Will the Democrats walk on Voter I.D.?
Remember Albuquerque. The Senate Democrats found themselves stuck in New Mexico without an exit strategy. The situation is similar to congressional redistricting in that the governor holds the cards. He can call a special session on any subject and open the call to Voter I.D. Except that the House Democrats’ position is worse. In 2003, they were fighting against a power play by Tom DeLay, one of the most villainous figures in the country. DeLay and Perry were pushing an unprecedented midcensus congressional redistricting plan. Voter I.D. is a very different matter. The UT poll in Februrary-March found that Texans favored the requirement of a photo I.D. by 69% to 18%. Polls I have seen from states in the upper Midwest, where illegal immigration is not a problem, show support in the 80%+ range. If they walk on this issue, they will do harm to their party. It makes no sense to go nuclear over an issue on which public opinion is 70% against you. And that number will climb if the D’s walk.
Tagged: senate democrats, texas, voter ID.
Tellnitlikeitis says:
Paul…
You could run a similar poll and get identical results from this:
Do you favor a photo identification requirment for voting – while also making it easier for Texans to exercise their right to participate in democracy?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Dunnam has already done the damage to his own party with his enormously stupid strategy yesterday. Voter ID is hugely popular with Independents and even many Ds. Dunnam, inadvertently, has already set in motion the mail pieces that will zap Thibaut, Chris Turner, Maldonado, et al.
And where is Straus, helping Dewhurst plan his wedding? Calling the leadership in this state a vaccum would be a compliment.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Amen to the leadership comment!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Tellnitlikeitis you could indeed ask that question–if you were either ignorant of proper polling techniques or trying to run a push poll.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
The point, Miss Anonymous, is that any poll surveying support for voter ID will have a predictable outcome.
Who can possibly be against identification before voting?
The real issue is: Do we want to make it easier or harder for folks to exercise their right to participate in democracy?
You can make it easier – so long as you have a voter ID system in place.
But for some folks, the real goal here is to make it harder to participate in democracy.
Should that be encouraged….or resisted?
That’s the real question.
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
The problem with the UT poll and others on this issue is this: It measures opinion, but doesn’t weigh the respondent passion.
I suspect I could ask respondents if they favor the planting of trees. 90% would say “yes.” But if the legislature fails to pass my tree planting legislation, there isn’t an uprising. People agreed with the concept and the concept only.
Until I ask WHERE this issue (voter ID, tree planting) falls in their passions and priorities, I really don’t get a real sense of whether this plays in Peoria. I don’t really know that voters will punish legislators that oppose the issue. Is this more important than core issues like education, budget, and highways, or core emotional issues like stem cells, abortion, and hate crimes?
I understand that this sounds good to voters in a poll, but it does not move the needle in terms of priorities until we see a weighted analysis of respondent priorities.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Yes, it sounds good to the uneducated and uninformed masses concerned that their vote is or might be offset by illegal aliens. As has often been pointed out, the Senate Voter ID bill does virtually nothing — not one single case of proven voter fraud would have been stopped by the provisions of the bill. The leadership of both parties look pretty stupid when you know what’s really going on.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
And the expense of the kind of Voter ID it would take to really do something is simply not justified by the facts (that is, higher taxes or even less of the already embarassingly inadequate level of state governmental services).
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
I just want to know: do the democrats think the great majority who support voter ID (which includes a majority of Democrats) is wrong, or simply ignorant?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Yes.
theshadow says:
As an ardent follower and fan of the House local and consent calendar, I think the ongoing debate on each local bill has opened the gates of democracy a little wider in Texas.
Democrat leaders have brought members together in a new and special way.
The voting public will likely cheer during the next election cycle when they realize that although statewide bills dealing with statewide solutions weren’t passed (or even allowed to be debated), their local MUD bill did pass and was fully debated to the maximum amount allowed under House rules. Voters appreciate that kind of scrutiny of a local junior college or sewer district, especially when the only other option would be “crazy” ideas like being asked to offer identification to vote, or reforming insurance in the wake of the largest natural disaster to hit the state in decades.
