That woman who’s challenging Indiana’s voter ID law? Registered to vote in two states.
posted at 9:45 am on January 10, 2008 by Bryan
Your delicious irony of the day comes from Florida and Indiana. The litigant who is trying to kill off Indiana’s voter ID law is a walking, talking case of potential voter fraud. She certainly appears to have broken the law by registering to vote in both Indiana and Florida, and by claiming homestead tax exemption in both states. But let’s re-write the law so she doesn’t have to provide proper ID before voting!
According to Ewing and Ann Nucatola, public information director for the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Ewing surrendered her Indiana driver¹s license in 2000, when she moved to Florida and obtained her Florida license. Nucatola said that a driver must have a Florida address to obtain a Florida driver¹s license.
“And if they own property in two states they have to get a license that says ‘valid in Florida only,’” Nucatola said.
Ewing said Monday that her license is a “regular” one that she uses in both states. She renewed it in 2007 on a Punta Gorda, Fla. address.
At the Charlotte County, Fla. voter registration office, Sandy Wharton, vote qualifying office manager, said Ewing registered to vote in Charlotte County on Sept. 18, 2002, and signed an oath that she was a Florida resident and understood that falsifying the voter application was a third-degree felony punishable by prison and a fine up to $5,000. Wharton said her office checked Ewing’s Florida residency and qualified her on Oct. 2, 2002. On Oct. 4, 2002, they mailed her Florida voter card to her, to the West Lafayette, Ind. address that Ewing gave as a mailing address.
However, Ewing didn’t vote in Florida that year, nor has she ever voted in Charlotte County, Wharton said. But, just a month after receiving her Florida voter card, she did vote in the November 2002 elections in Tippecanoe County, Ind., according to Heather Maddox, co-director of elections and registration in Tippecanoe.
Ewing confirmed that she is registered in both states to vote, but at first said the Florida registration came automatically with her driver’s license. She repeatedly denied signing the oath on the Florida application. She also said Indiana mailed her an absentee ballot, but she didn’t use it or vote that year.
However, Heather Maddox, co-director of election registration in Tippecanoe County, said Ewing voted in Indiana in 2002, 2003 and 2004, before the Indiana ID law took effect in 2005.
When informed that the Florida voter office said she’d registered personally in 2002 for a Florida voter card, and that this newspaper had a copy of her application, Ewing said, “Well, why did I do that? I¹m confused. I can’t recall.” She reiterated that, even though she’s registered in two states, she only votes in Indiana, adding that she does have a car plated in Florida.
That doesn’t satisfy Florida officials.
“She can only be registered to vote in the place where she claims residency,² Wharton said. “You can’t be registered in two states. She has to claim one place or the other.”
Ordinarily when someone registers to vote in Florida, the state informs the election board where the applicant was previously registered. But according to Wharton, Ewing did not inform Florida that she was ever registered to vote anywhere else.
“She signed an oath saying she was a qualified elector and a legal resident of Florida,” Wharton said. “And the space where she was supposed to tell us where she was previously registered, she left blank.”
And she’s probably not alone in this.
Tuesday Ewing said the homestead “problem came up” when she married in 2002. “But that was taken care of,” she said. She also said her main residence is in Indiana, and that she pays “some” taxes in Indiana on a “small annuity” she receives.
“But I feel like I’m a victim here,” Ewing said. “I never intended to do anything wrong. I know a lot of people in Florida in this same situation – they call us ‘Snowbirds,’ you know.”
Let’s take her at her word, even though she seems to be lying to Florida officials, and accept that she never intended to do anything wrong. What about people who do intend to commit voter fraud? Uh-huh. Gee, I wonder why the Supreme Court may be showing some support for Indiana’s voter ID law.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I have a theory that Liberals are inherently dishonest.
I think I can produce data that prooves this.
TheSitRep on January 10, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Typo alert for the word “may”
Maxx on January 10, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Voting in 2 states is common here in south florida. We are New England south.
roninacreage on January 10, 2008 at 9:49 AM
They never do. Good intention cancels out bad action in the thinking of some.
