Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Recent tactics used to get around rule of law a long-term threat

Comments

Return To Article
  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2013 3:54 a.m.

    The examples you cite for the abrogation of the rule of law pale in comparison to the decision to invade Iraq, a violation of both the war making powers domestically and international laws against genocide. You may have a minor point here and there, but I have a good memory and recall your aiding and abetting the Iraq disaster, with its hundreds of thousands of deaths, without so much as a blink of an eye. I might listen to you more attentively were your credibility not so shot.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 28, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    I would fully support voter id laws if they were NOT designed in large part to affect the outcome of elections. And, if they were actually addressing something that was a problem.

    Neither of these things are true.

  • Mickey Kovars Tampa, FL
    July 28, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    This editorial deserves national attention, and I am forwarding it to all my friends. The ultimate irony is that Obama allegedly is a constitutional law expert. Either that is an out-and-out lie, or he's an expert in the Marxist-Leninist sense -- you understand the constitution so that you can ignore and nullify it. This man is doing great damage to our system of government, all for some 'higher purpose.' The destructiveness and self-righteousness of this approach is plain to see for anyone who is really looking.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 28, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    Once again DN, have some integrity. "Both sides.." then we get two pages of conservative cripes. Secondly, the title says we're circumventing the "rule of law" then goes on to describe legal maneuvers to circumvent laws or policies.

    What about a Republican Senate that forces 61 yea votes on anything the Democrats propose. Is that circumventing the law?

    Lastly, look around the world to what "circumventing the law" really looks like. It looks like Egypt, Syria, etc. Your hyperbole is not accurate or very professional.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 28, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    A simple reading of the Constitution would clear up most "federal duties". Those extra "duties" exist only in the minds of corrupt and opportunistic politicians. The real "duties" of the federal government are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. The are listed so that no one can claim authority to do anything that has not been explicitly delegated to the federal government by the people.

    Requiring or not requiring voter I.D. is not on the list of "duties", therefore, it to be left to the States or to the people. It is not a function of the federal government. Rules and regulations written by bureaucrats are not part of the Constitution. Executive orders are not part of the Constitution. Only Congress has authority to legislate on the federal level. Eric Holder has no authority to legislate. Barack Obama has no authority to legislate. His duty is to enforce the law.

    Dictators "dictate". Honorable and honest people work within the bounds set for them by those who are in authority. The people, not the President, are in authority. The President works for the people and is obligated to do only what the Constitution has authorized him to do.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 28, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Re: "In each of these cases, the issues themselves are not as important as the principles behind the rule of law."

    They certainly are to the left-wing true believers that support these issues. And, therein lies the problem. The advance of the left's political agenda trumps everything else, in the childish, mindless, mirror-image echo chamber in which they choose to operate.

    Suggesting that President Bush committing troops to protect us from terrorism -- after the conveniently-forgotten approval of Congress -- is somehow tantamount to scores of clear, cynical, politically-motivated, liberal floutings of the law, particularly by the Obama regime, is a good illustration of how willing the left is to abandon, not just the rule of law, but honesty, decency, and any semblance of adhesion to civilized principle, as well, in order to advance its agenda.

    Liberal thought can be circumscribed into that great Orwellian principle -- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

    Liberals believe everyone should follow the law -- except liberals.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 28, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    DN: "The rule of law requires all parties to submit to a process, respecting outcomes with which they disagree"

    Republicans have never respected the outcome of the election of Pres.Obama nor legislation that was passed in Congress prior to the 2010 election.

    Presidents are given the authority to appoint administrators/officers by the U.S. Constitution.

    #1 Instead of doing their job of allowing votes on Obama's appointees, Republicans (like Senator Lee) have been filibustering even non-controversial Judicial appointments. Republicans have been using the filibuster not because the appointees are extremists but because they want to undermine the functioning of the legally created NLRB, the CPFB, the ATF etc.

    #2 Texas voting laws, viewed as the strictest in the U.S., were struck down earlier this year by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for being discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision opened the door for TX to reinstate them. (Note: The DOJ has not challenged all new voter ID laws in the U.S.)

