Tag Archives: Identity document

The Impact Of Voter Identification Laws On Voter Turnout

Posted on by

Yesterday National Review posted an article about the impact of voter ID laws on a recent election in Texas. The article quotes a a New York Times headline Thursday stating: “Texas’ Stringent Voter ID Law Makes a Dent at the Polls.” However, the facts cited in the article in the New York Times does not seem to support the headline.

There are four so-called victims of the voter ID law named in the article, but all of them were given the right to vote.

The article at National Review further quotes the New York Times article:

It does, however, note, “Officials also said there was little traffic at the offices set up by the state to provide free voter-ID documents for those without another approved form of identification.” So, in other words, the state had conscientiously prepared for the contingency of people needing voter-ID documents, and had set up offices to provide them for free. That’s a good thing, right? And what’s more, it turns out that there was really no problem after all. Contrary to the hysterical claims of those opposing voter-ID requirements, there apparently are not large numbers of Texas voters who lack identification.

The article concludes:

Texas’s secretary of state, who might know something about all this, is quoted belatedly as follows: “This was our first statewide election with a photo ID requirement in place, and it was smooth, secure and successful.” Somehow, that pithy summary was not quite up to snuff for the Times’s headline writer.

Consider the things you have to show identification for. If you want to enter any government building, you have to show identification. If you want to sign up for any government program, you have to show identification. If you want to board an airplane, you have to show identification. Isn’t voting at least as important as those activities?

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Invitation To Disaster

Posted on by

Yesterday The Blaze reported a rather serious problem with the implementation of ObamaCare in California. California is moving ahead with its healthcare exchanges and making a valiant effort to make sure that everyone in the state has health insurance. However, they have run into a bit of a snag.

The article reports:

The exchange, known as Covered California, recently adopted rules for a network of more than 21,000 “enrollment counselors” who will provide consumers with in-person assistance. In some cases, they will have access to personal and financial information, from ID cards to medical histories.

But the state insurance commissioner and anti-fraud groups say the exchange is falling far short of ensuring that the people hired as counselors are adequately screened and monitored.

The unemployment rate in California is currently 9 percent. Many of the unemployed in California are highly skilled, ethical people who were employed in the various industries that have left the state due to the high cost of doing business there. There are obviously enough quality people available for these jobs, it seems to me that basic screening of the people who want to be “enrollment counselors” would not be that difficult.

The article notes the potential for disaster:

Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, a Democrat, also said the exchange does not have a plan for investigating any complaints that might arise once the counselors start work. That means consumers who might fall prey to bogus health care products, identity theft and other abuses will have a hard time seeking justice if unscrupulous counselors get ahold of their Social Security number, bank accounts, health records or other private information, he said.

Generally speaking, a private company takes the time to do some basic research on a potential employee because their ‘bottom line’ is at stake. One of the problems of a government-run organization is that there is no incentive for profit and also no incentive to ‘protect the brand.’

The article reports:

Covered California spokesman Santiago Lucero said the exchange shares Jones’ concerns and has made consumer safety a priority. The exchange’s board adopted regulations last month requiring enrollment counselors to wear name badges, undergo background checks, and get fingerprinted.

But the exchange’s current rules do not specify what offenses would disqualify an applicant for a counseling position.

The potholes on the path to ObamaCare are big enough to swallow a full-size car.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Depending Where You Live, Renewing Your Drivers License May Be More Complicated Than It Has Been In The Past

Posted on by

A friend posted the following on Facebook:

I went with Howard to DMV this morning when he renewed his drivers license for the first time since the new government program went into effect. Since we had the required documents with us – certified birth certificate, passport, proof of social security, tax bill, and utility bill it was less of a hassle than I expected it to be. However, there were a few people ahead of us that were told that they didn’t have all the documents needed for a verified drivers license.

I was puzzled by this post and did some investigating. It seems that Connecticut has a new program for renewing driver’s licenses.

The Examiner posted an article on this change in March 2012, and the Connecticut Mirror posted and article about it in September 2011.

The Connecticut Mirror states:

Connecticut launched a campaign today to publicize how to obtain a driver’s license that meets the stricter verification standards of a federal “Real ID” law passed in 2005, but never implemented in face of objections from two dozen states.

Beginning Oct. 3, drivers in Connecticut will have two choices when renewing their licenses: accept a license stamped “not for federal identification,” or provide proof of residence and immigration status for an ID with a gold star.

The Examiner reports:

The Real ID Act, enacted in 2005 in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks, sets forth certain requirements for state driver’s licenses and identification cards in order for the cards to be accepted by the federal government for “official” purposes. The purposed federal program, expected to go into effect in 2017, would require verified state identification to enter government buildings, pass airport security even for domestic flights, and possibly other commercial transactions.

Connecticut rolled out its verified driver’s license and identification card program, called SelectCT ID, in October of last year. Connecticut will phase in the new verified driver’s licenses over the next six years as driver’s licenses are renewed. At least for the first renewal, Connecticut residents are given the choice of obtaining a verified driver’s license or a regular driver’s license. If a regular driver’s license is chosen, it will not be acceptable for official federal government purposes. As early as 2017, people without verified state identification may need to show a US passport for domestic air travel.

So let me get this straight. You don’t have to show an ID card to vote, but you have to bring all sorts of additional documentation to get a drivers license that will allow you to board an airplane as a passenger.

This is a total “Beam me up, Scotty” moment.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Dangers In The New Immigration Bill

Posted on by

The immigration bill under discussion in Congress supports a program called eVerify that is supposed to allow employers to make sure that the people they are hiring are in America legally. That sounds like a great idea, but there are some serious problems with the system. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has put out a paper on the problems with eVerify. Although I agree with their premise that the program will have problems, I also believe that some form of the program will be necessary.