Ordinary1 on January 10, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I might be willing to accept her explanation regarding voter affiliation, but the fact that she went for the tax rebate in both states indicates she knew exactly what she was doing.
Slublog on January 10, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Want to guess her party affiliation?
ptolemy on January 10, 2008 at 9:55 AM
She is one of thousands of multiple-registered voters in Florida I believe.
Lots of NY, NJ, MA, PA, CT, etc., snowbirds are double-registered (especially in Palm Beach County!). A few more get discovered every election.
rockbend on January 10, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Funny….they don’t mention party affiliation.
Talon on January 10, 2008 at 9:57 AM
I have a theory that Liberals are inherently stupid. I have plenty of documentation to prove this.
Jay on January 10, 2008 at 9:59 AM
This line is a keeper from Justice Kennedy. The left is forever whining about some absurd, miniscule and usually totally unfounded grievance as the excuse for turning the laws and the nations institutes on there heads. I’ll remember this one!
Maxx on January 10, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Eggggxactly.
Bryan on January 10, 2008 at 9:59 AM
The Democrats are fighting tooth and nail against voter ID laws because they know it’ll thwart their efforts at committing election fraud on a mass scale.
flipflop on January 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM
And it makes me wonder how many people are sucking up my tax money by illegally taking our Homestead exemption.
Grrr…this is an anger that can only be calmed with sushi. (any excuse will do)
Slublog on January 10, 2008 at 10:02 AM
She just wants to be able to vote early and vote often!
Frozen Tex on January 10, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Mmmmm….. sushi…
Frozen Tex on January 10, 2008 at 10:05 AM
You’re spot on.. Libs only recourse is misrepresenting the truth to garner support… The average adult doesn’t keep up with politics so they’re absolutely ripe for the kill.. This is where Libs do their damage.
whiskeytango on January 10, 2008 at 10:08 AM
I worked for years in county government in FL. It’s amazing the number of people who are dual registered.
Voter ID laws are needed, especcially in FL!
FloridaBill on January 10, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Oh, voter’s registration isn’t her ONLY problem…
Of course you are, dearie. But Florida’s going to be interested in the duel year of homestead exemptions because, especially in the current climate, those things are guarded like Smaug’s pile.
tree hugging sister on January 10, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Not only is she using the homestead allowance on two houses at the same time, she is also trying to bypass the Indiana license plate fees. I don’t know what they are in Florida, but in Indiana you can pay up to $600.00 per year depending on the car.
indianaconservative on January 10, 2008 at 10:14 AM
This, too, is a typical reaction to being caught. My kids used to play on the same theme. Never goes away.
cpodug on January 10, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I hear those gold-plated license plates never rust.
$600 for a plate? I’d be moving to Florida too.
fogw on January 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
“But I feel like I’m a victim here.”
Oh, well, quite. I suppose we should all just drop this clear-cut case of FRAUD since your feelings are hurt. That is so typical of the left. They’ve been trying to govern based on how they feel for decades and it simply doesn’t work.
Troika37 on January 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Give her the felony conviction and take away her right to vote,
bbz123 on January 10, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Being from Florida, my quess is that the voter registration fraud was probably an unintended consequence of commiting tax fraud. Florida has very low property taxes for people with the Homestead Exemption, for which you must be a resident to qualify.
Ann on January 10, 2008 at 10:29 AM
L ying
I ntolerant
B oring
E xtremely
R acist
A ll knowing
L osers
This story made me create this little poem. Wish tehre was an H in the word Liberal so I could have incorporated Hypocrite.
Joey1974 on January 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM
You could add hypocrite after all knowing…
Ann on January 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM
You live in Florida? I’m there! No one I work with likes sushi. :(
bj1126 on January 10, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Ditto, ditto, ditto.
Yep, and the problem is compounded by the kind of tax advice that gets passed around retiree communities.
Hey Bryan, you have every right to be mad about this issue. Now imagine what it’s like to have to live with these geniuses three to five months out of every year.
The time is long past for voter-ID laws in every state.
