Local TN Reps Against Voter ID Law

mcurrier · January 3, 2012

I just received an email from liberal Nashville attorney and political activist Lynda Jones.

She is against requiring ID to vote in TN, therefore she is for voter fraud.

They are calling common sense voter ID laws "voter suppression". How pathetic and ignorant.

So are these liberals who are co-sponsoring this meeting:

Matt Kenigson

Jason Potts

Fabian Bedne

Chris Harmon

Karen Johnson

Jacobia Dowell

If any of these people are in your district, vote them out next time they are up for re-election.

Their website - Tennessee Citizen Action

Here is their "call to action" email

Lynda Jones has been seeking a judicial seat by election for several years and is now seeking an appointment to one. She will be a liberal activist judge. Oppose her in any elections.

http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN1810441026.PDF

Mark

Defender · January 3, 2012

I'm a conservative. I try really hard to at least understand the "other' point of view. Sometimes, I can see their point and although I usually think it's misguided, or even naieve, I can at least see where they are coming from. This issue, however, baffles me. How in the world can you NOT require positve ID to vote? That's like an invitation to commit fraud. Look at ACORN and the fraud they perpetuated already. Multiply that and its a disaster. EVERY state should have voter ID laws. I can accept it if the other side legitimately wins an election, but sheesh, ya just can't let it be done illegally.

RobertNashville · January 3, 2012

I'm a conservative. I try really hard to at least understand the "other' point of view. Sometimes, I can see their point and although I usually think it's misguided, or even naieve, I can at least see where they are coming from. This issue, however, baffles me. How in the world can you NOT require positve ID to vote? That's like an invitation to commit fraud. Look at ACORN and the fraud they perpetuated already. Multiply that and its a disaster. EVERY state should have voter ID laws. I can accept it if the other side legitimately wins an election, but sheesh, ya just can't let it be done illegally.

I believe there are two "reason" for why Democrats/Liberals/etc are against these laws.

There are many well intentioned folks who truly believe the arguments made by others (typically Democratic politicians) that these laws are am unreasonable "burden" on certain groups such as those that don't have an ID and/or can't get an ID and/or are too old or too poor, etc. I will admit that there may be some very tiny percentage pf people left in the U.S. who, for some reason, are U.S. citizens but haven't gotten and perhaps can't get a govt. issued I.D. However, the percentage would have to be so tiny as to be inconsequential (assuming those people actually do/will vote anyway!). I can also believe that some "groups" will be reluctant to vote if they have to show an ID; not because they don't have an ID but, for whatever reason, they are "afraid" to do so. One has to wonder what these people are truly worried about or if they will even vote??? Bottom line is, I don't think that any of these "excuses" can actually stand up to the light of reason but many of the people who believe the reasons never really think it through.

The other, and I'd submit more disgusting reason is that certain political types (i.e. Democrat politicians) truly DO want folks like illegal aliens and the like to be able to vote and/or vote more than once...they actually DO want voter fraud to occur because those who are willing to commit voter fraud typically vote for the Democratic ticket.

leroy · January 3, 2012

Folks, make no mistake. This is about voter fraud. The only way the demorats can win in the 50/50 states is with fraud, that's why it's so hot down in South Carolina; and why the (IN)Justice Department is fighting the law down there. In Tennessee, i think the situation is different. The last vote here was about 66% McCain-34% Nobama. Fraud cant win elections where the vote is lopsided like in our state. However, the dems have to squall everywhere to try to get some traction in the states where they really need this voter ID thing thrown out.

It seems to me that this has been already ruled on in the Supreme Court and settled the arguement that it is, in fact, within each state's right to require a verification of identity via an ID. As i remember the tennessee law, everybody can get one for free, i just cant remember where they have to go to get it. It will be interestin to see how this one plays out.

leroy

PS CHECK THIS LINK OUT AND PLAY A BIT WITH THE TABS. IT IS FROM THE 2008 ELECTION: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html .

All this stuff will get a lot clearer when ya take a look at the nobama and mccain tabs.