We are talking about letting millions of previously illegal immigrants enter the workplace and marketplace in America. We need a way of making sure that those people will be honest, hardworking people simply looking for a better life. We need to know about criminal activity, gang activity, prior legal problems, etc. We will need some sort of system to verify that our new citizens are who they say they are and that they want to be a positive part of America.

However, there are some serious problems with the law. On Thursday, CNN posted a story about how the immigration law as it stands would hurt Americans looking for jobs.

CNN reports:

Buried in the comprehensive immigration reform legislation before the Senate are obscure provisions that impose on Americans expansive national identification systems, tied to electronic verification schemes. Under the guise of “reform,” these trample fundamental rights and freedoms.

Requirements in Senate Bill 744 for mandatory worker IDs and electronic verification remove the right of citizens to take employment and “give” it back as a privilege only when proper proof is presented and the government agrees. Such systems are inimical to a free society and are costly to the economy and treasury.

Any citizen wanting to take a job would face the regulation that his or her digitized high-resolution passport or driver’s license photo be collected and stored centrally in a Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services database.

The pictures in the national database would then need to be matched against the job applicant’s government-issued “enhanced” ID card, using a Homeland Security-mandated facial-recognition “photo tool.” Only when those systems worked perfectly could the new hire take the job.

Again, some system is needed to make sure the person applying for a job is who he (or she) says he (she) is. However, this sounds more than a little intrusive to me.

The article further reports:

In short, S. 744 gets around states’ repeated rejections of national identification systems by lumping E-Verify and Real ID into overly comprehensive national identification (rather than immigration) “reform.” S. 744’s provisions also mandate collection of the details about almost every American, an enumeration task the Constitution authorizes only to the census every 10 years, and then only under a 72-year guarantee of confidentiality.

We need to ask ourselves, “Is a national identification system appropriate in a free society?” Meanwhile, S.744 does secure the border before legalizing millions of people we have allowed to be here illegally–where are our priorities?

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Really Is Hard To Tell What Is True When You Read The Newspaper

Posted on by

On Friday Breitbart.com posted a fact-check on an Associated Press story that ran in various newspapers on July 10. The story gave examples of how voter identification requirements disenfranchise people.

Breitbart.com reports:

Baker started off with what seemed like a frustrating story about two elderly Indiana voters approaching 90 years old, Edward and Mary Weidenbener, who were unable to vote in Indiana’s May primary. Why? Supposedly because “they didn’t realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver’s license or passport.”

Then the reporter at Breitbart begins to look into the story. The Indiana law requiring identification had been in effect since 2006. Had they voted since then? It was also determined that both Weidenbeners had valid driver’s licenses and passports–either of which would have served as identification. The Weidenbeners also live within walking distance of their polling place–which means they could easily have gone home to get their identification.

For whatever reason, the Weidenbeners wound up casting a provisional ballot. They then claimed they weren’t told that they needed to show an ID to officials after the election in order for their provisional ballot to be counted.

The article further reports:

But the Indiana state form that is given to all provisional voters specifically informs them that they must appear before county election officials no later than noon on the second Friday after election day either with an ID or to sign an affidavit that they are exempt from the ID requirement because they are “indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without the payment of a fee, or that you have a religious objection to being photographed.” The AP also neglected to mention that since the Weidenbeners are over 65, they could vote by absentee ballot without an ID.

It seems as if the Associated Press reporter either did not do his homework or chose to ignore the facts. Voter identification laws insure that every person’s vote counts once and that no person’s vote is cancelled out by an illegal vote. Voter identification laws do not prevent honest voters from voting–they prevent dishonest voters from voting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Let These People Vote?

Posted on by

I am not for denying anyone the right to vote, but sometimes I do wonder about the wisdom of some of the people who do vote. A story posted in The Blaze yesterday underscored that thought.

According to The Blaze:

Responding to a local rumor, people are standing in line for hours, turning over valuable personal information and expecting to receive a government handout in New York City. If this sounds familiar, it is. Back in the fall of 2009, thousands of people stood in line in Michigan expecting to be given some Obama money. It never arrived.

My concern here is the concept of “Obama money.” Where do these people think Obama money comes from? Is it simply manufactured out of thin air? Does it grow on trees?

The story goes on to explain that E & M Multi-Services, a tax preparation service that operates out of the back of a “dollar store” in the Fordham section of the Bronx, is collecting copies of Social Security cards, state ID cards and in exchange people are given a debit card from First California Bank. Unfortunately, the debit cards do not have money on them from President Obama or any bank. Surprised?

The article states the obvious:

Considering the massive problem of identity theft, handing over your Social Security card, state issued ID cards and other personal information to a business housed in the back of a dollar store is probably not a good idea.

And these people vote?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Watch For As We Approach 2012

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power LIne posted a story today about recent activities by the Obama Justice Department that will make voter fraud more difficult to prevent. The Department of Justice has announced that it has rejected South Carolina’s voter identification law.

The article reports:

Department of Motor Vehicles executive director Kevin Shwedo said the state Election Commission knew it was using inaccurate data when it released reports showing nearly 240,000 active and inactive voters lacked driver’s licenses or ID cards.

Shwedo sent the state’s attorney general an analysis showing that 207,000 of those voters live in other states, allowed their ID cards to expire, probably have licenses with names that didn’t match voter records or were dead. He said the commission created “artificially high numbers to excite the masses.”

When the motor-voter law was passed, it required states to periodically examine their voting lists to eliminate people who had died or moved from the state. Unfortunately, in many states, that portion of the law has not been enforced. That is one of many reasons why voter identification is needed in all elections.

Voter identification requirements are not about denying people the right to vote–the are about ensuring that every man’s vote counts equally. When voter fraud is allowed to flourish, all Americans should be concerned.

Enhanced by Zemanta