Anton on January 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Just another play from the lefty’s playbook! Just imagine how many people do this during an election cycle! Between these folks and the MSM,I’m surprised a Rebublican has EVER been elected!!
kcd on January 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM
oops… RePublican
kcd on January 10, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Is she one of the ones who was so confused by the ballot that she accidentally voted for Buchanan? Oh, that was Palm Beach County, wasn’t it?
Too stupid to vote. Or too dishonest. Which one?
pistolero on January 10, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Sushi? Really? You eat sushi to remain calm?
Per
it must make sense to some.
samuelrylander on January 10, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Where does she stand on the right to be bigamist, a husband per household?
maverick muse on January 10, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I live in Sweet Home Alabama…No ID…NO VOTE in our state. I like it that way!
kcd on January 10, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Grrr…this is an anger that can only be calmed with sushi. (any excuse will do)
Slublog on January 10, 2008 at 10:02 AM
To me Sushi is gross but I am down for about 1/2 gallon of Sake and a couple of shots of Jagermeister :0)
Joey1974 on January 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I want to commend her self-restraint. Seems she could get away with voting in 5 or 10 states and they’ve only found her registered in two.
snaggletoothie on January 10, 2008 at 10:43 AM
It’s 2008 for God’s sake! Even if you don’t drive you can get a photo ID in any state of the union. I wonder, for what reason, would a person NOT want to show an ID in order to vote?…hmmmm…anybody?
kcd on January 10, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I’m not sure if it is statewide in Florida, but in Orange County, we are required to provide ID with proof of address to ensure not only that we are who we say we are, but also we are voting in the right precinct.
conwayluge on January 10, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Vote fraud, tax cheat. Must have a (d) after her name.
thekingtut on January 10, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Whereas in le belle provence Quebec, they are debating allowing Muslim women to vote without uncovering their faces if they wear the full covering…
Frozen Tex on January 10, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Fixed.
stonemeister on January 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Might be interesting to see what state she claimed residency on for tax purposes — Indiana has an income tax and FL does not. It may be more than property tax evasion.
BillyRuffn on January 10, 2008 at 11:12 AM
We have a warning phrase here in
BanglaPensacola that covers people like our victim. It’s shouted from every rooftop in the county as soon as the first hint of winter sends Northern license plates hurtling our way…tree hugging sister on January 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM
“but in Orange County, we are required to provide ID with proof of address”
Here in NW Alabama you don’t need proof of address if your name is on the roll; if for some reason your name is not, or it is misspelled, etc. then you do need that proof of residence.
Of course you ALWAYS need your photo ID :)
Lord Nazh on January 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Someone tell Lou Dobbs pronto! Her lawyer was on his show yesterday whining about all the unfairness of it all.
PattyJ on January 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM
And you thought I was kidding when I speculated that the Massachusettsians who were in New Hampshire to support Hillary were also there to vote.
Speakup on January 10, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Explain why it is soooo unfair and inconvenient for a voter to obtain letigimate ID in order to votre…but not too difficult to make it to the voting booth.
I can’t see the problem unless the left fears the lost votes from those who have no legal right to vote or would not be able to vote multiple times. Hmmmm, rather obvious?
libhater on January 10, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Like I said, vote early and vote often!
Frozen Tex on January 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Since a number of states require it already, I hope teh Supremes rule its REQUIRED EVERYWHERE.
dogsoldier on January 10, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Somehow I get the feeling she was more interested in not paying the proper taxes than she was in voting twice.
BL@KBIRD on January 10, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Even though she claims she pays “some taxes” on a small pension she recieves, I am willing to bet there is other income where she is enjoying the fact that Florida has no state income tax. Such a shame, the voter ID law made it tough to commit tax fraud. Certainly a good reason for it to be overturned.
Buford on January 10, 2008 at 1:07 PM
I know! We should also make them pay a little tax when they vote too, and maybe a literacy test as well! I mean, neither would be too difficult to do, especially if you already made all the way to the voting booth… sure Up to 20 million Americans of voting age don’t have govt.issued identification, but its a small obstacle to get one in order to vote right?