Edited January 3, 2012 by leroy
added link

c.a.willard · January 3, 2012

The only aspect i take issue with is the fact that individuals have to pay for said ID. At no point should a US citizen have to pay anything to excercize their right to vote, if leroy is correct and they can get one for free then there is absolutely no hardship imposed. Apparently people just need something to complain about.

Just2Honor · January 3, 2012

My understanding is photo id for voting purposes is free to avoid the outlawed poll tax. Also, I think if you have a non-photo ID (over 65) you can swap it for free. The DMV has opened about 18 or so offices on Saturday JUST for voter id only. I doubt many folks who REALLY want to vote can't get the proper ID by March 6th.

The ones who gain by fraud are the ones hollering the loudest.

TNMP40 · January 4, 2012

What would you do if someone voted in your name because they did not have to prove who they were? Vote those official who support no ID required out of office!~

jtmaze · January 4, 2012

Folks, make no mistake. This is about voter fraud. The only way the demorats can win in the 50/50 states is with fraud, that's why it's so hot down in South Carolina; and why the (IN)Justice Department is fighting the law down there. In Tennessee, i think the situation is different. The last vote here was about 66% McCain-34% Nobama. Fraud cant win elections where the vote is lopsided like in our state. However, the dems have to squall everywhere to try to get some traction in the states where they really need this voter ID thing thrown out.
It seems to me that this has been already ruled on in the Supreme Court and settled the arguement that it is, in fact, within each state's right to require a verification of identity via an ID. As i remember the tennessee law, everybody can get one for free, i just cant remember where they have to go to get it. It will be interestin to see how this one plays out.

leroy

PS CHECK THIS LINK OUT AND PLAY A BIT WITH THE TABS. IT IS FROM THE 2008 ELECTION: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html .

All this stuff will get a lot clearer when ya take a look at the nobama and mccain tabs.

Last I recall went you renew something at the county level the paperwork asks you if you want to be a registered voter in that county and then you get a card.

JTM🔫

Sent from my iPhone

Dolomite_supafly · January 4, 2012

If they do not want ID's to vote then I say they use indelible ink to mark who has and has not voted. It worked well in Iraq and would work equally well here.

Even if people do have an ID I would still love to see people have to dip a finger in ink.

Dolomite

January 4, 2012

If they do not want ID's to vote then I say they use indelible ink to mark who has and has not voted. It worked well in Iraq and would work equally well here.
Even if people do have an ID I would still love to see people have to dip a finger in ink.

Dolomite

That's too uncivilized.

Dolomite_supafly · January 4, 2012

I emailed her and got this response: Her responses are in red to make it easier to read.

I changed my real name to my screen name.

Dolomite_supafly, People must show a voter i.d. card or be on the rolls to vote. I used to work the polls as an election official. The election commission clears off names every few years.

See my responses below.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Dolomite_Supafly <******@hotmail.com> wrote:

I know you are wanting to repeal the requirement for voters to show ID when voting. I have a few questions for you.

1. How are you going to prevent the same person from voting twice by using different names? Or by using the name of their neighbor?
The poll workers don't let just anyone vote. They routinely turn people away and send them to other precincts. Have you ever voted? Haven't you ever wondered why you have to be looked up on the voter rolls?

2. What is the reason you feel people should not have to show their ID to vote?
They must show some kind of i.d. I just don't think the election commission should refuse the elderly who do not have a photo nor turn away college kids state issued i.d.s

3. What objection, if any, would you have if indelible ink was used to mark those who have voted? (Like in Iraq)
That's a little creepy Dolomite_supafly. Reminds me of Auschwitz.

An ID is required to drive, buy alcohol or see a doctor. It would seem something as important as voting you would want to make sure every person's vote is equal to every other person's vote. And when a single person is allowed to illegally vote numerous times because they don't have to show ID it only lessens the voter who is abiding the law.

They SHOULD present something to identify themselves BUT it does not need to have a photo. Elderly women are having an especially hard time obtaining a photo i.d.

So even if a voter doesn't have to show ID what objection do you have to indelible ink marking thoes as they vote?