    #3 Prop 8 did get hearings in CA courts and they lost. (R-Gov. Schwarzenegger is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution laws against discrimination).

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    This article contains several errors.

    The Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act upheld the basic principles of the act, including the section under which the Attorney General is challenging Texas' voter ID law. The Attorney General's actions are consonant with the ruling and the Voting Rights Act which is designed to protect voters from discriminatory voting laws, as for example's Texas' voter ID law. The article is factually mistaken when it describes such actions as technical and legal end runs around the court.

    California's public officials defended Prop 8 in court. When Prop 8 was struck down by a federal court, public officials chose to not appeal the ruling believing the state would lose and appealing would be a waste of time and money, something well within their authority.

    By contrast, the issue of appointees to NLRB arose because Republicans in the Senate refused to permit a yes or no vote on the appointees. The President followed the law and made appointments and submitted them to the Senate. The Senate then failed to perform its legally required function. The article fails to mention that fact.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 28, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    You don't get to pick and choose what aspects of the rule of law you support or don't support. You're either for the rule of law - in all its myriad manifestations - or you're not. We don't live in a Mobocracy, and the majority of the people of Texas have been shown to disregard the Voting Rights Act, multiple times.

    Texas is still part of the United States, where the supremacy clause in the Constitution applies even to them. If Eric Holder is able to prosecute Texas successfully in court, that's the rule of law at work, and it should be respected.

    The Voter ID issue has been shown to be a Pinocchio-level exaggeration by Republicans, but I'd be fine with this law if every voter was issued a Voter ID card to encourage voter participation, like they've done in Mexico, with good success.

    But that would diminish the advantage Republicans are trying to get at the polls because they know many poor voters don't have drivers licenses. And if they tried, in Texas the DMV would reduce staff to discourage them from getting an ID.

    It's Texas, remember.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 28, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    The votes of the populace are always subject to the rule of the US Constitution. This country is NOT a pure democracy -- it's a representative, CONSTITUTIONAL democracy -- which means that majority/mob rule does NOT take precedence over the rights of minorities.

    Your so-called "rule of law" appears to actually mean "rule of mob". But Texas and California are not sovereign states. They, like every other state, are subject to the US Constitution -- no matter who their respective mobs may want to squash.

  • Fitz Murray, UT
    July 28, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    The DN should also point out that this administration has instructed DEA not to enforce the federal drug laws, thus the states medical and recreational laws. ICE has been told not to enforce the immigration laws to those under 30. If the standard is the Constitution, the President's oath clearly does not allow for him to ignore enforcement of the laws.

    Regarding SCOTUS Voting Rights Act decision, it clearly points out that, as the Constitution says, it is the sole prerogative of the states to determine voting standards for its citizens. Holder is making this a political issue, that is the only way his actions can be described.

    @marxist - Congress, unfortunately, gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

    @pragmatistferlife - the 60 vote standard has been part of the Senate for decades and it has been used by BOTH parties to make a statement.

    SCOTUS ruled that the parties defending Prop 8 did not have standing. That was disappointing and short-sighted. They should have handed down a decision that clearly defines the rights of citizens to amend a state constitution via referendums. Do we or do we not have such rights? Unfortunately, they left the answer hanging.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 28, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    "...Liberal thought can be circumscribed into that great Orwellian principle -- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."...".

    Wrong.

    Comparing humans to animals is the signature move of the face and voice of the Republican Party Rep. Steven King R-Iowa.

    "...Liberals believe everyone should follow the law -- except liberals....".

    Wrong.

    Republicans believe everyone should follow the law-- except Republicans.

    Exactly.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    July 28, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Isn't Senator Lee attempting to circumvent the law with his threats of retribution over the Affordable Care Act?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 28, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    The Deseret News is arguing against itself in the first portion of this opinion. First, the editorial writer talks about laws "designed to preserve fairness through democratic representation, with built-in protections for the rights of minorities." But in arguing against the U.S. Attorney General's attempt to subject Texas's election laws or methods to federal review, the same writer claims it is "an attempt to circumvent the will of the people in Texas." Actually, it is only the will of the majority that is being questioned here, because there is no built-in protection for the rights of minorities. What Eric Holder is doing is attempting to re-enable those protections for minorities that were eliminated in Texas.

