Voter ID bill unlikely to pass

Voter ID bill unlikely to pass

There are 63 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Feb 16, 2011, titled Voter ID bill unlikely to pass. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

A bill requiring most voters to show photo identification appears doomed, the sponsor said Tuesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Border Native-American

Florissant, CO

#1 Feb 16, 2011
You have to show ID to buy a pack of cigarretes or a 6 pack of beer but not to vote in election?

Another reason I am no longer Democrat. In this day and age not showing an ID to vote in elections is ludicrous.
Paul

Santa Fe, NM

#2 Feb 16, 2011
Fraud isn't the issue.It's identitfing voters.If they show an I.D to cash their checks how do they identify themselves.
SlaveToTheMasses

Las Cruces, NM

#3 Feb 16, 2011
Oh look, more legislative aiding and abetting of fraud by our moronic legislators.
Color me shocked(not).
What A Concept

Las Cruces, NM

#4 Feb 16, 2011
No suprise here. A politician supporing a law that would prevent them from fraudlently being elected? In New Mexico? I don't think so.
MovingAlong

Albuquerque, NM

#5 Feb 16, 2011
Just one more reason why this State sits at the bottom of all things good. We have archaic minded legislatures who only focus on one thing and that is their self preservation. One of a 1,000 reasons why "Term-limits" are badly needed.
What

Las Cruces, NM

#6 Feb 16, 2011
No comment from PlacitasRoy on the article where he got his name in the paper??

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#7 Feb 16, 2011
Border Native-American wrote:
You have to show ID to buy a pack of cigarretes or a 6 pack of beer but not to vote in election?
Another reason I am no longer Democrat. In this day and age not showing an ID to vote in elections is ludicrous.
There is no right to buy cigarettes or booze. There is a right to vote.

Vote ID is nothing more but a poorly disguised attempt to disenfranchise voters.

PAUL WEYRICH GOO-GOO QUOTE
Paul Weyrich, father of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. That's why the GOP is obsessed with voter fraud---only they want to disenfranchise voters because as Weyrich said back in the '80's...the more voters there are---the less of a chance the Reich-wingers have in any election.

"How many of our Christians have what I call ‘the Goo-Goo’ syndrome? Good Government. They want EVERYONE to vote! I DON’T WANT EVERYONE TO VOTE! ELECTIONS ARE NOT won by the majority of people – THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR COUNTRY AND THEY ARE NOT NOW! As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populous goes down!"

Watch the video: http://crooksandliars.com/node/14478
TSA in New Mexico

Birmingham, MI

#8 Feb 16, 2011
Governor Martinez, why are the citizens of New Mexico forced to undergo humiliating "enhanced body pat downs" and "Body Scans" by the TSA to fly yet there is no requirement to prove one's identity to vote for our elected officials?

You are a prosecuting attorney and you know this is illegal. If legislators are refusing to honor the people who elected them, we in New Mexico have a constitutional crises on our hands.

Governor, under marshal law, identification could be ordered by you to be performed on all voters who are voting at precincts, if marshal law was imposed on the day of voting it could be rescinded 48 hours later.

And, since the day of voting and tabulation is under marshal law, all ballots including absentee ballots would require identification to be processed.
Jma

College Station, TX

#9 Feb 16, 2011
Oh my gosh it is ridiculous NOT to have to present identification when voting! What is the big deal? You have to present proof of identity for many other things why not to vote??????
LC Today

Brighton, MI

#10 Feb 16, 2011
Typical NM lawmakers, anything to keep those illegals voting. When will this God forsaken state step into the 21st Century?
MovingAlong

Albuquerque, NM

#11 Feb 16, 2011
What wrote:
No comment from PlacitasRoy on the article where he got his name in the paper??
Why oh why did you awaken this giant of meaningless diatribe!

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#12 Feb 16, 2011
A big thank you is offered to all the teabaggers who e-mailed and phoned the committee members. Voting rights advocates were quite concerned with how Rep. Rodella would vote.

I got the impression the 'vile and hateful' harassment she and her secretary endured plus the 'civics lessons' the committee endured tipped her against the bill.

The dynamic FACT BASED presentation by the county clerks' lobbyist set the professional tone of the opposition. The county clerks were 100% opposed to the bill (including the ones from down in little Texas who favor some kind of voter ID law).

Additional:
A Native American lobbyist spoke against it.
The League of Women Voters opposed it.
Election reform activists opposed it.
Several committee members and Maggie Toulouse Oliver Bernalillo County Clerks commented on the additional costs and time the bill would impose on the canvas & certification process.
The committee was also surprised there was no Financial Impact Report associated with it.

Empathic guy that I am, I almost felt sorry for the sponsor's incompetent defense of a poorly drafted and amendment bill.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#13 Feb 16, 2011
TSA in New Mexico wrote:
Governor Martinez, why are the citizens of New Mexico forced to undergo humiliating "enhanced body pat downs" and "Body Scans" by the TSA to fly yet there is no requirement to prove one's identity to vote for our elected officials?
You are a prosecuting attorney and you know this is illegal. If legislators are refusing to honor the people who elected them, we in New Mexico have a constitutional crises on our hands.
Governor, under marshal law, identification could be ordered by you to be performed on all voters who are voting at precincts, if marshal law was imposed on the day of voting it could be rescinded 48 hours later.
And, since the day of voting and tabulation is under marshal law, all ballots including absentee ballots would require identification to be processed.
Flying is a privilege not a right.