Thanks

Dolomite_supafly

Her response that using a way to mark a voter is like Auschwitz is a bit overboard. An American voting is a far cry from those camps and to associate the two is disgusting.

Dolomite

January 4, 2012

I have to have a carry permit to carry my firearm, why should I not have to produce a photo ID to vote.

RobertNashville · January 4, 2012

I have to have a carry permit to carry my firearm, why should I not have to produce a photo ID to vote.

Because Democrats don't want illegals to carry a firearm but they DO want them to vote (both early and often).

mcurrier · January 4, 2012

The only aspect i take issue with is the fact that individuals have to pay for said ID. At no point should a US citizen have to pay anything to excercize their right to vote, if leroy is correct and they can get one for free then there is absolutely no hardship imposed. Apparently people just need something to complain about.

By the same token, places that try to violate citizen's 2nd Amendment rights, like Chicago and D.C., impose ridiculous restrictions such as exorbitantly priced special training and licensing requirements to purposely put the cost of exercising one's rights out of reach for a lot of people, especially 'poor' people who'm the left is always claiming to be the champion of.

mcurrier · January 4, 2012

If they do not want ID's to vote then I say they use indelible ink to mark who has and has not voted. It worked well in Iraq and would work equally well here.
Even if people do have an ID I would still love to see people have to dip a finger in ink.

Dolomite

I have been demanding this for years, ID or not. It's the only way to be absolutely sure of the integrity of our elections. The left, as usual, is not very concerned with integrity.

January 5, 2012

Ok, this will bring me flack.

I have been in charge of a voting precinct. This is what I know: Before this law, you had to have some form of id. True, no picture was necessary. IMHO, its still not necessary. Your signature has to match. That has not changed. I know I had zero illegal votes. Why? Because any questioned vote was marked. Representatives from both parties have the right to question anyone's vote, and the vote would be reviewed for fraud. Besides, the two officials I had at the table check in, had a combined 60+ years experience in checking in voters, and following the rules. Anyone they did not know, from being in the same precinct for decades, were scrutinized.

Sadly, the DMV is the responsible party to provide the id to those who need them to vote. A fine establishment (sarcasm) that nearly bungled my carry permit. The same establishment that could not run the "for hire" tests, due to not knowing how to reboot a computer. The same establishment that made me wait for a renewal for 8+ hours during that "give an illegal a driver's license" fiasco. (Did they ever recall those? Or are these people going to be allowed to vote, cause they have a photo id?) The same establishment that is really not capable of handling dealing with drivers licenses.

Yes, there is an issue of access to photo id. There are few DMV locations which have the ability to create photo id. Several counties do not have DMV locations. This has an impact. As several elderly, and poor do not have easy access to those locations. Some will also not know about the new requirements.

I believe all citizens have the moral duty and legal right to vote, barring any action of theirs to remove this right. Adding laws which might DENY ONE LEGAL VOTE should be viewed as limiting the legal rights of all. Just as gun laws limit the legal rights of all in gun carry and ownership.

I am for LESS LAWS.

G27 · January 5, 2012

If they do not want ID's to vote then I say they use indelible ink to mark who has and has not voted. It worked well in Iraq and would work equally well here.
Even if people do have an ID I would still love to see people have to dip a finger in ink.

Dolomite

That does nothing to keep an illegal from stealing your vote.

RobertNashville · January 5, 2012

Ok, this will bring me flack.
I have been in charge of a voting precinct. This is what I know: Before this law, you had to have some form of id. True, no picture was necessary. IMHO, its still not necessary. Your signature has to match. That has not changed. I know I had zero illegal votes. Why? Because any questioned vote was marked. Representatives from both parties have the right to question anyone's vote, and the vote would be reviewed for fraud. Besides, the two officials I had at the table check in, had a combined 60+ years experience in checking in voters, and following the rules. Anyone they did not know, from being in the same precinct for decades, were scrutinized.

Sadly, the DMV is the responsible party to provide the id to those who need them to vote. A fine establishment (sarcasm) that nearly bungled my carry permit. The same establishment that could not run the "for hire" tests, due to not knowing how to reboot a computer. The same establishment that made me wait for a renewal for 8+ hours during that "give an illegal a driver's license" fiasco. (Did they ever recall those? Or are these people going to be allowed to vote, cause they have a photo id?) The same establishment that is really not capable of handling dealing with drivers licenses.