    Also, the DN failed to point out all the Republican attempts to not implement or to repeal the ACA, which is a law passed in Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. What? No problem with these shenanigans? Too bad Utah's official Republican newspaper failed to mention that. But why should we expect it?

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 28, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    If President Obama is allowed to pick and choose the laws he will implement/ enforce as Chief Executive then am I allowed to pick and choose which laws I follow? Congress passed (without a single Republican vote) he ACA with an employer mandate and then when it becomes clear Democrats are going to get smoked over it in 2014 he decides to unilaterally delay implementation. Are you kidding me? That's the definition of lawlessness. And needless to say Republicans get blamed for not "helping to fix" this travesty of a law. And I want even get into what the IRS did to law abiding American citizens. Peggy Noonan made a great point in her weekend column. Why is it that the party that champions the benefits of big government apparently has no interest in Governing? Cany anyone make an argument that this Admin has been even halfway competent? The only thing the President is capable of doing is campaigning. It's sad and it's scary.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 28, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    @red state --

    "If President Obama is allowed to pick and choose the laws he will implement/ enforce as Chief Executive then am I allowed to pick and choose which laws I follow? "

    All executives (presidents and governors) have the same right. Many previous presidents have exercised this same right.

    Here's some papers and articles on the subject that may help to educate you:

    -- "The Indefensible Duty to Defend" at Columbia Law Review
    -- "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes" (written in 1994 by the then-assistant US Attorney General)
    -- "When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute?" at Northwestern University Law Review
    -- "Executivie Discretion to Decline to Defend Federal Law Against Constitutional Challenge" by the Palm Center for Sound Public Policy.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    July 28, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    When I turned 18, to celebrate I went and registered to vote. I was so thrilled that I had the authority to have my voice be heard. I don't understand why there is a problem with showing I.D. Even if you are not a driver, you can still get legitimate I.D. through your state. If you are not a citizen, you should not be allowed to vote, period. I certainly wouldn't move to France on a visa think I was allowed to vote in their elections unless I gave up my US citizenship and was granted citizenship in France. Many of our leaders are not following the Constitution. It was set-up the way it was for a purpose. It has a check and balance system which, in many cases is being ignored. Just remember, as was said centuries ago: Power corrupts and total power corrupts completely, unless you are a selfless man like George Washington who could have been a king, he was so popular, but chose to follow the Will of the People.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 28, 2013 5:21 p.m.

    @Clarissa --

    "I don't understand why there is a problem with showing I.D. "

    The problem is that many poor people don't drive, and therefore don't have drivers' licenses. And it is often difficult for them to get other state-recognized ID -- either they can't take the time off work to go get it, or they can't afford transportation to go get it, or they don't have a stable residence address to put on it, or they don't have a copy of their birth certificate, or any of a myriad other problems. So voter ID laws unfairly discriminate against the poor.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    July 28, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    @ Truthseeker,

    You say that Prop 8 got hearings in California courts, "but they lost."

    That is not true, which is the reason Prop 8 went to Federal Court.

    A problem with Prop 8 exists now that the Supreme Court has ruled, leaving only Judge Walker's decision in place. This causes a multitude of problems which the executive branch of the California government is exploiting, perhaps illegally. It remains for the California Supreme Court to rule conclusively on this, but the ambiguities in the federal rulings and their relationship to California law will cause problems.

    The California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was valid and that the private citizens defending it had standing under California law. The US Supreme Court ruled that the private citizens did not have standing under federal law, and threw out the Appeals Court ruling, leaving Judge Walker's ruling intact, which technically had validity under California law for only those couples who sued and in only those counties where the lawsuits occurred.

    All of this effectively gives veto power over voter-approved initiatives that the California Constitution does not allow, throwing the entire process into chaos.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    July 28, 2013 6:40 p.m.

    Poor people need ID to sign up for welfare and food stamps.

    I hear a lot of excuses to stop America from making their elections honest.

  • BYU sports on TV in Missouri Lebanon, MO
    July 28, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    I have to agree with lets debate. If someone is so incompetent that they cannot figure out how to get a state ID card they probably should not be voting at all. If they can figure out how to qualify for unemployment and welfare, they can figure out how to get an ID card.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 28, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    Re: ""...Liberals believe everyone should follow the law -- except liberals.... Wrong."

    Oh, I think we all agree it's wrong.

    The next question -- why are liberals consistently allowed to get away with it?

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 28, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    When a court upholds the Justice Department's position in the Texas case, I hope we will not see a Deseret News editorial condemning "activist judges."

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    July 28, 2013 8:35 p.m.

    Perhaps I cursory review of the Constitution by those who don't like the idea of a Constitutional Republic would be helpful. Mike Richards above stated it very clearly. Words have meaning, including those written in our Constitution. If those words don't have meaning, then it can mean anything you want, which is why the socialists, Marxists, and liberals have no difficulty in proposing any number of programs and ideas that have nothing to with Constitutional government. If those words have no meaning, then why do we even have a Constitution? Let's just let whoever is in power, however they got there, to run things however they want, which, by the way, seems to be how Barack Obama interprets those words. Republicans haven't done much better, Ronald Reagan excepted.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    July 28, 2013 11:58 p.m.

    @marxist:
    "The examples you cite for the abrogation of the rule of law pale in comparison to the decision to invade Iraq..."

    Who are you trying to castigate here, anyway? Iraq was invaded as a result of Iraq invading Kuwait. And it was done with the approval and consent of the US Congress (Authorization to use Military Force Against Iraq).

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    July 29, 2013 12:31 a.m.

    @JoeBlow:
    "I would fully support voter id laws if they were NOT designed in large part to affect the outcome of elections."

    Voter ID laws are, in fact, designed to affect the outcome of elections... That is, to keep non citizens from voting, those who would vote Democrat if they could vote. And in Texas (and many other states) there are alotta potential non citizen votes... called illegal immigrants.

    @pragmatistferlife:
    "Secondly, the title says we're circumventing the "rule of law" then goes on to describe legal maneuvers to circumvent laws or policies."

    Are you saying giving a two year amnesty to certain illegal immigrants contrary to immigration law is... a legal maneuver? Not so. It's more correctly called an 'illegal maneuver.'

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    July 29, 2013 12:42 a.m.

    This is an excellent article and makes many good points. It becomes more and more obvious that the guy in the White House and his buddy, the US Attorney General think of themselves as autocrats and above the law. They ignore laws they don't like and make up laws to accomplish some bizarre goals.

  • Brother Benjamin Franklin Orem, UT
    July 29, 2013 3:24 a.m.

    These are not illegal methods for achieving changes that need to be made in the law. I think this column is arguing based on disagreement with the current administration and political party in power.

    The Republicans and their respective presidential administrations have done similar things when they had power, too. It was their own fault and divisiveness that got this current administration elected.

    Why are people complaining? We are simply getting exactly what we asked for and deserved!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 29, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    Re: "The problem is that many poor people don't drive . . . ."

    That's not the problem. There are actually very, very few poor people that don't drive, even fewer that don't have an acceptable government-issued ID.

    The real problem is this -- Democrats have have decided to win elections by cheating, and voter-ID laws render their plans to cheat somewhat less effective.

    With voter-ID, tried and true Democrat tactics, like get-out-the-vote drives aimed at illegal aliens and convicted felons, founder. The well-known Democrat trick of busing vagrants all over town to "vote early, vote often" is also affected.

    Even Democrat pollworkers are discouraged from voting for relatives, dead and alive.

    Since only Democrats employ these tactics, yeah, voter-ID laws suppress Democrat votes.

    But, rightly so.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 29, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    wtz,,"Are you saying giving a two year amnesty to certain illegal immigrants contrary to immigration law is... a legal maneuver? Not so. It's more correctly called an 'illegal maneuver.'". No. I was talking about the article and the inconsistency from the title to it's contents. The article doesn't say anything about immigration, so don't put words in my mouth and stay on topic.