Every respectable study of voter fraud has shown that it is exceedingly rare, in fact despite an attempt by the Bush Justice department to crack down on it, there have been only 120 federal prosecutions since 2002 out of 400 million votes cast. This is clearly another attempt to discourage electon day turnout by those believed to skew heavily democratic. The Indian law was pushed through by Republican dominated legislatures and signed by a Republican governor. Do the math.
crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Since a number of states require it already, I hope teh Supremes rule its REQUIRED EVERYWHERE.
dogsoldier on January 10, 2008 at 12:40 PM
DITTO!!
kcd on January 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I know! We should also make them pay a little tax when they vote too, and maybe a literacy test as well!
It’s called a driver’s license, dingleberry. Or a passport.
Or a non-driver’s I.D., which I can tell you from personal experience is rather easy to obtain.
Requiring someone to provide evidence that she is not attempting to defraud the electoral authority in her state is not akin to a poll tax, you hysterical nitwit.
If you don’t want to obtain a photo I.D., or provide some evidence that you are who you purport to be, than you are perfectly entitled not to participate in the political process through voting.
Go volunteer for Cynthia McScrewy’s campaign and help her fulfill her ambition to become for the first mentally challenged President of the United States.
Gerard on January 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM
It is akin to a poll tax or literacy test. They all were billed as anti-corruption or anti-fraud devices despite the fact that fraud and corruption are virtually non-existent on a national scale as I indicated in my previous post. Both polling taxes and literacy tests had the effect of depressing turnout of a certain socioeconomic group, just as this law would do. There clearly is a partisan motivation to this law, both this law and the Georgia one were signed by Republcan governors and produced by Republican dominated legislatures.
It isn’t always so simple to get a govt. issued photo-ID anyway, in order to get one you need to present your birth certificate and in order to get a copy of a birth certificate you need to present some photo-ID.
oh and um, I’m not a hysterical nitwit, you are….zzzinnggg
crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 1:52 PM
…as opposed to Federal taxes, which are a huge inconvenience for a large percentage of voters!
dominigan on January 10, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Of course you are honey…you’re a liberal.
Wileygrl3 on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM
As Justice Roberts also said, it is extremely difficult to catch. Just because it is hard to catch doesn’t make it rare.
indianaconservative on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM
The Democrats have been fighting voter ID cards for some time in Missouri. If I remember correctly, they got the issue voted down. They say voter ID cards are made to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. I say bull pucky to that.
Torch on January 10, 2008 at 2:18 PM
They all were billed as anti-corruption or anti-fraud devices despite the fact that fraud and corruption are virtually non-existent on a national scale as I indicated in my previous post.
Do you expect us to believe that you are genuinely this ignorant? I realize it’s a pretty low threshhold for Democrats, but really…
Does the acronymn ACORN mean anything to you?
Gerard on January 10, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Amen Torch! They could fix that “I can’t afford a license” excuse easily! Along the same lines as “if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you”. They give away everything else at the expense of the taxpayer, why not a state ID card/drivers lisc. to at least make their vote legit?
kcd on January 10, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I wish the Democrats would just be honest-that’ll be the day-and concede that their opposition stems entirely from their desire to commit voter fraud.
What’s so hard about that?
It’s not like publicly affirming that your party’s electoral success is predicated upon (illegal) fraud and deceit is a crime.
Gerard on January 10, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Too funny. She might end up with a back taxes problem for evading an owner-occupant tax structure AND a personal property or vehicle license law. What a perfect litigant!
Jaibones on January 10, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Gee or maybe our electoral success is predicated upon a voting block which conservatives have consistently tried to disenfranchise. Voting fraud may be hard to catch but if it were committed on such a scale that the democrat’s “electoral success” was dependent on it, there surely would be more than 120 prosecutions out of 400 million votes. The only true fraud is the stated justification for this law.
crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Now why’d you have to do that? Now I’m hungry. Thank goodness it’s lunchtime!
