honest work and are not criminals (except, obviously, that they are here without permission)--but these are not the ones who want to subvert our democracy.
Fact: the Democrats have so politicized the Florida 2000 issue that thinking people no longer have any confidence in what they or their friends in the Press say about it. Even if there were a factual basis (and I don't deny the possibility), we can never be sure because the allegations are SO wild and SO obviously politically-motivated that it would be irresponsible to believe any of them.
Question: Should we go back to the Hayes-Tilden debacle in 1876, overturn the (procedurally constitutional) outcome there, and try to rewrite all U.S. history since then? Should the great-great-grandchildren of Tilden's supporters continue to whine about the "stolen" election? Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it?
Fact: with the Motor Voter law, the Feds have made it almost impossible for states to conduct honest, open elections. In my state, it is virtually impossible to get a name removed from the voter lists, even when you can prove that they now live in another state or (as in the case of my parents-in-law) are actually dead. Just who benefits from having the voting rolls filled with names of non-residents and the Dear Departed? It ain't the Republicans!

Posted by: Bob | January 17, 2008 02:34 PM

Very few responses here are as sensible as "madhatter." I don't want to engage in name-calling, especially of other respondents, but will simply point out some facts.
Fact: George Bush won Florida, as Algore correctly conceded before deciding not to. Fact: Algore and his Party tried to steal the election but failed, and are still mad about it. After all, they're The Democrats and They Have the Right to Rule because They're Right About Everything and the Republicans are not only wrong but Evil.
One poster even suggested that the country would be better off if Gore _had_ won in 2000, which is absolutely absurd if you look at what he has become since: an obese laughing-stock totally lacking in intellectual integrity and common sense. Al-Quaeda would now be our "third party," and the US would be paying "protection" money to Saddam and Osama.
Fact: "Agvalliere" was right IN PART when he wrote, "Illegals have a strange tendency of staying as far away from anything connected to the government, be it state or federal, as they can possibly get." True, EXCEPT that the costs of coming to public attention are so ridiculously low and the potential benefits of voting are so encouragingly high. (Vote to elect liberals who will protect you, provide food, clothing, and shelter, health care, education for your children, even if you don't do a lick of honest work and even if you engage in crime.) Note: there are plenty of illegal aliens who _do_ honest work and are not criminals (except, obviously, that they are here without permission)--but these are not the ones who want to subvert our democracy.
Fact: the Democrats have so politicized the Florida 2000 issue that thinking people no longer have any confidence in what they or their friends in the Press say about it. Even if there were a factual basis (and I don't deny the possibility), we can never be sure because the allegations are SO wild and SO obviously politically-motivated that it would be irresponsible to believe any of them.
Question: Should we go back to the Hayes-Tilden debacle in 1876, overturn the (procedurally constitutional) outcome there, and try to rewrite all U.S. history since then? Should the great-great-grandchildren of Tilden's supporters continue to whine about the "stolen" election? Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it?
Fact: with the Motor Voter law, the Feds have made it almost impossible for states to conduct honest, open elections. In my state, it is virtually impossible to get a name removed from the voter lists, even when you can prove that they now live in another state or (as in the case of my parents-in-law) are actually dead. Just who benefits from having the voting rolls filled with names of non-residents and the Dear Departed? It ain't the Republicans!

Posted by: Bob | January 17, 2008 02:35 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

©   The Washington Post Company