Yes, there is an issue of access to photo id. There are few DMV locations which have the ability to create photo id. Several counties do not have DMV locations. This has an impact. As several elderly, and poor do not have easy access to those locations. Some will also not know about the new requirements.

I believe all citizens have the moral duty and legal right to vote, barring any action of theirs to remove this right. Adding laws which might DENY ONE LEGAL VOTE should be viewed as limiting the legal rights of all. Just as gun laws limit the legal rights of all in gun carry and ownership.

I am for LESS LAWS.

I am for less laws but some are necessary and I think this one is one of those.

Let's be clear...while I can't "prove" I suspect that the actual number of people who routinely vote/want to vote and who don't already have a government issued photo ID is VERY small so the so-called burden just isn't there IMAHO. I mean really; how many people can even survive in society today without already having a photo ID??? How may people truly can't afford the cost (especially since it's possible to get a free one)?

Also, people, such as the elderly, can still vote absentee and they don't need to worry about this law at all.

It is unfortunate that the wonderful DMV is the issuing establishment for all this but if I can wait in line and deal with incompetent people to get my DL or my HCP then surely people who don't already have one can deal with it to get an ID to vote.

Unfortunately; we have millions of illegal aliens in this country and documented cases of voter fraud with a justice department totally unwilling to prosecute - until that changes, laws like this are needed to secure the integrity of the voting process. Either that or we have to go back to paper ballots and hand counting!

January 5, 2012

No matter how hard I look I can't find many voter fraud cases, certainly not enough to sway an election.

I also find it odd that democrats worry about disenfranchisement. The people that they worry about being disenfranchised don't vote much anyway.

not much evidence of voter fraud

and

no widespread voter fraud

fourth paragraph

There's a lot more if you bother to look. The notion of widespread voter fraud is just a myth. Why not rig an election? It is just too hard. One vote doesn't mean too much and rounding up actual voters is expensive. Well, if you could do it electronically then you might be on to something....

Now that's voter fraud!

equally misguided is the idea that minorities and young folks vote in enough numbers the "suppression", as they call it matters.

This is one of those laws that sounds like it matters and that people get all bent out of shape about (because, hey, there's no way that people could disagree with your choice, right?) but really doesn't matter in any real sense. If this was in place in 2008 Obama would still be your President. If this law was in place in 2004 Bush would Still be your President.

It is a lot like blaming a win or loss on a referee. Your team lost by two points cause the ref called pass interference in the first quarter? It wasn't the refs, it was the fact that you needed a better game plan.

Worriedman · January 5, 2012

Jackson last election, 7% or registered voters showed up. In TN anyone that wants to vote can.

Oh Shoot · January 5, 2012

Jackson last election, 7% or registered voters showed up. In TN anyone that wants to vote can.

We were real active here in last mayoral election, a whopping 18% of registered showed. 17% for the primary.

Hell, only about 70% of registered voters turn out for presidential elections nationwide, but the real kicker is that only about 55% of all eligible voters vote anymore for president.

- OS

Edited January 5, 2012 by OhShoot

January 5, 2012

In the last national election I was there mid-day of I believe the 2nd day of early voting. I remember it being far more crowded than I would have thought and after you stood in line to get in the door there were three people checking folks in.

I had my DL and Voters ID in hand as that is what I thought that I remembered needing in the past.

I saw people present both a DL and VID and be told that the addresses did not match and sent away, either to another building to change their VID's or to DOS to change their DL's so that both items matched.

I saw people use only a DL and be allowed to vote and others with only a DL be told to go get a VID.

I saw people use only VID's and be allowed to vote and one man who had his VID be told that he also needed a pic ID before he could vote. The man appeared to be about 80 years old and had on a Navy Vet hat, he tried to explain that he did not any longer have a DL and had voted before without one, he tried to give them his Retired Navy ID but he was still sent away.