Sultry Beauty on January 10, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Pshaw. This is obviously a Republican false-flag operation done to embarrass and discredit Democrats. Obviously no liberal could be so stupid or dishonest.
phelps on January 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Obviously no liberal could be so stupid or dishonest.
Smile when you say that on this blog:) he-he
kcd on January 10, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Wrong. I can’t speak for the laws in every state, but over the past decade, I’ve obtained photo IDs from three separate states. Never once did I have to present a birth certificate. An official mailing or utility bill with proof of address, yes. Birth certificate, no.
Fly_in_Ointment on January 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Let us examine the Georgia law (since I know nothing about the Indiana one and happen to live in Georgia). In Georgia, if you don’t have a Driver’s License, you may get a FREE picture ID from the state for the purpose of voting.
By claiming this is discriminating against a certain “socioeconomic group” like a poll tax, what you are saying is that it is more difficult for members of a certain “socioeconomic group” to get a birth certificate. This statement strikes me as particularly racist. Perhaps you are worried about how the “socioeconomic group” that crossed the boarder illegally would be prevented from voting by this measure? This group shouldn’t be voting though.
And no, you don’t need a picture ID to get a birth certificate, something I have had to do both for myself and for my children. I got mine through the mail from another state, no picture ID involved, no problems.
When you make the statement, “Both polling taxes and literacy tests had the effect of depressing turnout of a certain socioeconomic group, just as this law would do.” Do you have any proof of this, or is this just your “feeling” based on the fact that you “know” all Republicans are the worst sort of racist? The fact that these laws were produced by Republicans seems to me more of a sign that Democrats actively support voter fraud, more than a sign of Republican prejudice.
Buford on January 10, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Yet the dems in this case could not find a single disenfranchised Indiana voter for the past two elections held. Talk about nonexistant! If this law is so unfair, why can they not find anyone that was refused their vote?? A funny thing that happened after this law took affect, the reports of the mysterious vanloads of little old ladies stopping at multiple polling places ceased.
Also, the case in Indiana. I believe the parties will drive you there to get your ID if you ask.
indianaconservative on January 10, 2008 at 3:51 PM
That tells it all, breaks the law and then becomes a victim…tell me she registered Democrat.
right2bright on January 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
That’s what I want to know too. Since it’s not mentioned it seems likely she is a Democrat.
It’s a real pain for me to have to have an ID when I go to the airport too.
Do you suppose….
drjohn on January 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
In Indiana, any BMV branch will give a state ID free if a statement is signed saying it is to be used for voting only. The Dems here said many could not afford the $15 fee for the ID. I support the ID law as a way to assure my vote won’t be diluted!
ah1g on January 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Want to guess her party affiliation?
ptolemy on January 10, 2008 at 9:55
My first thought too !
SIJ6141 on January 10, 2008 at 4:41 PM
nope, I’m saying members of a certain socioeconomic group are less likely to have a government issued photo-ID. How many upper or middle class people do you know that don’t have one? I like how you immidiately turn this into some sort of illegal immigration issue. Whether it be the ecomomy, voting fraud, terrorism or juvenile diabetes everything relates to illegal immigration.
crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Anyone not having a government issued ID when they are FREE and transportation to get them is free, leaves only three groups I can think of that will be without the required ID.
1. Those that are trying to commit voter fraud. Well good this law is aimed at them.
2. Those who can’t get the ID. This would be the illegal aliens. Explaining why I brought them up.
3. Those who can’t be bothered. Well, that is really their own fault then isn’t it.
You have already implied that points 1 and 2 are not part of your argument, so what you are saying is that certain “socioeconomic groups” are more likely to just not be bothered with obtaining ID? You do know that most poor people have a driver’s license already don’t you? This is the U.S. after all, where the poor own cars, have cable TV, and could possibly be obese, unlike some countries where the poor live in garbage dumps and are starving. Even if they don’t drive the poor can certainly obtain a free ID the government will issue them. I fail to see why this would prevent them from voting unless they just can’t be bothered getting one and this certainly doesn’t make this law discriminatory.