"You are a prosecuting attorney and you know this is illegal." What the hell are you calling illegal? Whatever it is that's If it is already illegal, why in the hell do we need another law?

"If legislators are refusing to honor the people who elected them," What an illogical and unsubstantiated assumption. It that were the case, how do they continue to get re-elected?

"we in New Mexico have a constitutional crises on our hands." And what in the hell would that be?

I though you teabaggers wanted freedom. And you are advocating martial law for no other reason than the legislature won't pass a horribly drafted bill that would do nothing but waste money to solve a non-existent problem. Just when I think I heard the craziest crap possible from the teabaggers, another one pops up.

“Orwell said this would happen.”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#14 Feb 16, 2011
PlacitasRoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Flying is a privilege not a right.
People often make that claim, much like they do about driving,but when did we actually give up those rights? I assume that at some point some bureaucrat or politician first made those "it's a privilege not a right" claims about flying and driving, probably while trying to justify some tax or fee. It seems to me that unrestricted travel is an inherent component of freedom, and that the government shouldn't be able to infringe upon one's right to travel unless one has proven to be irresponsible and/or dangerous to others.

I'd be intersted to know if the Supreme Court has ever had to decide a "it's a privilege not a right" case about flying and driving.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm mostly just curious about the history and origin of that common assertation.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Feb 16, 2011
LC Today wrote:
Typical NM lawmakers, anything to keep those illegals voting. When will this God forsaken state step into the 21st Century?
You make the illogical, unsubstantiated, and xenophobic assumption and assertion that illegals voting is occurring.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#16 Feb 16, 2011
BTW: To follow up on the fascist suggestion of using martial law:

From the NM Constitution:

Sec. 5.[Suffrage.] This state shall never enact any law restricting or abridging the right of suffrage on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.(As amended November 5, 1912.)

Sec. 8.[Freedom of elections.]All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#17 Feb 16, 2011
M Pearce wrote:
<quoted text>
People often make that claim, much like they do about driving,but when did we actually give up those rights? I assume that at some point some bureaucrat or politician first made those "it's a privilege not a right" claims about flying and driving, probably while trying to justify some tax or fee. It seems to me that unrestricted travel is an inherent component of freedom, and that the government shouldn't be able to infringe upon one's right to travel unless one has proven to be irresponsible and/or dangerous to others.
I'd be intersted to know if the Supreme Court has ever had to decide a "it's a privilege not a right" case about flying and driving.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm mostly just curious about the history and origin of that common assertation.
I've never researched it either. My first response though is that while there probably is an implied right to travel freely (just as there is to privacy and marriage and others) unless there is an overwhelming state interest in restricting it, as would be the case with apply to flying or driving. Get on a bicycle, walk, ride a horse (exempt where prohibited)charter an airplane, hire a taxi, take a train, etc.

BTW: There are alternate ways to fly commercial without a photo ID. It's a hassle but doable.

“Orwell said this would happen.”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#18 Feb 16, 2011
PlacitasRoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never researched it either. My first response though is that while there probably is an implied right to travel freely (just as there is to privacy and marriage and others) unless there is an overwhelming state interest in restricting it, as would be the case with apply to flying or driving. Get on a bicycle, walk, ride a horse (exempt where prohibited)charter an airplane, hire a taxi, take a train, etc.
BTW: There are alternate ways to fly commercial without a photo ID. It's a hassle but doable.
As a society we ought to be careful about the state's overwhelming interest in restricting anything. Just because government claims to have an overwhelming interest in restricting something doesn't necessarily mean government has the right to do so. That would seem to be the point of the 10th Amendment, at least where the Feds are concerned.
Not Confused

Albuquerque, NM

#19 Feb 16, 2011
The right to vote only applies to citizens. Failing to ensure that only citizens are voting, disenfranchises the voting citizens and violates their rights because an illegal or inappropriate vote by a non-citizen, who has no right to vote can offset (i.e., nullify) the vote of the citizen. Failure to secure the election process, therefore violates citizens' voting rights. Ensuring the absolute integrity of the election process protects citizens' rights.

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#20 Feb 16, 2011
M Pearce wrote:
<quoted text>
As a society we ought to be careful about the state's overwhelming interest in restricting anything. Just because government claims to have an overwhelming interest in restricting something doesn't necessarily mean government has the right to do so. That would seem to be the point of the 10th Amendment, at least where the Feds are concerned.
I don't disagree. But I feel there is a compelling state interest in regulating who can drive, and to a much lesser degree 'security' regulations for those who have access to commercial airplane flights.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jemez Pueblo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
looking Jan '16 old friend 1
Zia Pueblo Music Thread (Sep '15) Nov '15 Musikologist 2
News Emails: Supervising attorneys knew about rehab,... (Jun '15) Jun '15 RECALL NOW 1
Flying Star claims former COO bilked company funds (Feb '15) Feb '15 manny 1
News EPA issues stormwater permit for Albuquerque area (Dec '14) Dec '14 lolol 1
News Zuni, Jemez tribes considering opening casinos (Mar '14) Mar '14 CornDogz 1
Early pot (May '13) May '13 Lyda Toya 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jemez Pueblo Mortgages