Mentioning Ardmore, here is another benefit: everyone involved in the political process in Austin who was not lucky enough to be in Ardmore now gets to re-live that experience, right here at home. A newly elected member who couldn’t be a “hero” in Ardmore can now earn his or her stripes on the back microphone, stalling government not from a Denny’s or Holiday Inn in Oklahoma, but from the House chamber, live on TV!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, as usual you believe Dunnam’s rhetoric that this is all about Voter ID and democracy. You always forget that he is at least as driven to help the trial lawyers and their agenda. The chubbing is equally about his desire to load up the TDI sunset bill with plaintiff lawyer legislation like “paid and incurred”, Entergy and meso.
Reply »
Yellow Armadillo says:
theshadow says “Democrat leaders have brought members together in a new and special way.”
I agree completely. A moderate Republican legislator told me last night that this is the first time the Republican Caucus has been this united in opposition to Dunnam’s tactics all session.
Reply »
Emptyk says:
I wonder how many Texans supported a poll tax in 1948.
Part of this exercise is to educate the public that this is an infringement upon a constitutional right. Part of this is to express to the Department of Justice that there is significant opposition to this restriction.
Also it must be obvious at this point that Dunnam only leads by consensus. Perhaps you should talk to Black and Latino members about this issue. This is not about tactical obstructionism, but rather about principled opposition.
Reply »
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Well said, Emptyk. Thanks.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
Glenn –
What’s the end game? Suppose that the strategy is successful, and the session ends without a vote on Voter I.D. Do you think that is the end of it? No way. The Republicans control the process through the governor’s ability to call a special session. As clever as the strategy is, it works only in the short term. Beyond sine die, it cannot work.
Reply »
Glenn Smith Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Your thinking is fatalistic. Looking ahead and saying, “Oh gosh, because Perry can put it on a special session we may as well not fight today,” is cowardly — and, in the end, ineffective. Politics is, in part, about the tireless pressing of one’s principles. There is, of course, a time to weigh cost/benefits. This is not that time.
Members rightly believe there is a fundamental principle at stake here — the right to vote. Even Richard Posner, the federal appeals judge who opened this can of worms by approving the Indiana ID law, admitted in his order that the law hurts Democrats and will diminish Democratic turnout. Anyway, argue that from any side, there’s no doubt that a fundamental is in play.
The 2003 fight against redistricting produced surprising consequences. For instance, DeLay was suddenly a serious negative throughout the 2004 cycle — and even 2006. It was the fight – ultimately a losing one – that helped create those negatives, and helped Dem House gains.
What surprises me is that you’re asking Dems to surrender to their opponents on a proposal everyone knows is intended to advantage the GOP in elections by placing barriers between voters and the ballot box. It really is a subtle version of the poll tax, and that’s why the GOP wants it. Surrender is not an option.
I understand that a journalist’s stance of neutrality places undo focus on tactics, process, procedures. Sometimes fundamental moral and political principles are at stake.
I wonder how Martin Luther King Jr. would have answered your question, “What’s the end game?” in 1960? Because the answer to that, evidenced by today’s legislative battle, is that we have still not reached the end.
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Paul, by your logic, no Texan voting for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1980 should have even bothered to vote. To what end was their ballat cast? The Electoral College made their votes pointless.
You’re worship at the gods of pragmatism and practicality is misguided. Sometimes being true to one’s ideals is both pragmatic and practical for the long haul — even if it appears to be pointless in the moment.
anonymouse1 says:
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:19 am
Anonymous says: And where is Straus …?
People of his faith do not work on Fridays.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
It’s Saturdays stupid.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 4:10 am
It’s sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Democrats should focus on insurance reform.
Reply »
theshadow says:
The “poll tax” analogy may have legs.
When this session grinds to a halt, I think in the same spirit, the same logic could be taken to other parts of society. We should tell everyone at the airport that they need not verify their identity unless they can afford an ID. Alcoholic beverages can be purchased by teens if it is too much of a financial burden for them to be able to verify their age. Merchants should be allowed to “roll with it” if a person tries to pay for that carton of menthols with a questionable check and no form of photo ID. Anything else would be nothing short of targeting or profiling the customer.
This will be a great summer. No ID, no problem!
Reply »
cyrus Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
None of those examples, however, fall under the category of constitutional rights. But you guys keep at it.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
exactly, which is why we should do MORE to make sure the integrity of elections is protected.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
And how, exactly, has the lack of a photo ID requirement (which can also be faked easily) compromised the integrity of our elections?