Buford on January 10, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Any law which makes little requirements for voting is suspect. The literary tests had similar justifications; I mean, if you can’t bother to read why should you be able to vote? We all have a chance to go to school here for free and learn to read etc. The point is literacy (and getting a photo-ID) shouldn’t be pre-requisites for voting. People shouldn’t be deprived of their right to vote just because they “can’t be bothered” to get an ID. Putting that requirement there is a not so subtle way to disproportionately depress turnout among certain groups. Sure they could get a photo ID, but why should they have to?
crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM
I know a relevant example of the kind of people who can’t be bothered. My friend manages a moving company near Canada. It’s profitable for him, (and ultimately the drivers) to get passports so they can move across the border and back. But most of the drivers just don’t feel like getting a passport, even though their business would cover the cost of the fee. They just don’t want to get their birth certificate, a photo and the form together. Should this type of sentiment deprive them of what is perhaps the most important right in Americal the right to vote?
crr6 on January 10, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Because people can and do commit voter fraud without this requirement. The state has the duty to make sure that everyone’s vote is equal and if someone is voting more than once there is a problem. These laws were structured and applied in such a way as to be non-discriminatory, unlike the literary tests and poll taxes which were purposely applied in a discriminatory fashion with a much higher standard/cost for blacks than whites. For you to make the comparison is ludicrous.
Buford on January 10, 2008 at 5:34 PM
“Any law which makes little requirements for voting is suspect. ”
Well, how ’bout we just do away with voter registration and polling officials. Anyone who wants to exercise their right to vote should just come on in. It shouldn’t matter that you have already voted twice before or in three other precincts. Hell, it’s a right that must not be infringed upon, isn’t it? And this restictive nonsense of having only one day to vote and only half of that day is surely intended to discourage certain classes from exercising their franchise. Voting should be 24-7 for at least two weeks. How can we expect citizens to vote in two or more states when they have only one day to do it?
Yep, I think crr6 might be on to something, except that there is no Constitutional right for any of us to vote, even once, in any election. Maybe states will just have to think this through carefully and do the fair and logical thing, which is to identify each person who wishes to vote to assure that each vote is legal.
drewas on January 10, 2008 at 5:35 PM
If they put such little value on this right then it is probably a good thing they aren’t voting.
Buford on January 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Why should voters have to get a government-issued photo ID? Let’s see. We’ve got about 20 million (or more) illegal aliens living in this country right now. Document fraud in the illegal alien community is rampant. But surely none of those 20 million+ illegals are actually voting, right? Why would they even want to? Just so they can elect some politician who will support amnesty for illegals, and all the benefits that go along with it? But hey, hasn’t the good Rev. Huckabee instructed us that it wouldn’t be “compassionate” or “Christian” of us to actually pass laws requiring people who want to vote in U.S. elections to show a photo ID so that we can ascertain that they are legally entitled to cast a vote? I guess we should just trust the illegals — uh, I mean the “undocumented Americans” — to do the right thing. After all, we don’t have any reason not to trust them to obey our laws, do we?!?
AZCoyote on January 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I remember the first time I voted in Virginia, was probably 1984, I tried to show ID and the lady at the desk with the voter roll made a big production out of turning her head and avoiding looking at the ID and told me I shouldn’t ever do that when voting in Virginia.
crosspatch on January 10, 2008 at 6:08 PM
She should be charged and convicted of the third degree felony in Florida and be forced to pay a fine, plus have a criminal record.
Christoph on January 10, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Good point.
Christoph on January 10, 2008 at 6:31 PM
So who’d be deprived of the right to vote, anyway? Anyone who “can’t be bothered” to get an ID in all likelihood “can’t be bothered” to go vote in the first place.
p.v. cornelius on January 10, 2008 at 7:07 PM
My father is over 70 and he is against showing ID to vote. He remembers the old ward where he lived 50 years ago and the ward election people knew everyone.
I read somewhere on a blog a great idea. Clear off all voter lists and make everyone re-register to vote and show a birth certificate or passport to register.
I was thinking doing this every few years would help prevent voter fraud.
Thoughts? Opinions?
Mooseman on January 10, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »