Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Suppressing right to vote

March 31, 2013

Marvin Frank, Grand Forks Dear Fellow North Dakotans, I am very concerned that some North Dakota legislators that are moving a bill that would require identification to vote....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(36)

subman

Mar-31-13 8:15 AM

As a veteran I too served to preserve this great land, but I have absolutely no problem with voter ID. In fact I support it wholeheartedly. Every one has some sort of ID nowdays as we need one for about everything we do. I want to know who is voting and if they are legally allowed to be voting. Picture ID's would make this alot simpler and would prevent voter fraud.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Mar-31-13 8:17 AM

Last I looked, we are constitutional republic, not a democracy.

The US Constitution allowed for the states to determine who has the right to vote. Originally, only white male landowners with considerable wealth were allowed to vote, had the right. Everybody else was excluded, no exceptions.

North Dakota could return to the original 'right to vote' and have it exclusively for landowners who are white, but that might not be a wise decision.

Requiring a voter to provide proof of residence and identification is not asking for too much.

The state has the right to decide who can be allowed to vote. The State of North Dakota is being generous by allowing any adult 18 years of age and older to have the right to vote.

The right to vote is different than the unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The right to vote is alienable. Convicted felons lose their right to vote, which is a good policy.

The state CAN limit your voting rights.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Mar-31-13 10:46 AM

NoTea, that makes absolutely NO sense. The bill does not limit one party or the other. I think you need some tea to get rid of the kool-aid.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Mar-31-13 11:38 AM

We now want voter ID's to vote, however we do not want anyone to know who owns firearms in this country? One right apparently is constitutionally guarantteed and one is not?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Mar-31-13 11:57 AM

How is an ID an obstruction to voting?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-31-13 12:09 PM

Worried American are you ready to vote in the next election?

Do you have an ID? If not do you want me to come and drive you to the appropriate place so you can get an ID? I'm here to help so speak up.. or quit complaining..

My guns were registered when I bought them and I have a concealed weapons permit.

I took care of myself now whats wrong with the rest of you?

Do you need a law for EVERYTHING?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Mar-31-13 12:11 PM

NoTeaq Then the best thing to do is get an ID!

Do you disagree with that?

You want to vote right? You want to be sure your party wins right? Then go get the ID and be ready when the "next time" comes around. You have 3 1/2 years so lets get ready and quit with the "Mommy I don't want to attitude.

Or is it the people being hunted by the law that don't want to produce an ID?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Mar-31-13 3:18 PM

It is being used as voter suppression. All you have to do is look at the popular vote and you will see that Republicans are in the minority across the country. Make it harder or impossible for the other party followers to vote, gerrymander the districts, and you win just like in Illinois. Republicans took 70% of the house seats but lost the popular vote big. The only way Republicans can win is to fix the election just like the old days in Florida.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

subman

Mar-31-13 3:41 PM

no voter supression is having the black panthers armed with baseball bats patrolling the voting booths as they did in Philly.. ever wonder why Romney didn't get even one vote in those precincts?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-01-13 9:35 AM

Actually, dusty, Illinois is a statement of fact. But, you don't deal in facts anyway. The Repubs lost the popular vote in many, many states and not just in the Presidential race. You cannot win unless you suppress and gerrymander the vote.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

subman

Apr-01-13 9:36 AM

as far as I'm concerned.. you need a photo ID and I repeat and proof of paying taxes.... if you have no skin in the game you can't vote... you can't vote in a union election without paying dues... you can't play poker with out money in the ante, why then should you vote without being on the tax roll?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Apr-01-13 10:12 AM

In every state except North Dakota, voters must be registered to vote in order to cast a ballot.

So how come Barrrrrrack did not win in North Dakota?

Were the people stifled from voting? What difference does it make if they need an ID? Seems North Dakota didn't go democrat without any proof so now if they have proof maybe you Dems can win..

Why all the crying?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-01-13 10:30 AM

Sure, then all elections can be legitimate, even those in Cincinnati. A poll worker there voted several times for Pres. Obama. She felt it was her duty for him to be re-elected and thought her vote wouldn't count unless she voted more than once. (I suppose there's a certain logic in that sentiment...)

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-01-13 4:22 PM

I knew we could trust our watchdog to come through!

billGRR

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Apr-01-13 7:30 PM

Yup those areas that were hit with Sandy had all their people supporting North Dakotas flood victims right?

Reap what you sow BillG!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billldoesntgetit

Apr-01-13 7:31 PM

billgarr we knew there was a reason you lived in North Dakota.. All the Barrrrrrack losers live there.

Got the black back don't you? Your really obsessed with Barrracks color aren't you?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-01-13 10:05 PM

Gosh, we now have a new interpretation of the Constitution and amendments according to Subman. Boy are you almighty. Nothing like just throwing out the constitution when you want to. Oh, and dusty, your Illinois comment on voter fraud was not the discussion. It was gerrymandering the districts so that Republicans could get more seats without getting the popular vote. But, you never do make sense- small, bald, and lacking.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Longtoe

Apr-02-13 7:15 AM

I really can't understand what the problem with needing an ID. You can't buy a beer, a pack of smokes or even write a check without one. I show my ID everytime I vote. The only reason to oppose this is because it it harder to vote more than once.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-02-13 9:30 AM

Great comment, Longtoe.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-02-13 9:42 AM

subman's idea possesses a visceral sort of merit, but if implemented, would make certain freedoms unobtainable for all US citizens. We'd go back to a time where all persons were not considered equal.

Instead, the issue that should be addressed is the vested interest that many folks in DC have in keeping the flow of freebies coming in return for votes. Some say subsidies. Others say entitlements. Still others might say grants. It all boils down to "what's in this for me" or "what do I get?"

Our friend JackAaah has been spot on in his posts about "Votes for Gifts" because it is painfully true, regardless of political party. Sad, isn't it?

So, a means to guarantee the quality of my vote doesn't pain me. In fact, everyone's vote would be 100% legit if all had to prove who they are before they can vote.

It's such a simple concept...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

subman

Apr-02-13 11:22 AM

Cenerfiels...what did I say that was unconstitutional???? It used to be in this country that to vote you had to be a land owner, and pay a poll tax to vote... I'm just suggesting that you pay taxes...

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-02-13 12:03 PM

subman's right. There was a time in our country's history that you had to own land and/or pay a tax in order to vote. And that was "constitutional" then.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Apr-02-13 1:25 PM

Women were denied the right to vote. Slavery was rampant. So, what is your point. You don't feel that everyone who is a citizen has a right to vote?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Apr-02-13 6:27 PM

No, I do feel that everyone who is a citizen has a right to vote. I don't understand why our country doesn't verify everyone who wishes to cast a vote.

If it's a question of people obtaining IDs, shouldn't our gov't would be willing to enable that to happen? Legitimacy for all.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

namexxx

Apr-02-13 6:57 PM

Dear fellow North Dakotans:

One third of our state budget consists of freebies and handouts from the federal government.

We are takers, not makers.

Maybe we should get off welfare and start contributing for a change.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web