Like, in the last 50 years or so…
cow droppings says:
There were many who thought the Democrats behaved as they did in the House in the last six years because of Craddick’s tactics.
What we now see, with Craddick gone, is Democrats behaved that way because they are Democrats.
Suddenly our precious democracy cannot be imperiled by “divisive issues” when it really it is not divisive to the majority of D’s, R’s and minorities who support it.
Suddenly leadership requires straus to cave to the Democrats because they don’t want a tough vote. Was that the definition of leadership when R’s were forced to vote on hate crimes under Laney.
Paul is a respecter of the process — to the point sometimes it makes me crazy — but the fact is the House has a Calendars Committee for a reason and the Democrats are trying to subvert that process and blame the other side.
As to whether voters care about this issue, I have never seen it not be an applause line when a GOP candidate mentions it. But go ahead and live the delusion.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
You forgot, apparently, Cow pie, that Senate GOPers changed the rules on the opening day of the session.
It’s become a favorite tactic of GOPers….if you don’t like the rules, change them.
At least House Democrats are playing by the rules.
Senate GOPers are always thinking short term – never long term.
That’s why they won’t support Chief Justice Jefferson’s call for judicial selection reform – or support Sen. Duncan’s plan for a merit election system.
Soon, Democrats will be back in control – and they won’t change it either. So a lousy system will continue in Texas.
Meanwhile, the descendants of the GOP senators who changed the rules on opening day will pay the price.
The day is coming when Democrats will push something truly offensive to GOPers – and GOPers will no longer be empowered to block it by invoking the 2/3rds rule.
Dems will steamroll them because GOPers created the template in Jan. 2009.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Let’s get something straight: the senate followed its rules. It voted to change the rules, and then followed them precisely. It did not follow tradition, you can argue, though it is also not the first time an exception has been made on an issue.
I do not take issue with D’s using the rules to their advantage, just merely the wisdom of it at the end of session — not the beginning — when the fate of important bills is at stake.
They can throw tantrums and blame the R’s in the senate for something they did in January, but ultimately they are the ones holding the pin in the grenade. They are the one’s who can choose to blow up the calendar.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Any question about the “wisdom” of the R’s in the Senate at the beginning of the session now that you have seen the consequences. Or is it only the consequences of their behavior — what the D’s are doing now — that is questionable in your mind?
What happens when your kids act up? Nothing? And if you do something about it, it wasn’t the result of what they did, was it?
Anonymous says:
Care to wager? I’m betting that not a single Democrat in the House loses because of their use of chubbing to filibuster Voter ID.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
time will tell. But why did heflin vote for it in cmte if it wasn’t a big deal?
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
as a favor to the speaker, who could afford for the bill to die in a GOP-controlled committee that he appointed.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Because it came up for a vote.
Reply »
McKinney says:
I know Paul respects the process, but I am not sure he is consistent. One cannot admire the Killer Bees and dismiss what the Dems are doing now. To implement a strategy within the rules is different than CHANGING the rules. I think this would have been a brilliant move for any caucus that wanted a certain outcome. It is probably a one time shot because they will vote to change the rules next session to prevent this, but it is fair game.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 am
I admired the Killer Bees because the Senate majority and Lieutenant Governor Hobby were subverting the process. Hobby has since said that he regrets having pushed his agenda.
Reply »
Prince Royal Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
But weren’t the Senate majority and the Lt Governor subverting the process with the 2/3rd in January?
Reply »
Frisky Dingo says:
This entire incident makes the Democrats look like pathetic obstructionists, removed from the interests of the majority of Texans. Beyond voter ID, which polls favorably across the board, the Democrats are precluding action on other important policy measures, including eminent domain reform and TDI Sunset. It’s one thing to obstruct redistricting in 2003, it’s another to obstruct the will of the people’s chamber in 2009.
On another note, throughout this session, the Speaker Pro Tem routinely gavelled bills along during the Local and Consent Calendar. It was always fun to watch members try to squirm in a few words about their bill before the crack of the gavel rendered them silent. I found it more than amusing that on the start of this calendar, he made the announcement that he’d give members at least three minutes to explain their bills. This was a very convenient policy change with regard to floor procedures in favor of the D’s. Couldn’t help from noticing that.