    As to the democrats also using the rule of 61 to block legislation, so what? Is it circumventing the law and rules or isn't it? It would fall in the same general area as Eric Holder using a not very often used part of the voting rights act to force Texas to be fair.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    July 29, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    @ Marxist: As I recall, both parties voted to invade Iraq and it was done legally.

    “Genocide”?? Seriously? We did not even come close to committing genocide. We went into Iraq to SAVE the people from a cruel dictator. Those Iraqis whose family members were brutally tortured by Hussein or his sons were grateful to have been RESCUED by the US. My guess is that if your family members were the ones being tortured in Iraq, you too would be grateful for the US invasion.

    @ Contrarius As RichardB points out, poor people already need ID. You have to have it to get into a bar, and many poor people still go to bars. All those arguments about how voter ID laws “discriminate” are just excuses to try to allow voter fraud.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 29, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    Re:Jeff

    Judge Walker ruled in the first Prop 8 case, Perry v Schwarznegger, that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

    Then, in 2011, the California Supreme Court agreed that proponents of Prop 8 had standing to appeal. Proponents filed an appeal.

    On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.

    Proponents then "filed" an "appeal" to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 29, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    Many have brought up good points about the inaccuracies in this article, I'd like to point out that leaving one or two people in the house so that you can say "the lights are on, we're not in recess" is bogus. Either you have a quorum there or you don't. Keeping a few people there doesn't constitution "lights on" so you can keep the president from making recess appointments.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 29, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Re: "Judge Walker ruled in the first Prop 8 case, Perry v Schwarznegger, that Prop 8 was unconstitutional."

    Yeah, and that is the only ruling that survived the Supreme Court's scrutiny. The Ninth Circus opinion was rendered null and void by the Court's ruling on the standing issue -- because liberal California officials violated their oaths of office and refused to represent the millions of voters who approved Prop 8.

    Which means that the ruling governing millions of Californians today -- in violation of their voting rights -- is the one issued, in contravention of every principle of legal ethics, by a hand-picked, avowed homosexual, who admits he wants to marry his "partner."

    Or, in other words, it's tantamount to having a murderer decide whether the murder statute is, or is not constitutional.

    In even better words, it's an absolute, unmitigated travesty of justice that destroys the rule of law in America.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    Senator Lee demonstrated the egg on the face outcome of attempting to obstruct and coerce government.

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    July 29, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    @Contrarius:
    "The problem is that many poor people don't drive, and therefore don't have drivers' licenses."

    Too funny... if they don't driver's licenses, how is it they can go to vote?

    "And it is often difficult for them to get other state-recognized ID..."

    Perhaps the problem is, they aren't US citizens.

    "...either they can't take the time off work to go get it..."

    Everybody has some time off. Just depends on priorities... whether it's more important to get a hamburger, fries, and a drink or an ID.

    "...or they can't afford transportation to go get it..."

    Canceling the TV cable or giving up the cell phone should provide sufficient cash for transportation.

    "... or they don't have a stable residence address to put on it..."

    Especially when the stable residence address is someplace in Mexico or Guatemala.

    "...or they don't have a copy of their birth certificate..."

    Every citizen can get a copy of their birth certificate... provided they were born in the US and can remember the state of their birth.

    "So voter ID laws unfairly discriminate against the poor."

    Voter ID laws assure that only citizens vote.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 29, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    @RG --

    "You have to have it to get into a bar, and many poor people still go to bars."

    Wow. You really want to base voter ID laws on your perception of the drinking habits of poor people? Really??

    @procuradorfiscal --

    "There are actually very, very few poor people that don't drive"

    You're kidding, right??

    My mother spends a large chunk of her days volunteering to drive poor people around town to do their shopping, go to doctor's appointments, and such, because they can't drive themselves. And you think these people are imaginary?? Really??