I watched this go on the whole time that I was waiting in line and it was totally by race as to whether or not one was allowed to go on and vote, it was blatantly obvious what was going on. Even when I was checked in it seemed like the lady was trying to find a reason to send me away. Every poll worker there other than one old man who was taking people to the booths was a minority. I was highly ticked off but I kept my mouth shut. I really felt for that old Vet but I had no idea of what to do for him.

I did call and try and tell the election supervisor what I had seen but after several calls with no response I gave up.

If these type things were going on in a state and county that was lopsided, what do you imagine happened in some of the closer states?

I am not sure but I dont think a person can even get food stamps without a Pic-ID.

Having a Pic-ID in order to vote is the most logical and reasonable thing that I can think of. Voter ID's can be stolen and without a pic to go with them someone could vote as many times as ID's that they could acquire. Someone on the inside could look at the list of eligible voters and figure out who had not registered and make up cards for them and have someone else cast those votes. Without a pic there is just too much room for fraud. Maybe they should just put our pics on our VID's and solve the problem that way.

And HOW DARE they claim hardship....the one's who claim that the most are fully prepared to haul people to the polls to vote, 100's if not 1000's of vans on election day. They have all year in order to get these same people to places to get Pic-IDs. Hardship my Butt!

But folks that is just it....Most of us as citizens see this as a problem, the politicians on the other hand do not. They have their ways and their ways do not represent our ways anymore.

And people can say what they want about the inked finger deal but I was there and I saw some of those folks go back a few days later when it wore off and do it again just because they were so proud to have voted, and IIRC their turnout was like 80+% with a very large percentage of those people WALKING miles for the privilege to do so.

Some folks could learn something from that.

I sure hope it dont take losing all of our Freedom for the masses to wake up to what it is worth.

January 5, 2012

Jackson last election, 7% or registered voters showed up. In TN anyone that wants to vote can.

WOW, I knew it was poor but didnt realize that it was THAT poor. I figured about 20%.

Given that I suppose that 93% deserve what and whomever they get and have no reason or right to complain. No wonder we are in the shape we are in these days. I am sure more than 7% CARE, or maybe I am even wrong about that.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Sgt. Joe

leroy · January 5, 2012

Hvy:

...Ok, this will bring me flack.
I have been in charge of a voting precinct. This is what I know: Before this law, you had to have some form of id. True, no picture was necessary. IMHO, its still not necessary. Your signature has to match. That has not changed. I know I had zero illegal votes. Why? Because any questioned vote was marked. Representatives from both parties have the right to question anyone's vote, and the vote would be reviewed for fraud. Besides, the two officials I had at the table check in, had a combined 60+ years experience in checking in voters, and following the rules. Anyone they did not know, from being in the same precinct for decades, were scrutinized. ....

This is exactly how i remember it workin in my "homplace". It was a rural district where everybody knew everybody. When everybody is honest it works just fine. My problem (...and many other folks problem...) aint a precinct like this one. Its the one where folks in the graveyard are votin and there are more voters voting than there are registered voters in the precinct. There are places like that; but most of us dont live there. Where there is a heavy turnout, election fraud doesnt mean much. the point of the maps i posted by counties was to point out that many times the individual precinct and county votes are razor thin. I think the voter id thing is to fix problems in the 50/50 states where the election is close and elections are able to be stolen.

Do we need more laws; on balance "no". Do we need voter id, "yeah". I cant legally carry a gun without a photo permit, i cant buy beer without a photo drivers license (...im 65 years old...), i sure dont think you ought to be able to vote without a photo id.

We can quibble about the honesty of folks and the "integrity" of elections in this country. The fact is that in the 50/50 states there is voter fraud (...south carolina is a good example, as well as some of the rustbelt states that are turnin red....). I think there are lots of otherwise reasonable people that are beginning to grow tired of what they perceive as being robbed at the ballot box. You have election officials not counting absentee votes from those who genuinely ought to be the first votes counted (...those serving in the armed forces, who are actually giving something to this country...). Ya got precinct officials in both parties bought and paid for by one party that are in charge of individual precincts. Ya got thugs intimidating voters in the inner city in Philadelphia (...and im willin to bet in other places too...). I'm beginning to believe that we need to start showing up at the polls like the old time Swiss did --- with our rifles.