-frisky dingo
Reply »
anonymous says:
“Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 am
And the expense of the kind of Voter ID it would take to really do something is simply not justified by the facts…”
Now that’s funny. I don’t care who you are. When did today’s Democrats ever care what anything costs the people?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Always. Check out what ACTUALLY happened in terms of federal spending/deficits under D and R presidents from Reagan through Bush. The fact that Obama had to deal with the Bush mess (just like Clinton) doesn’t mean that in the end the U.S. won’t be much more fiscally sound. You shouldn’t buy into your party’s comedic parody hook, line and sinker without checking the facts.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
oh so convenient…you forget who appropriated money under Reagan and the first Bush. And if reagan had vetoed all those spending bills, I think Democrats might have called him an obstructionist.
And say what you will about spending under bush 43 and r’s in congress…that is child’s play compared to the first 100 days of Obama.
When you recite history…look at the whole thing, and not what is convenient to cherry-pick.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Do exactly what you said, Cow Pie. Don’t cherry pick or try to write revisionist history: The first 100 days of Obama is all about cleaning up 43’s mess.
Hoohah! says:
Well…the battle lines have now hardened.
The House chair announced around 11 a.m. that 56 members have signed a statement saying they will vote NO on any motion to allow a bill to be considered out of order. Goodbye windstorm, goodbye Voter ID. Hello special session.
Hope no one has any summer plans…………..
Reply »
anonymous says:
the facts about the clinton “surplus” prove is that people were overtaxed, raising way more revenue than necessary.
nice try.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
They were just planning for what was going to happen with 43.
Reply »
FrankS says:
House Democrats create the problem through their delay tactics, offer a solution by offering to take bills up out of order, and will act offended that the MAJORITY didn’t take their offer. Are we shocked?
Reply »
Frisky Dingo Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Didn’t the whole ruckus during the last session start with a motion to take a Craddick D’s bill out of order? Wasn’t that the destruction of the Texas democratice process as some made it out to be?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 4:14 am
No, it wasn’t about a motion to take Ryan Guillen’s local bill out of order. It was about the placement of Ryan Guillen’s local bill on the major state calendar. Craddick overruled a point of order, and the insurgents moved to appeal the ruling of the chair. Craddick lost the appeal.
Reply »
Hoohah! Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Ummm…..not the majority. Fifty six rejected it, just enough to keep it down under the rules.
Reply »
Mike M says:
The end strategy is easy to see. If the clock runs out, it runs out on everything. The Special Session won’t just be on Voter ID. There will, at a minimum, have to be a Special Session on sunset of the Texas Department of Insurance, too. Then the Democrats cave on day one or two on Voter ID and then the Special Session is on Insurance Reform. I can’t imagine a worse nightmare for conservative Republicans than thirty days of focus on insurance reform.
Reply »
Anon says:
The Gov controls voter ID, not the House or Senate. If the Gov wants to pass voter ID, he will. And in fact, it helps him politically to HAVE to call a special session on voter ID, especially later in the year and closer to campaign season. He will call and re-call special sessions until he gets it passed. This will damage the Dems’ standing with Independents and improve his standing with R primary voters against Kay.
Sooner or later, the Gov will get voter ID passed. Dunnam is playing right into his hands.
Reply »
Brown Bess says:
Here’s the Quorum report headline:
“DUNNAM OFFERS TO SUSPEND RULES AND TAKE UP MAJOR BILLS/Requires 2/3s but 56 Republicans reject offer”
Now it’s up to 63 Republicans. Who are the obstructionists?
Blame it all on the Dew for allowing the rules to be subverted in January.
Reply »
Martin says:
Let Goodhair call three, four, even five specials. Ooops…he can’t raise campaign funds during a special, can he?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
umm, yes, he can.
Reply »
Gritsforbreakfast says:
I tend to agree the Dems shouldn’t sacrifice so much on this issue. But I think the schtick about this issue swaying voters won’t actually come to pass in the real world.
Voter ID may poll well, but voters (except for extreme partisans) do not care about it intensely. I do not believe it will be even among the top ten issues on voters’ minds when they go to the polls next year.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Then why do you think all the rural Ds and Ds sitting in swing districts are FOR voter ID? And all the Rs in swing districts are also FOR voter ID? It’s not rocket science how it plays with voters.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
maybe not, but voters aren’t keen on obstructionism that might cost them big bucks for a special session or two or three. . . the R’s took a non-issue (solution in search of a problem, Burka?) and the D’s are giving them more than they could ever have wanted out of it.
yep, not yet ready for prime time.