    In fact, **11%** of voting-age US citizens lack a government-issued ID, as reported by NYU's Brennnan Center.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    July 29, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Democrats don't want voter ID because only the least imaginative, dumbest people among us, whose lives are an endless stream of ridiculous excuses and whining about their victimhood, are affected by such laws - or those who don't want their voter fraud activities curtailed. It's a relatively insignificant minority of the population, and probably would never make a dent in the margin of victory in any election. But, they vote nearly 100% Democrat, as do those who think so little of them that they claim to believe these people are really incapable of getting ID's without herculean, of not impossible effort. Although I clearly think little of them, I have enough confidence in them to believe they can get an ID without losing their jobs. Good grief people, can we never find the bottom of the acceptable incompetence barrel?

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    In September 2012, News21, affiliated with Arizona State University, investigated voter fraud in the US. They found that between 2000 and 2012, when hundreds of millions of votes were cast, there were 2068 cases of voter fraud. Voter ID laws would have prevented 10 of them. It's a solution to a problem that is all but nonexistent.

    @procuradorfiscal - the 9th circuit court ruled against Prop 8; Judge Walker's decision was legally sound. If the Supreme Court found the proponents had standing and simply upheld the previous rulings, Prop 8 would have been struck down. The principle of judicial review has been around as long as the US. All laws, even those voted on by a majority of people, are subject to judicial review and can be found unconstitutional - Jim Crow, as for example, was unconstitutional even though a majority in the South in the era supported it.

    Rule of law is an interlocking system of processes for redress of injustice through legislative and judicial means. If legislative processes fail, citizens should examine judicial avenues. Our system is intended to work the will of the majority and protect the rights of the minority. It requires an ongoing balancing act.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 29, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    "The problem is that many poor people don't drive, and therefore don't have drivers' licenses. And it is often difficult for them to get other state-recognized ID"

    Yeah, right!??

    If dead people can do it, and poor, non-English speaking, illegal immigrants can get ID's, I am sure the poor citizens can too.

    Lamest argument ever!!! All to protect the democrats ability to cheat in elections.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 29, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    Voter ID laws are not just keeping "poor" people from voting. Other groups being disenfranchised are the elderly and college students. Every state designs its own requirements for what constitutes proper voter identification.

    For example:
    "A 63-year-old Air Force veteran testified today that Pennsylvania's new voter identification law could prevent him from voting in upcoming elections because he has been unable to get a state-issued photo ID card.

    Danny Rosa of West Chester said poor health and eyesight have prevented him from getting a Pennsylvania driver's license.

    And when a friend gave him an hour-long ride to the PennDOT center nearest his house, the clerk refused to issue the photo ID because the name on his New York birth certificate is Daniel Guerra -- changed later to Daniel Rosa after his mother married his stepfather. Rosa is the name on his discharge papers and his Veterans Administration ID card.

    Another witness for the plaintiffs today was Joyce Block of Doylestown, whose maiden name of Altman is on her birth certificate but whose married name of Block is on her Social Security card.

    She, too, was refused a photo id."
    (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    July 29, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    Contraries said: "My mother spends a large chunk of her days volunteering to drive poor people around town to do their shopping, go to doctor's appointments, and such, because they can't drive themselves. "

    So why can't she also volunteer to take them to get the i.d. they would need to vote?

    Sounds like you have described a system where the poor are finding alternative ways to get to where they need to go, even without cars, they can't add "getting a state issued i.d. To their list of errands?

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    July 29, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    @Fred --

    "Sounds like you have described a system where the poor are finding alternative ways to get to where they need to go, even without cars, they can't add "getting a state issued i.d. To their list of errands?"

    You guys seem remarkably out of touch with reality.

    Look back at my earlier post. According to the Brennen Center's report, **11%** of voting-age US citizens don't have any government-issued ID. That's not a problem that can be wished away or solved with a contemptuous wave of the hand.

    Look back at glendenbg's post. As he said: "Voter ID laws would have prevented 10 of them. It's a solution to a problem that is all but nonexistent."

    Photo IDs would NOT prevent rampant voter fraud -- because there IS no rampant voter fraud occurring. The only thing that voter ID laws do is to prevent US citizens from having their voices heard at the polls.

    Did Thomas Jefferson show an ID before he voted?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    In worrying about this you are, as the saying goes, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. As the decay of the capitalist system accelerates the only rule or law of importance is #6 of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not kill."