I believe that this country is exactly at the same juncture that this country was right before the civil war; abeit for different reasons. You have two worldviews that are diametrically opposed to each other in play here. The socialist, "on the dole" worldview and the almost libertarian " leave me a long and get off me" view. Today there is little room for compromise, because one side wants to hold on and the other side simply wont tolerate what is goin on. All that bein said, this upcomming election is both a referendum on the issues and on our system of voting. The voting thing better be squeaky clean.

leroy

mcurrier · January 5, 2012

No matter how hard I look I can't find many voter fraud cases, certainly not enough to sway an election.
I also find it odd that democrats worry about disenfranchisement. The people that they worry about being disenfranchised don't vote much anyway.

not much evidence of voter fraud

and

no widespread voter fraud

fourth paragraph

There's a lot more if you bother to look. The notion of widespread voter fraud is just a myth. Why not rig an election? It is just too hard. One vote doesn't mean too much and rounding up actual voters is expensive. Well, if you could do it electronically then you might be on to something....

Now that's voter fraud!

equally misguided is the idea that minorities and young folks vote in enough numbers the "suppression", as they call it matters.

This is one of those laws that sounds like it matters and that people get all bent out of shape about (because, hey, there's no way that people could disagree with your choice, right?) but really doesn't matter in any real sense. If this was in place in 2008 Obama would still be your President. If this law was in place in 2004 Bush would Still be your President.

It is a lot like blaming a win or loss on a referee. Your team lost by two points cause the ref called pass interference in the first quarter? It wasn't the refs, it was the fact that you needed a better game plan.

Dude, those are some undependable sources for those seeking truth. Not to mention that the NY Times article is almost 5 years old.

Here is a TON of info on current voter fraud that is from August 2011 to present. There is simply TOO MUCH to post it all here:

Democrats And Voter Fraud

I could spend volumes and volumes of pointing out voter fraud from last week. But, for right now, I'll just point out a few quick ones:

In Boulder City, Nevada, when voters cast their ballots for conservative Sharron Angle for U. S. Senate, they discovered that the touch-screen voter machine was already pre-set for Harry Reid, according to Fox 5 News in Las Vegas.
Harrah's Casino "urged" their workers to vote for Harry Reid; and even took them to vote at their polling stations.
In New Bern, North Carolina, Sam Laughinghouse said that he pushed the button to vote Republican in all races, but the voting machine screen displayed a ballot with all Democrats checked. He cleared the screen and tried again with the same result.
The return address on 250 absentee ballot applications in Bridgeport, Connecticut, is 1238 North Avenue, which just happens to be a vacant lot.
In Arizona, a federal appeals court rejected a state law requiring voters to demonstrate citizenship at the polls.
In Illinois (although numerous other states had the same situation), military personnel overseas were "accidentally" denied the right to vote. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE) requires states to mail absentee ballots to overseas troops, government employees, and other Americans living abroad, at least 45 days before an election. 35 Illinois counties did NOT make that required deadline. Worse yet, the DOJ has declined to pursue any punitive action against any state or county in question!
In Connecticut, a "sanctuary city" issued thousands of IDs accepted for voter registration. Yes, illegal aliens might have elected the Democratic Governor of the state. According to World Net Daily: "Connecticut's lame-duck attorney general and new senator-elect, Richard Blumenthal, is obligated to investigate credible accusations of voter fraud that linger in the state's gubernatorial election---including possible illegal alien voting---despite Republican candidate Tom Foley's concession to Democratic opponent Daniel Malloy, charges the GOP's attorney general candidate in the election, Martha Dean. Dean, who is considering further legal action challenging the eligibility of her victorious Democratic opponent, argued Blumenthal is sworn to uphold the federal and state constitutions, making it his obligation to investigate voter fraud 'without regard to whether it has been requested or approved by the secretary of state.'"
There were severe voter irregularities in the close election of Patty Murray in Washington State.