Reply »
ATXDem says:
I tend to agree with Gritsforbreakfast, a majority of people have very short memories and by the time they go to the ballot box in 2010 this voter ID business will be behind us. Sure some opponents will mail out fliers saying so and so didn’t vote for Voter ID but I think local elections are more about the local issues. I care more about how my rep and senator voted in issues that affect my district than about voter ID.
Reply »
ATXDem says:
And I don’t want to sell my fellow Texans short but conduct a poll asking “do you know the legislature is in session right now?” and you might be surprised at the number of people that have no idea what you are talking about. Or you might get a response like, “yeah I saw they passed a bill to help with my credit card debt.”
Reply »
eam says:
The Ds needed a pre-emptive PR campaign to shape the voting issue — starting in 2007. They should have been talking about mail-in ballots (the only voting fraud that’s an actual problem), election day voting and corporate $$ in election — while making a (silent) concession on the ID requirement (which they should have calculated to lose from the beginning).
At this point, the Ds haven’t built any political capital on the issue — so it’s game over, thanks for playing.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
the problem with D’s working to fix in mail in fraud is it hurts them more…it’s their operatives that have perfected it in urban and South Texas precincts.
Reply »
eam says:
correction: “… election day registration …” ugh.
Reply »
ATXDem says:
Question for Paul or anyone else that might know, what happens if member laying out their local bill just says “no I will not yield for questions and move for passage?”
I am dead against this Voter ID bill but I am also fed up with this donkey show.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I rest my case.
Reply »
theshadow says:
ATXDem: The current Speaker was elected with the understanding that he would recognize members in a situation like this, when there is a question about a bill on the local and consent calendar. In other words, he cannot “pull a Craddick” and not recognize.
I think “the donkey show” as you call it is great fun to watch on TV. It’s a chance for families viewing at home to spend Memorial Day Weekend watching all of their favorite Democrat members, including the more obscure ones who rarely take time to grace the back microphone. Kind of like the Jerry Lewis Telethon, only with worse talent.
Reply »
Edward R. Murrow says:
This is so classic.
The two parties entrenched on an issue that really has no practical impact. There is no real evidence of voter fraud, then again there is no real reason to oppose the measure aside from some spurious (or irrational and emotional) connection to the poll tax, and other items from the past that inhibited voter participation.
This issue really does not matter to most folks. But if the Ds continue to fall on their collective swords over a matter that seems so logical, it will begin to appear that there is something truly material to the Rs argument (there isn’t).
Reply »
Mike M says:
For those saying that the Democrats look bad, three thoughts. First, I think Dunham outfoxed them by getting them to vote against taking up major bills. It’s the Republicans who are the ones who took a record vote to delay.
Second, let’s face it, the number of people who are watching this (and aren’t being paid to do so) could probably rend a conference room at the Driskol, watch it all together, and throw in to get up a pot and have the hotel cater meals for us. It’s Memorial day weekend. The world is at the lake drinking beer or in the back yard bar-b-queuing. If you think they’re sitting at home worrying in substantial numbers about what’s going on at the legislature, you’re deluded.
Finally, no matter how it’s spun, this is a black mark on the Speaker more than anyone else. He was elected to end the partisan gridlock in the House. And this session has degenerated into the most partisan one since out of season redistricting was done. Tom Craddick, for one, has to be enjoying the hell out of this.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Where has Mike M been for the last three sessions? This session has not been partisan at all, at least not in the House. The number of bills passed by R’s and D’s on both the regular and local calendars were even. Under Craddick, D’s hardly ever got to pass a bill unless they supported Craddick. House members have been working together across party lines all session. The Senate is different. It has been partisan.
Reply »
theshadow says:
Murrow:
Stepping back from the R-D paradigm, you must understand the field guide for politics, under the “grandstanding” section, clearly states that to garner media sympathy, opposition to a current social debate must be linked to a largely unrelated past historical event.