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    July 29, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    People can find ways to do EVERYTHING they need to do, or want to do in their lives, and all kinds of community groups will take them anywhere they want to go, but they can't figure a way to get an ID. Sure. I think it takes an embarrassingly high level of gullibility to believe it's so difficult.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    July 29, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    Let's see. Which would be easier to prove?: That thousands of illegal immigrants are willing to risk arrest by committing voter fraud, which is a premise the Bush administration tried and failed to prove, OR that Rick Perry and certain other GOP governors want FEWER votes cast against them, whether they're legal or NOT? My bet is on the latter.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    July 30, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    @LetsDebate --

    "People can find ways to do EVERYTHING they need to do, or want to do in their lives"

    Ummmm. Right.

    That's why everyone has a full-time job, lives in a comfortable three-bedroom house, eats three hot meals a day, and has complete insurance coverage.

    Right?

    Cmon, people. Get real. This is the Real World, not sunshine-and-roses fantasy land.

    @Scoundrel --

    in re: national IDs

    I have two words for you: States' Rights.

    Oooo, two more words for you: Big Brother.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    July 30, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    @Contrariuser - it's people and leaders making excuses for those who won't step up to address the most essential and even mundane elements of life that has led to the whiny entitlement state that now permeates our nation like never before. Leaders with a mindset like yours have taken the concept of a reasonable safety net and expanded it to a ridiculous extreme, convincing some that even getting an ID is simply too difficult for them, even though people and community organizations will help them get one for free. It's still just too high of an expectation. How pathetic. You do them no favors, and our government has incentivized laziness and entitlement.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 30, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    I guess the difference is some people lack that ability to see beyond their own neighborhoods and narrow vision of what constitutes ALL the citizens of The USA.

    About the driving nonsense, heres a little stat: Average household in Utah owns 3 cars while in New York 1 in 5 household own a car. I just love how the poor are portrayed by you compassionate conservatives, they're lazy they're greedy it's just such a sodom and gomorrah mentality, seems there was a message in that tale?

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    July 30, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    Our country is being driven to bankruptcy by the delusion that, among the poor, there is not a growing class of simply lazy and entitled people. Of course, we can't address that, because people like HVH pull the shame card to stop any debate about it. Because legitimately needy people live in need of a safety net, that somehow means nobody is abusing the system, and anyone who challenges the overextension and incentivizing of the welfare state are just heartless Sodomites. How ridiculous and pathetically condescending to those who can and should get off welfare.

    Also, nice attempt to compare apples and oranges in a shameless attempt to make Utahns look greedy. As you probably know, the family size in NY is significantly smaller than Utah. Children with driver licenses means more vehicles in any state. Millions of New Yorkers also live where owning a vehicle is horribly inconvenient and expensive to park, and they take public transit and taxis because it simply makes more sense. The poverty of ghettos and slums does contribute to the disparity of which you speak. I suppose Utah should work on creating slums to narrow the greed gap.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 31, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    @Lets, You present no evidence of this lazy entitlement class and ignore the fact that baby boomers and veterans going into retirement are part of your lazy class.

    Wasn't trying to make Utah look greedy, I was pointing out the lack of need for drivers licenses where one doesn't drive and knows by recognition those with whom they do business.

    What a rant thought, you must really detest those in need.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    July 31, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    @HVH - what part of "legitimately needy people live in need of a safety net" don't you understand? I never suggested baby boomers and veterans going into retirement are a lazy class.

    If you really need evidence that SOME (to avoid confusion - not EVERY welfare recipient, not ALL baby boomers, not ALL retired veterans, not EVERY unemployed person, etc.), again, SOME are indeed lazy and exploit the system, then you need to simply wake up. I personally know many, and every person with whom I engage in a discussion knows people, usually family members, who are capable of working but have become programmed to take welfare as an easier route. There's an epidemic of laziness and entitlement, whether you'll admit it or not. The worst researcher on the planet could find hundreds of examples, so even you should be able to dig up some evidence on your own. But, like those you rationalize for, I suppose you want it handed to you.

    I love those truly in need, and help wherever and whenever I can, in many different ways.

    What a deluded rant though, you must really detest those who believe in personal accountability.