The more wildy unpopular the past event is, the more effective. Simply ignore the fact that the analogy requires a huge leap of logic, and claim you are “fighting a new poll tax” in Austin.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Maybe now is the time for the motion to vacate the speaker. Wouldn’t that likely slow things down as well? Or a motion to vacate the parliamentarian.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
well the majority is one less for now…75-74. And on a motion to vacate, the chair can’t vote. so it’s 74-74. and several other members are at home attending graduation ceremonies. would be an interesting motion right now.
Reply »
theshadow says:
Mike M: I dare say that true meaning of Memorial Day is often forgotten. Brave men and women in uniform who gave all are remembered today.
They fought so that democracy could live on.
They fought so that Chente Quintanilla could burn ten minutes of precious time in the last days of session asking someone about the policies of constable patrol car distribution in a house district hundreds of miles from his own.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“Polls I have seen from states in the upper Midwest, where illegal immigration is not a problem, show support in the 80%+ range.”
While I’m against Voter ID, I don’t dispute that it polls very well.
However, I’ve worked numerous campaigns in the Upper Midwest (rural/suburban), and I’ve worked numerous campaigns and for elected officials in Texas (as well as Oklahoma and Louisiana).
In my experience, anti-illegal immigration sentiment is far more strident up there than it is down here. So, I would disagree with Paul and attribute those higher numbers to a strong anti-illegal immigrant sentiment and a perception of a link to voting.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Yes, precisely. Voter ID is all about people who are worried that an illegal alien’s vote is offsetting their own. And if it turns out that the person whose vote isn’t counted because of Voter ID is someone who looks like s/he might be an illegal alien, well, their vote shouldn’t count because they weren’t smart enough to have their vote count anyway.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Didn’t the R’s slow down the process on the last day to hear house bills in the House and force several bills die on that calendar? I think I recall this occurring.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
You’re right, Mike M., no commonbreds are really watching …just a few, like me. Most dummies expect the guy or gal they elected to do what is best for them. They don’t watch or pay attention. They trust their elected folks.How ignorant they are. How gullible. Just wandering around with the wool pulled over their eyes.
Anyone that was watching would see that the most important thing on the agenda is trying to control voting through voter ID’s. It’s all about elected people keeping their jobs… keeping their party in power. Everything else be damned.
I think that the internet is eventually going to change all this, and the elected folks could themselves, if the used their personal websites to conduct district polls, publically exchange ideas with consituents, keep them informed and set up a fund raising network. Anyone who used this website tool properly wouldn’t need to be kissing big businesses ass to garner campaign contributions, or need to bow down to their party leaders. Develop a real personal relationship with the people who put you there and, as long as you are doing the job, no one is going to displace you.
The current websites are a joke …so are the newsletters …so are the generic responses most people get back.
Reply »
Mike M says:
Paul, I just noticed your note suggesting that I was wrong on this session being just as, or more partisan than the last two under Cradkick. I think that you are wrong. Nothing has changed. The only difference is that now the person screwing the Democrats just has a smile (or lately a blank look) on his face rather than a scowl. The Speaker screwed them on major committee chairmanships and assignments, none of the Democrats major bills have advanced (and that’s not an accident), and now they are being put to the sword on voter ID. And now the Democrats efforts to compromise yesterday and this evening (mainly surrounding a modified version of Rep. Anchia’s plan) are being thwarted by Cradick R’s and a few Cradick D’s and the Speaker sits by and does nothing. And the casualty is going to be (as Strauss designed it to be all along) Insurance Reform.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Sorry, that’s straight out BS Mike. Look at the Appropriations bill, for example–Article 3 is almost entirely what the Ds wanted AND the House leadership stood with the Ds and rolled Ogden on it as well.
Reply »
GLENN D says:
Can only come to one conclusion as to why the D’s are so against Voter ID. I’m old, 72, and I can not for the life of me figure out why I would not be able to vote if asked for my picture ID. I have to have it to drive, to cash a check, sometimes to use my credit cards. WHY IN THE WORLD SHOULDN’T I HAVE TO PROVE WHO I AM TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS HUNDREDS OF TIMES MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OF THE AFORE MENTIONED. How in the world would requiring an ID control the voting (J.Johnson’s comment). Anyone can obtain a picture ID. All it takes is at trip to the DMV for an identification card and PULEEZE none of this we will come to you to be sure everyone has one. ALSO, no same day registration for voting.
Reply »